Page 3951 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 25 August 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
We examined the issue thoroughly, attempted to negotiate in good faith with all parties while holding strong to those points which we believed were backed by evidence-based policy. We stand by the manner in which we dealt with the issue, not only because of the recent news about accounting standards but also because we believe we dealt with the proposal in a reasonable and thoughtful manner. The Greens continue to believe that public health should be in public hands and we are moving a number of amendments to Mr Hanson’s motion which address this issue.
In addressing this matter today, I would also like to reflect on the draft accounting standards and their impact on the ability of the government to purchase Calvary hospital. Prior to the release of these documents, the Greens were convinced that government investment in the Calvary site would have an impact on the ACT government’s budget bottom line given its inability to recognise it as an asset. Attempts by the Liberal Party to prove otherwise at the time were unsubstantiated. As much as the Liberals tried, I do not think they could have predicted the release of the international public sector accounting standard that came out earlier this year.
I am referring specifically, to the release on 24 May 2010 of the Australian accounting standards board exposure draft on service concession arrangements for grantors. My office has obtained and examined copies of this exposure draft and consulted with the senior project officer from the agency. We have also looked at some of the submissions that have been made to the board, including that of the head of Treasury’s accounting reporting advisory committee.
Most bodies are supportive of the change and there is now a process to be followed both nationally and internationally for processing the proposal. The AASB has also issued interpretation 12 of the service concession arrangements. While this document relates to the operators rather than the grantors, it seemed that this too suggests that the ACT government should be booking the Calvary hospital as an asset. While the financial problem regarding investment in the Calvary site has been solved, issues regarding management of the Calvary site, which I outlined earlier, remain and these issues cannot be ignored and need to be solved.
The Greens encourage the government to pursue an option that sees as much of the public health system operated and owned by the government as is possible in terms of affordable capital costs. A balance must be struck between outlying money now and overcoming the long-term costs that a private operator will have on the government’s books. It is a difficult balance but it is obvious that it is an issue which needs to be addressed for the future provision of health services in the ACT.
Having spoken with some of the key stakeholders regarding the way forward on Calvary, they all seem to agree that we should pursue this avenue and they also want to make sure they keep themselves informed on the proposals being put forward. It is also important that key stakeholders understand each of the options that are being proposed by the government because some of them are quite complex in their nature and are likely to lead to different outcomes in each instance.
I do acknowledge Mr Hanson’s point in the motion that there has been disruption caused to staff. Again, with staff we should be considering what is the best for them
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video