Page 2304 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 16 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
First, there is the issue of transparency. The committee notes that the government’s position was that the government would “like to own and operate Calvary” and that this was the minister’s position at the beginning of the discussion. I note that that was prior to the election. When asked when precisely that occurred, the report notes “the minister advised that discussions had started in August 2008”.
The committee reported that they are concerned that “the sale might proceed without a specific reference in the budget and that such a major purchase is being considered without estimates committee scrutiny, and the implications of this for the integrity of the budget and estimates process”. This is a serious conclusion on the part of the committee as a result of this process.
I will read that again. The committee is concerned that “the sale might proceed without a specific reference in the budget and that such a major purchase is being considered without estimates committee scrutiny, and the implications of this for the integrity of the budget and estimates process”. This is a serious claim and no doubt one about which we will have much more to say as these debates continue. Therefore, flowing on from that conclusion, the committee recommends that “the Minister for Health advise the Assembly, before the Appropriation Bill is debated, how the possible purchase of Calvary will be funded”. That is recommendation 54.
In this case, not only is there no transparency in relation to this process but no openness and no accountability about what is obviously a matter of the highest significance to the provision of health services for the entire territory. Dr Paul Jones, president of the AMA, according to the committee, “was less than supportive of the proposed purchase of Calvary hospital and raised a number of concerns”. This decision deserves more scrutiny but the secretive matter of its execution shuts out the committee and the community from this process. We can only hope that this process will improve from here.
In the use of ACT government resources for party-political purposes, the committee concluded that “the ACT Labor Party used the Canberra Hospital and Amaroo school for election purposes”. ACT Health staff were also used in one of these advertisements and the committee concluded that this may be “a breach of the conflict of interest provisions of the ACT Public Service Code of Conduct”.
The committee is “concerned at the lack of proper process by the health minister in initiating a request to use a facility and staff of her own department for election advertising for her own party”. The committee goes on:
The Committee considers such action, without due process, leaves open the conclusion that government agency resources have been improperly used for party political purposes, and the inclusion of staff in the advertisements may create an unnecessary appearance of conflict of interest.
These are serious claims; these are serious conclusions made by this committee. They are not my words; they are the words of this committee, after inquiring into this matter. And we saw, in relation to the Minister for Health, not one shred of documentary evidence to back up use of a government facility for ALP advertising.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .