Page 4427 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 14 October 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS GALLAGHER: In relation to the Auditor-General, it is actually not allowed under the Auditor-General’s Act. I quote:
The auditor-general is not subject to direction by the Executive or any Minister in the exercise of the functions of the auditor-general.
Mr Hanson: It’s a referral. It’s not a direction.
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Hanson, I warn you.
MS GALLAGHER: While the Assembly is not included in section 9, I believe that it would be unwise for us to head down a track of a motion like this, which is clearly the Assembly directing the Auditor-General to do certain things. That is the fundamental problem with this motion. You are asking the government and other members of this place to direct the Auditor-General to do certain things, and the government will not support that.
We have made available all the information that is relevant to the question that is being asked in the community at large and ultimately which will be asked in this place if the proposal moves forward to the stage where an appropriation bill is introduced into this place. I have said clearly already that the government have not taken that decision at this point in time. We have a preference, and we have been clear about what that preference is, and that is outlined in the government’s discussion paper. But the government have not made a decision about whether or not the proposed agreement should go ahead. That is subject to a process that is underway at this point in time. I would again urge the opposition to genuinely get involved in that process. There are a number of meetings being held. I have got many meetings over the next month in relation to this matter.
The government firmly believes that there are benefits for the ACT community as a whole. I note that one of the opposition’s issues is that they want to be made aware of the exact efficiencies and benefits in terms of health services for the ACT community from this proposal. I would say that, indeed, in the information that we have put out, we do go to this point. A cost-benefit analysis has not been done on this proposal because it is not actually looking at changing any of the services or what is delivered, and that would normally form the basis of a cost-benefit analysis.
Mr Smyth: But you are.
MS GALLAGHER: We are not. We have done financial analysis on the matter around ownership and governance.
Mr Seselja: No cost-benefit because there is no real change here!
MS GALLAGHER: That is what it is about, Mr Seselja. Whether or not you disagree with it, it was never pursued as a matter of gleaning efficiencies from the health system. Indeed, this is about investing more into the health system. That is the issue that was facing the government when we looked at this at that point in time.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .