Page 4470 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 14 October 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR COE (Ginninderra) (3.37): I am pleased to be here supporting Mr Hanson’s motion on what is a very important issue for the people of Ginninderra. This motion is important because it is about health services for Belconnen residents, for Gungahlin residents, for north Canberra residents, for residents of Hall and for many people outside of the ACT across our northern borders. It is about whether we as a community are getting good value for money out of our taxpayer dollars.
This government has an atrocious record of budget maintenance, budget management and fiscal responsibility. This government has squandered the boom and is not taking the tough decisions in the difficult times. That is why, at best, I am sceptical about whether this deal being promoted by the minister is one that represents the most effective use of the territory’s taxpayer dollars. It strikes me that this deal is more about Labor ideology than it is about the wellbeing of Canberra’s population or about the wellbeing of our budget.
What we do on countless occasions here in this place is discharge responsibilities to unelected people. Well, here is an opportunity for us to seek advice, to get genuine advice on this issue and for us as elected representatives to make a stand and to make an informed decision, which is exactly what we are elected to do. We have an opportunity, and that is why I support the referral of this matter to the Auditor-General for a full independent analysis and evaluation so that we can then make an informed decision.
At the crux of this motion is whether there are any public health and public finance benefits to this proposal and whether there are enhanced health outcomes achieved by the proposal. The Canberra community, in particular in my electorate of Ginninderra, should be getting the best health outcome with the most effective and efficient use of taxpayer dollars out of the Calvary facility.
The key argument advanced by the minister that public ownership in and of itself will bring benefits to the territory is at best false and misleading. Anyone can make a comparison between the management of Calvary Public Hospital and that of Canberra Hospital and see the benefits to the community of the management model in place at Calvary hospital.
It is ludicrous to suggest that investment in health services or health outcomes is predicated on the public ownership of hospitals. I will repeat that: it is ludicrous to suggest that investment in health services or health outcomes is predicated on the public ownership of hospitals. The government’s investment in healthcare should be assessed on the best outcomes for healthcare, not on whether or not money is given to a non-government provider.
What we have here is an argument being pushed by the minister that private healthcare does not work. That is in effect what the minister was saying. That is in effect what it comes down to.
Ms Gallagher: No, I’m not. They’re building a private hospital right next door. They will build a private hospital right next door.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .