Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 3 Hansard (28 March) . . Page.. 762 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

. enabling heart bypasses to be performed in Canberra, by creating a $1.1 million cardiothoracic surgical unit ...

That was using VMO savings. So, it seems that those opposite also believed, on their cost modelling, that it was possible to achieve, not just $2m savings, but $4m savings. In fact, in Securing Canberra's Health System - again a policy document - it says:

The November 1994 decision is expected to save $4 million a year, which will be reinvested in the health system.

I am very happy to table those Labor Party policy documents, for the interest of Assembly members. I think that is very interesting because it indicates that, using the cost model that I used, those opposite believed that there was $4m in savings. There were certainly some changes to that November decision, between that and the contracts that were signed, but they were very minor. We believe that that would certainly mean that we would not save quite the same amount; but the savings were, as in line with the same cost modelling, $2.6m. But what is very interesting is the document that Mr Berry gave to the arbitrator, which gave a position that the Government was pursuing at that stage. What do we have? We have the same cost model, but how much in savings? We have $1.072m. So, Mr Berry, using - - -

Mr Berry: No; that is Connolly.

MRS CARNELL: No, that was not. Using the same cost model as I did, he comes up with $1.07m - - -

Mr Berry: What date?

MRS CARNELL: Mr Berry, you cannot say that it was not your Government. Again, I will table this document. It is interesting to note that the cost modelling can show $1.07m and their own policy shows $4m. It is very difficult to understand.

Now let me say, for the Assembly's interest as well, that one of the other minor problems with the Auditor-General's report, as it now stands, is that the Auditor-General did not take into account that in this year's expenditure on VMOs there is a figure of $1.8m for bills from previous years. The $1.8m is an exceedingly high figure - much higher than usual in terms of the flow from last year to this year. The problem with that was that the previous contract, which was overseen by Mr Berry and Mr Connolly, did not have a requirement for VMOs to claim within a period of time. So, we are still getting bills from two years ago. There was no requirement to put in a bill within 30 days, 60 days or whatever. So, of the amount of money that the Auditor-General has put down here for the expenditure this year, $1.8m is for services provided in previous years, and some of those services are from a year ago - really quite old services. They are things that, I must admit, when I put together the budget I did not know existed. I did not know that we had a liability for services provided by VMOs two years ago. I can tell you that the new contract does not have that in it. The new contract has a requirement for bills to go in within 60 days and be paid within 28 days after that. So, you have to take off $1.8m.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .