The State Government is refusing to disclose details of unsolicited bids received by the Office of the Coordinator-General from companies pitching proposals for the privatisation of government assets or other business “opportunities.” Nor will it rule out that one of the proposals relates to the privatisation of pathology services.
Early last week the Minister for State Growth, Matthew Groom, told Parliament the Office of the Coordinator-General is currently considering an unsolicited proposal from a company for “medical services” and another for “a software solution for government.” Groom was responding to a question by the Leader of the Tasmanian Greens, Cassie O’Connor, about the unsolicited bid by a private tourism developer for the Hunter Street School of Art in Hobart.
“I make no apologies for the fact this Government is open for business and open to ideas,” Groom proclaimed.
Is it a private pathology company pitch?
Last week Tasmanian Times revealed that the private pathology company Diagnostic Services and its parent company Sonic Healthcare are major donors to both the Tasmanian Liberal Party and the federal Liberal Party.
In its mid-February 2015 submission on the Hodgman Government’s ‘Rebuilding Tasmania’s Health System’ Green Paper Diagnostic Services CEO, Dr Lawrie Bott, outlined a range of areas in which the company could expand its involvement in Tasmania’s public health system from the use of its courier service, its pathology sample collection service, back-office software systems and pathology testing.
The day after Groom told parliament that the Coordinator-General had received a private bid for “medical services” the Labor Party’s Shadow Minister for Health, Rebecca White, asked the Minister for Health, Michael Ferguson, whether the proposal to related to private pathology services.
“At this moment there are no plans to outsource any more public pathology services to the private sector,” he said.
White then turned her attention to Groom, asking whether the proposal received by the Coordinator-General for “medical services” related to pathology services. Groom went far further than Ferguson in his interpretation of the Government’s policy. “It is a principle with the unsolicited bids process that no bid can satisfy the criteria for progress if it is inconsistent with the Government’s policy. As the minister has just made clear, it is the Government’s policy there will be no further outsourcing of pathology services,” Groom said.
Diagnostic Services – the largest provider of private pathology services in Tasmania – said it is not involved in any unsolicited bid. Dr Bott told Tasmanian Timesthat neither of the proposals to the Coordinator-General for “medical services” or software services came from Diagnostic Services. Bott suggested that the proposal could be something to do with the Federal Government’s roll-out of the e-health electronic records system.
However, Dr Bott declined to discuss why Diagnostic Services and Sonic Healthcare contributed $36,500 to the Tasmanian Liberal Party in the 2013/2014 financial year and a further $400,000 to the federal branch of the Liberal Party. “I don’t want to comment on that,” he said.
Even though Diagnostic Services hasn’t submitted a proposal, other pathology companies may have.
What “medical services”?
The office of the Coordinator-General declined to comment. “We don’t handle media inquiries,” a spokesperson said.
A spokeswoman for the Tasmanian Government ruled out providing details of the bids on the grounds that “the whole point of the unsolicited bid process is that its initial stages can be undertaken in confidence in order to protect intellectual capital.”
However, the Unsolicited Proposals Policy and Guidelines released by Department of Treasury and Finance in January this year do not preclude basic information about proposals being publicly disclosed.
Groom told Parliament last week that the unsolicited “medical services” proposal is “currently being considered” while he described the “software solution” proposal as being at “a very preliminary stage” of assessment.
In moving a motion last week urging public consultation before deals involving the sale of public lands via the unsolicited expressions of interest process, Tasmanian Greens Leader Cassie O’Connor flagged concerns about the secrecy surrounding the activities of the office of the Coordinator-General.
The office, she argued, has:
“the door wide open to the white-shoe brigade and the red carpet rolled out to make the glide that bit easier through the process – out of sight, out of mind. It is secrecy, lack of accountability and a complete lack of transparency. All of it is happening behind closed doors under a majority government, because that is what majority governments do. It is a recipe, regrettably – and I use this word very judiciously – for corruption.”
The leader of the Labor Party, Bryan Green, noted that “very specific questions were asked today [Wednesday] about whether a statewide service for pathology was the unsolicited bid. They skirted around the answer.” Green, noting the Tasmanian Times article from early last week, argued it was important that “there is transparency” around what medical services Groom was referring to.
For his part Groom avoided discussing exactly what the bids were for. Instead he proclaimed that the process was all about allowing proponents to have “a discussion with the government about an idea that we have not thought about, that might involve some commercial sensitivity.”
The Community & Public Sector Union (CPSU) – which has members in the pathology sections of both the Royal Hobart Hospital or Launceston General Hospital – is concerned the proposal relates to pathology services. On Thursday the CPSU contacted the Interim CEO of the Tasmanian Health Service, CEO Dr Anne Brand asking her to confirm that they have no intention or plans on privatising pathology services.
“At this point we haven’t had a response. However, if they aren’t considering it, then we would expect a prompt response,” said Tom Lynch, the General Secretary of CPSU.
Bob Burton is a Hobart-based Contributing Editor of Tasmanian Times.
Tasmanian Times (TT) is free – always has been, always will be. If you like what TT does, please consider making a donation.
•Anonymous in comments: Just to give some context as to why pathology is so profitable, and why these companies are so interested in capturing public hospital services: A typical test is prothrombin time, used in many common situations. This attracts a schedule fee of $13.70. Because of the highly automated processes involved, it costs a pathology provider less than $1 to perform the test. Allow another $1 for ancillary costs (probably an overestimate). This amounts to a pretty tidy profit margin on a very, very common test.
EARLIER in this series of articles on TASMANIAN TIMES …
• October 27: The private pathology industry emerges as major Tasmanian Liberals donor
• October 28: Who’s a Liberal donor gonna call? Rentbusters!
• October 29: What happens if a major political donor doesn’t disclose?
Anonymous
November 2, 2015 at 10:59
Just to give some context as to why pathology is so profitable, and why these companies are so interested in capturing public hospital services:
A typical test is prothrombin time, used in many common situations. This attracts a schedule fee of $13.70. Because of the highly automated processes involved, it costs a pathology provider less than $1 to perform the test. Allow another $1 for ancilliary costs (probably an overestimate). This amounts to a pretty tidy profit margin on a very, very common test.
john hayward
November 2, 2015 at 11:53
It looks like Will’s government has adopted the Abbott definition of altruism -limited to reciprocal back-scratching.
Their refusal to disclose what they are up to also indicates they are freeing themselves from those aspects of political correctness known as democracy. Whether this is due to a philosophical decision, or sheer ignorance of Westminster principles, is unclear.
Those wanting reassurance in the govt’s intentions may seek it in the absence in Matthew Groom’s mien of what Caesar described as a lean and hungry look.
John Hayward
Tim Upston
November 2, 2015 at 12:41
Every time a Liberal Party donor comes up with a “good” idea it is a sure thing the public will be paying through the nose while the profits mount up.
The sale of Medibank Private is just one example and there are many more….
Chris
November 2, 2015 at 12:41
I say I say I say
My has wife gone to the West Indies.
What Jamaica?
No she went of her own accord.
Who solicits a proposal that will return lots of loot to the Health provider, because we all know that the Liberals like giving their mates lots of Taxpayer property so they can generate a lucrative income from the sickness of others.
Just like Abbott said we are the ruling class and we are sure that as we privatise health, water, sewerage and our beloved hydro the public will have no right to criticise us when the costs soar cos we is sucking the trough.
What is wrong with the HEC raising a loan or two, repaid over many years to build wind, solar and geothermal power stations rather than privatise the HEC by stealth.
Why can’t my power account money be kept in Tasmania even if some of it goes to Forestry, which is likely again this year, its called Harriss angry substitution .
Oh well when the Father of 40% never forget decided to reduce the number of GREEN members this is the result .
russell
November 2, 2015 at 18:41
Are the government giving an appearance of acting any different than as pimps and brothel keepers?
With the public and their assets being held to ransom as the commercially valuable honeypot?
Is this ‘process’ foremost for the public interest or could it appear to be mostly to the major benefit of private for profit maates interests?
Is it a possibly corrupting interpretation of the political mantra of ‘open for business’?
Whoever heard of not soliciting for unsolicited business? What a nonsense. Just how actively is the non soliciting actually done? Or not done? And by whom?
Is the ‘process’ designed for those who are desperate to try to hide (from us the public), whatever it is they are agreeing too including the terms and conditions for signing away public services and assets to profit obsessed privateers?
Is the ‘process’ designed as yet another vehicle for the transfer of public assets to the private sector? As with the use of the national parks.
If the red carpet doorway is being actively held open, who can pretend or maintain they are not soliciting for business? Another nonsense. Surely the act of an open door implies solicitation.
This ‘process’ could appear to have been constructed with a built in availability for an optional bent as required. Now why would they do that? And why is it all kept so secret, from us?
Public consultation is a requirement before the fact of decision making otherwise after the fact it is mere information sharing. More likely to be dripping with an ever so benevolent condescension attached. ‘Trust us we know what’s best for you.’
All in my opinion only.
William Boeder
November 2, 2015 at 18:58
We have here a woefully inept Liberal party minister trying to sell their stupid Liberal party idea ‘of how to look after their smiling beguiling Liberal party donors’ as though this is a gift he is bestowing on the people of Tasmania.
In other countries people can be drawn and quartered then hung high by their skinny, (or fatly obese) neck, despite the pain that they will already have endured, until finally they cease to breathe and are pronounced as dead.
The fatuous idiocy shown to the people of Tasmania by the Tasmanian Liberals knows no bounds.
Look upon ye-selves of those among you that cast your vote for the least capable political party in the Nation of Australia.
O'brien
November 4, 2015 at 01:25
So what? The Minister understands his primary function is transferring public wealth to private hands. That is what the good lord put him on earth for!
Take our tourism racket, elitist restrictions on public access to public land (Tasman National Park) and $24 000 000 public funding of an ostensibly private Two Capes track for a select wealthy few. Aided , abetted and coordinated by a National Parks & Wildlife Service that could teach Malcolm Turnbull’s Cayman Islands bankers a thing or two about creative accounting, all in cahoots with greed-head profiteers pushing ‘eco’ this and ‘eco’ that.
Is it any wonder elements of our public health system are ripe for plucking, all with our Minister’s imprimatur. In any functioning society people of such calibre would be ostracised to the wasteland fringes, left to wander aimlessly whilst wondering where and how it all went so wrong.
Ah but this is Tasmania, a hybrid kleptocracy/dulocracy where abuse of public property is a statute norm harking back to when the British Empire dumped their genetic and moral rejects upon these desolate antipodean shores, woe betide anyone who rocks that boat.
—
Ed’s note: minor edit for legal reasons
Harry Higgins
November 4, 2015 at 10:49
Full disclosure of all politicians financial interests is the only way Tasmanians can have any trust in our political system…think Gunns and Robin Gray for example.
Oh, I wish I may, I wish I might, etc.etc…..
TV Resident
November 4, 2015 at 18:52
The liberal gov’t said initially that they weren’t going to sell off publicly owned assets, but since they have taken control they have done little else. Don’t these thick headed fools realise that once the states assets are sold there will be NO MORE income into the coffers from them??
mike seabrook
November 7, 2015 at 20:15
is public auction or sale to the highest bidder too hard.
surely not more secret deals re monopolies like with the pokies operators
any news on the sale of the lady gowrie buildings at runnymede street , battery point – an ideal site for a carpark plus now that the montpelier retreat carpark is not proceeding.
William Boeder
November 8, 2015 at 13:31
People who dare to trust this Liberal government can only be people with the softest of minds.
In fact the behaviour and the conduct by this State’s Liberals reminds me of that early child-like game of dress-ups and pretending to act as though one is an important person.
Disturbing as it is yet is unfortunately the truth, the future for Tasmania is certainly taking on a grim aspect when the only alternative available is a Bryan ‘the giggler’ Green led Labour party.
Both of our current offered political parties need to be stripped of whatever it is that allows either of this low calibre political pair of incompetently constructed State leadership contenders, (in which consists most of the likes of shoe-sales-persons) that then gets to hold the reins of government in our State.
Worse still is to have Her Excellency the Governor have to decide in favour of accepting either of this pair of political party groups to become our soon to be elected new State leadership.
Will it continue the downhill processes of the present Liberal party in leadership, or will we see a Bryan Green failure party become the next ship of fools approved by the Governor.
Thus will continue the folly of Tasmanian Roulette, (not unlike the choices available in that idiot’s game of Russian Roulette) as neither party appear to possess any leadership skills other than to look after themselves and Tasmania’s fops.