Page 4428 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 14 October 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We believe there will be efficiencies from a single integrated management style but that is not what is driving this. With respect to what is driving this, the opposition are now putting this down to a simple accounting treatment: “It’s just a little accounting treatment that we actually don’t need to worry about.” That is not true. What is facing the ACT health system at the moment is a need to invest significant dollars in the northside hospital.
We believe that if the ACT community is to fund infrastructure to the tune of an additional $200 million, that infrastructure should be owned by the people of the ACT and sit on our balance sheet. We believe that it is important at this point in time to investigate the benefits of that option and, for the first time since this government has been in place, Little Company of Mary have been prepared to talk with us about that possibility.
This is not about changing health systems. It is not about changing the care that is provided at Calvary. It is about building up the care that is provided at Calvary, increasing it, and building high-quality infrastructure. And let us dream ahead: it is about having a wonderful northside health precinct which is served by a contemporary public hospital, complemented by a contemporary private hospital. That is the opportunity that is presented by this discussion that we are having today. It is not about reining in the health budget, changing the services that are provided and all the arguments that we hear being put forward by Mr Hanson. It is a simple question of ownership and governance and where those assets should lie. Should they lie with Little Company of Mary and affect our budget in the way that it would if it was passed on as a grant to a third-party provider or should the ACT community own their public hospital and have those assets sit on our balance sheet? That is the question.
This has not come out of any dissatisfaction with Little Company of Mary; indeed, quite the opposite, which is why we seek to retain their services in the way that is outlined in the proposal. I think what is being lost here is that Little Company of Mary are a willing participant in this discussion.
Mrs Dunne: After you’ve screwed their arm into a half-nelson.
MS GALLAGHER: They want to sell the hospital to us.
Mrs Dunne: You’ve told them you’re not going to fund them.
MS GALLAGHER: They have accepted the arguments that we have put.
Mrs Dunne: Yes, because you bullied them into it.
MS GALLAGHER: No, we have not threatened. Indeed, in any of the meetings that I have had with members of the Catholic Church, or with Little Company of Mary, I challenge anyone to say that there has been any threat.
Mrs Dunne: Don’t you tempt me!
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .