Page 3053 - Week 07 - Thursday, 30 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
done it down, as the minister said, to renal, and cancer beds. They had gone unit by unit to predict what that was. We have not received that information.
In the estimates process we then discussed that further and we had a recommendation:
The Committee recommends that the ACT Government provide to the Legislative Assembly, by the first sitting day in August 2011, a detailed breakdown of the 400 beds, by type, that form part of its plan to expand Calvary Public Hospital and establish a sub-acute facility.
The response is remarkable:
Not agreed.
So in the era of open and accountable government, something that the minister said that she was going to provide once she got through the budget process, she is now saying:
Not agreed.
But the explanation is what is quite remarkable. It is:
The figure of 400 beds was an indicative figure and did not represent the final number of additional beds across the ACT. These numbers will be updated to take into consideration demographic changes, changes to technology and changes in treatments such as the Capital Asset Development Plan … over the next 10 years. The final breakdown will not be determined until further planning is completed.
So we were led to believe by the minister, through the Calvary inquiry and through the estimates process, that there was an enormous amount of detail that backed up their proposition for the expansion of the hospital system. We asked for that and the minister is now telling us that it does not exist; it is just an indicative number of beds. So the question is: have they done the analysis and, if so, why are they not giving it to us? If the answer is that they have not done the analysis and, as they are saying, it is just an indicative number, it is just a guesstimate, then it appears that we are planning to spend in the order of $800 million and we are being asked to sign off on what the plan is for the north side hospital solution based on some indicative figures.
I must say I am very disappointed. I thought that we were going to get a breakdown of the government’s analysis that the minister said she had done. Now we are not, and the explanation is that it is either implausible or it is a real problem. It probably goes to what Deloitte Access Economics said when they talked about the government’s analysis. I will quote from their review:
A lack of transparency regarding touted benefits, gross failings in analytical rigour, and inadequacy in consultation methods is not a recipe of consistent, sound policy formulation or for economic or socially desirable outcomes.
When it comes to the expansion of the north side public hospital beds, I think we have got a long way to go and we have got a lot of scrutiny of this government to go before
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video