Page 4431 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 14 October 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
services including human resources and technology and streamline financial, administrative and clinical management within the ACT Health structure.
The question for us as an Assembly is not whether or not inefficiencies exist, for we already know that they do, but whether or not we are happy to let them continue and we are happy to let the ACT taxpayer continue to subsidise the private hospital. It appears that the Liberals are happy to let this occur. It is interesting to note that 30 years ago it was actually a commonwealth Liberal government that set up this situation by gifting the current site to Calvary, and today it is the ACT Liberal opposition that is willing to let it continue. It seems that Liberal policies have not improved with time.
If Mr Hanson is so concerned about efficiencies and really wants to have the best outcomes for the ACT taxpayer, why is he willing to ignore this evidence—the evidence that the Auditor-General herself has already made available to him and his colleagues? I really do wonder if Mr Hanson has read the Auditor-General’s report of 2008. I wonder if he has read the minister’s discussion paper on the sale of Calvary, for that too, as I have already said, makes significant reference to the Auditor-General’s report and her comments on inefficiencies. If Mr Hanson had read these papers, I do not think he would have proposed subparagraphs (2)(a), (d) or (e).
Looking at subparagraph (2)(b), I have the impression that Mr Hanson’s reference to any unfairness that exists or could occur is with regard to Calvary private. I would argue, however, that any unfairness that exists is more about the ACT government and the ACT taxpayer. Many constituents are wondering how on earth it is fair that they should have to buy the Calvary facility, when it has been their dollars that have funded it and built it up. The taxpayers are incredibly annoyed but, unfortunately, because of actions taken before self-government by a Liberal government, it is a situation that we are stuck with and now have to deal with.
Looking at subparagraphs (2)(f) to (2)(h) about the valuations, I think Mr Hanson should be reminded of the agreement process between the ACT government and Calvary private. Three valuations have already been performed and agreement in principle has been reached in the middle of the ACT government’s and Calvary private’s valuations. The valuation process is incredibly dependent on the assumptions made by each party and both parties have been able to view and question each other’s assumptions.
It is also worth noting that there are few companies in Canberra who can perform valuations, especially of a hospital. If the Auditor-General were to review the valuations she would have to contract in the expertise, as her office does not have that expertise. But who is there left to contract in Canberra that would be independent? Most of them would probably have been used in the valuation processes that have already occurred.
Finally, moving to paragraph (3), it simply would not be possible for the Auditor-General’s Office to perform such a substantial piece of work in such a short time.
Mrs Dunne: Did you ask her, though?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .