Page 1344 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 24 March 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
And she said:
No impact. Nothing will change for the people of Canberra.
If the last plan was not going to have any impact, this one certainly will not because, as I understand it, the current arrangements in terms of who runs and operates Calvary hospital will be remaining the same. I think we can discount the fact that the new proposal is going to have much change in terms of the delivery of health services for the people of Canberra. At this point, after over 18 months of turmoil, we find ourselves in a position where we ask: are there any changes for health; are there any benefits for health? The answer is no.
Let us turn to the economic question and let us not pretend, as the government do, that the only way future investments can be made in Calvary hospital is if they own it. That is not true. That is their preferred option. That is what they want to do, but to stand out in the community and say, “Well, we can only invest $200 million”—whatever the figure is—“into Calvary hospital if we own it,” is not true. That is just their preference. We need to invest money in Calvary hospital and we do not necessarily need to own it—or to find models that have been put forward by the government, or the single model as it is—in order to do so. I am not the only person that is of that opinion. I will read what Andrew Podger, who is the President of the Institute of Public Administration Australia and a former secretary of the federal health department, said.
… it is time someone put on the table the most important question for the Canberra public: will the proposed deal improve the quality of public hospital services for patients and their families? If not, then someone please get the accountants to fix a problem that is theirs, not the taxpayers’ or the hospital users’.
Professor Sinclair Davidson, from RMIT, described the budgetary argument as “simply nonsense”. He described the Treasury analysis as “the snow-job the ACT government is pulling over the numbers”. He said further, “The ACT Treasury analysis shows that cost-effective manner to be the maintenance of the status quo.”
Terry Dwyer, who has a PhD from Harvard in economics, made the point in his consultation submission that the accounting analysis “has nothing to do with the real economic cost to the community—which is the cash cost”. He said, “It does not matter who owns the assets so long as they are used for health care in the ACT.” His assessment of the ACT Treasury analysis is that “the Treasury analysis shows that, far from saving money, the proposed government takeover of Calvary hospital means the people of the ACT are to be made to pay an extra $160 million in extra cold hard cash”.
Tony Harris, a former Auditor-General from New South Wales, whom Ms Gallagher has lauded in this place, has said that we should listen to his advice and indeed damned the estimates committee for not listening to his advice. He described the Treasury analysis of her proposition as a contrivance. So it is not receiving support from anyone. Even when she paid money to Ernst & Young to provide her with a
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video