Page 4424 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 14 October 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
what point in the process you want to examine the impact on the Treasury budget. At the 20-year period, if you depreciate over 40 years—$145 million. But I could pick another time in that time scale and come up with a very different result if I wanted to use the accounting treatment as a justification, because eventually after 40 years it has all depreciated and the effect is zero.
We need to look at what the purchase of the hospital will achieve on its merits rather than the accounting treatment. It is $77 million. We want to make sure that that money is being best invested in this deal rather than elsewhere in the health budget. I raise the issues put forward by the Australian salaried medical officers, who said that they had written to the minister and they were very concerned. An extract from the Canberra Times stated:
“We do not agree with large sums of money being paid,” wrote federation president, Professor Peter Collignon.
He said the payment would affect the finances available to pay for the delivery of health services for years to come.
Ms Gallagher: But they agree with the sale.
MR HANSON: That is not a problem. I am not arguing with the rationale for some of the aspects for it. But what we want to understand is: is all the detail being put forward? Are all the arguments being put forward appropriate and correct? And that is why I think that this should go to the Auditor-General.
The valuations also, the $77 million and the $9 million that have eventuated as the price: we know that in the process that was put forward at valuation the initial valuation was very different. There have been three valuations done, as far as I am aware. The one done by the government came up with a much smaller figure, the one done by Little Company of Mary was much larger and the one in the middle at the end. What I would like to see is some examination of that from an independent point of view to just make sure that the methodology and the process that have been followed is appropriate. I do not see why anybody would have any concerns with that occurring.
I questioned why Little Company of Mary has embraced this deal and I accept that they have. I would be concerned if it is because of the threat that is hanging over their head that if they do not go ahead with this deal then the money that is being allocated under the CADP would not come to them, the $200 million to $300 million that is to be invested in the north of Canberra. The government have made it very clear that they probably will not be investing that in the Calvary site if they do not own Calvary. In the letter that was written by Tom Brennan to the archbishop on 4 March he says:
… we were cognisant that the government is considering the investment of up to $300M in new public hospital infrastructure on the north side of Canberra . We took account of the real risk that if the government does not own Calvary Public Hospital the investment will not be there.
So I think that that is a real risk. There are some real concerns there around what is motivating the Little Company of Mary to move forward with this sale. As recently as yesterday in the Canberra Times concerns were also raised about compliance with
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .