Page 4422 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 14 October 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The opposition have been offered Treasury briefings, and indeed we will take those up on 22 October, to scrutinise the deal. But the concerns that I have are that, if we do raise objections and highlight what we think are legitimate concerns or may be legitimate concerns in the way that this deal has been put together, that will simply be characterised by Ms Gallagher as scaremongering. I refer to her comments—
Mr Stanhope: Opposition for opposition’s sake is what it will be characterised as.
MR HANSON: Well, indeed; there you go. Thank you, Mr Stanhope, for clarifying the issue. That is the way you will characterise it. You say: “Opposition for opposition’s sake.” Ms Gallaher says: “I think from Mr Hanson’s point of view he is out here to spoil. He is trying to create fear and misconceptions.” That is not the case and that is why I think that, in order to make sure that that is seen for what it is, we should refer it for the independent analysis of the Auditor-General. This will not be me doing the analysis; this will be the independent Auditor-General, so that the sort of glib statements from Mr Stanhope that this is opposition for opposition’s sake can be discounted.
We need to look at this proposal from as many different angles as we can. What has been proposed today is that the Auditor-General look at some aspects of the proposal, of the process that has been conducted so far by the government, and that is entirely appropriate. The government has yet to prove that we will actually get any better health outcomes as a result of this deal. There is no evidence being put forward to suggest that would be the case. What is also lacking is evidence that it will actually deliver any efficiencies.
It has been said in the rhetoric, and we have heard it said, that this will deliver wonderful efficiencies because ACT Health will now control the whole thing. But, when you look at the Treasury costings that are put forward, there are no efficiencies articulated. I would have thought that if they were so obvious, if they were so apparent, if they were such an important part of this proposal, a large part of the justification, they would have actually bothered to articulate what those efficiencies would be. There is absolutely no evidence being put forward. I will read from the Canberra Times editorial of Monday 5 October:
But if there are public benefits to having Calvary brought under a public roof, it must be said that it is highly doubtful that there will be many benefits, or any savings, by bringing it under one management with Canberra Hospital. There are, obviously, economies of scales with purchasing and staff. More likely than not, however, Calvary will continue best if managed separately—indeed in some competition with—Canberra. It should be allowed to have specialties, foibles and different styles of management, as well as local management of clinical lists. All too often amalgamation leads to more, not less bureaucracy, stifles rather than allows innovation, and restricts rather than increases opportunity. If that is a consequence of the takeover, it will have been a bad thing.
That expresses a point of view quite clearly, because the government has been unable to articulate what the efficiencies will be and I think there are legitimate concerns that to bring it all under one roof creates more bureaucracy and, indeed, fewer efficiencies. Ms Gallagher has said, “Nothing will change,” in previous debates. Hansard of 17 June records that I said to her:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .