Page 4472 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 14 October 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Little Company of Mary uses the assets more effectively than a government owner/manager. … The idea that government ownership of Calvary may improve the financial standing of the ACT is particularly obtuse.
It is easy to see that Calvary is potentially more efficient. The government should be looking at ways to help improve Canberra Hospital rather than perhaps dragging Calvary hospital down. What the Treasurer is suggesting is that we pay for something that is already providing health services in the ACT then make further investments for the future. Why don’t we just focus on the investments for the future? Why don’t we focus on that? But, again, we cannot make all these clear decisions, all these decisions that need to be made, unless we have the information at hand, and that information should come from the Auditor-General.
Many in the ACT community prefer the management of Calvary Hospital to that of Canberra Hospital. Anecdotally, I think I receive far more glowing reports about Calvary Hospital than I do about the Canberra Hospital and I think that would be a view shared by many in this place even. It has been suggested to me that most people, if they had the opportunity, would choose to go to Calvary. I realise that is anecdotal but I think that that is quite possibly the case for many people.
I will finish with the question posed by Andrew Podger at the end of his piece in the Public Sector Informant:
… will the proposed deal improve the quality of public hospital services for patients and their families? If not, then someone please get the accountants to fix a problem that is theirs, not the taxpayers or the hospital users.
That is why this issue should go to the Auditor-General and I commend this motion to the Assembly.
Ms Gallagher: Are you going to read Podger too, Mr Doszpot?
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Mr Doszpot, before you start: Ms Gallagher, please stop interrupting.
Ms Gallagher: I will try my best. They do get me agitated and excited.
MR DOSZPOT (Brindabella) (3.45): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. My colleagues have outlined the case to support this motion from Mr Hanson in quite extensive detail. We have covered the perceived flaws in the process and the consultation overall at some length. This motion seeks the independent analysis of the proposal to sell Clare Holland House and purchase Calvary Public Hospital, something which has been the norm in this Assembly, especially for the ACT Greens. We have seen numerous issues referred to the committee process or the Auditor-General for independent assessment. This issue is no different. There is a very real need to ensure that this proposal is justified and that due process has been followed. In fact, some consistency, Ms Bresnan, is in order now on this issue.
The ACT Greens were quite happy to argue for the Education Act to have an 18-month long consultation process before schools were closed in the future. However, our colleagues the Greens appear comfortable with a six-week time frame
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .