Why is a Territory owned hospital practicing religious discrimination?

By 7 March, 2011 13

The Canberra Times has the unsettling news that Calvary Hospital is now appearing as an asset in the accounts of both the Little Company of Mary and the ACT Government.

Last year, the Government withdrew an offer to purchase Calvary after receiving advice that under new accounting standards the hospital could already be considered a territory asset.

Little Company of Mary Health Care disputed the advice.

The Government and the Catholic health-care group have now both decided to include the hospital on their books for accounting purposes.

So if the ACT Government is willing to find more improvements to it on the basis of owning it, will they now be willing to carry out procedures frowned upon by the Vatican?

Please login to post your comments
13 Responses to Why is a Territory owned hospital practicing religious discrimination?
#1
merlin bodega12:16 pm, 07 Mar 11

Proving yet again that auditors’ opinions are worhtless if both sets of accounts are unqualified. Who were the auditors?

#2
Morgan3:11 pm, 07 Mar 11

Well International Accounting Standards Definition is:

Anything tangible or intangible that is capable of being owned or controlled to produce value and that is held to have positive economic value is considered an asset

As asset does not have to be owned to get value, whether they own the hospital or not the same value is derived from it. There would be corresponding liability entry to reflect lease or other payments to balance the asset.

First Year Accounting

#3
verbalkint4:01 pm, 07 Mar 11

The reason they are both including the asset on their books is as a result of varying legal and accounting opinions about whether of not a particular interpretation, recently included in the standards, applies in this case or not.

The calvary opinion on the matter is detailed here:

http://www.calvary-act.com.au/assets/docs/act_bruce/reports/advice%20_received_by_the_%20directors_of_chcact_in%20finalising_the_statutory_account_2009-10_part_2.pdf

#4
RedDogInCan4:19 pm, 07 Mar 11

Whilst the ACT Govt may (or may not) own the building, they don’t employ the staff. It would be a bit like your landlord telling you what TV programs you can watch.

#5
p14:34 pm, 07 Mar 11

RedDogInCan said :

It would be a bit like your landlord telling you what TV programs you can watch.

Mine does. But that is marriage.

#6
georgesgenitals4:37 pm, 07 Mar 11

Morgan said :

As asset does not have to be owned to get value, whether they own the hospital or not the same value is derived from it. There would be corresponding liability entry to reflect lease or other payments to balance the asset.

Here’s the answer. If the ACT government are that concerned about religious discrimination, they can provide the service elsewhere.

#7
knuckles4:41 pm, 07 Mar 11

RedDogInCan said :

Whilst the ACT Govt may (or may not) own the building, they don’t employ the staff. It would be a bit like your landlord telling you what TV programs you can watch.

You’re wrong there RedDog. Calvary public hospital staff ARE employed by the ACT Govt. the same as staff at TCH.

#8
gun street girl5:29 pm, 07 Mar 11

knuckles said :

RedDogInCan said :

Whilst the ACT Govt may (or may not) own the building, they don’t employ the staff. It would be a bit like your landlord telling you what TV programs you can watch.

You’re wrong there RedDog. Calvary public hospital staff ARE employed by the ACT Govt. the same as staff at TCH.

RedDog is correct. Calvary employ their own staff, and this is completely distinct and separate from a contract with ACT Health. The confusion arises wherein staff from TCH (on ACT Health contracts) are seconded to Calvary (as is commonplace practice, particularly within medical circles), or when they work for both organisations – for instance, doctors with admitting rights to both hospitals. In the event of a TCH employee working at Calvary in a pre-arranged clinical secondment, their base salary is paid by ACT Health, but overtime expenses are footed by Calvary.

#9
cranky5:49 pm, 07 Mar 11

Can I suggest the ATO would be a final arbiter on this dodginess.

#10
knuckles6:33 pm, 07 Mar 11

gun street girl said :

knuckles said :

RedDogInCan said :

Whilst the ACT Govt may (or may not) own the building, they don’t employ the staff. It would be a bit like your landlord telling you what TV programs you can watch.

You’re wrong there RedDog. Calvary public hospital staff ARE employed by the ACT Govt. the same as staff at TCH.

RedDog is correct. Calvary employ their own staff, and this is completely distinct and separate from a contract with ACT Health. The confusion arises wherein staff from TCH (on ACT Health contracts) are seconded to Calvary (as is commonplace practice, particularly within medical circles), or when they work for both organisations – for instance, doctors with admitting rights to both hospitals. In the event of a TCH employee working at Calvary in a pre-arranged clinical secondment, their base salary is paid by ACT Health, but overtime expenses are footed by Calvary.

They may sign a contract organised by Calvary Hospital but Calvary Public Hospital staff are government employees. They are assigned an Australian Government Service number(AGS No.), are given access to government superannuation schemes, are listed and have their terms and conditions of employment set out in the ACT Health General Enterprise Agreement and when I started there I received a letter from the Chief Minister which began with the line “Welcome to the ACT Public Service”. Pretty sure that makes them government employees.

#11
mp26158:14 pm, 07 Mar 11

One wonders how this issue will be treated by the ABS in their Government Finance Statistics.
The size of the asset would have a decent impact on the statements.
and over to you Tulsi …

#12
gun street girl8:21 pm, 07 Mar 11

knuckles said :

gun street girl said :

knuckles said :

RedDogInCan said :

Whilst the ACT Govt may (or may not) own the building, they don’t employ the staff. It would be a bit like your landlord telling you what TV programs you can watch.

You’re wrong there RedDog. Calvary public hospital staff ARE employed by the ACT Govt. the same as staff at TCH.

RedDog is correct. Calvary employ their own staff, and this is completely distinct and separate from a contract with ACT Health. The confusion arises wherein staff from TCH (on ACT Health contracts) are seconded to Calvary (as is commonplace practice, particularly within medical circles), or when they work for both organisations – for instance, doctors with admitting rights to both hospitals. In the event of a TCH employee working at Calvary in a pre-arranged clinical secondment, their base salary is paid by ACT Health, but overtime expenses are footed by Calvary.

They may sign a contract organised by Calvary Hospital but Calvary Public Hospital staff are government employees. They are assigned an Australian Government Service number(AGS No.), are given access to government superannuation schemes, are listed and have their terms and conditions of employment set out in the ACT Health General Enterprise Agreement and when I started there I received a letter from the Chief Minister which began with the line “Welcome to the ACT Public Service”. Pretty sure that makes them government employees.

As someone who has (in the past) been employed by Calvary and TCH on separate occasions (resigning from one, and starting with another, and vice versa), I can confirm that this is not the case. Calvary employees do not use an ACT Government AGS number, and their group certificates come from Calvary, not ACT Health. They are also not permitted to join or continue with the PSS for super purposes (note, this is a recent occurrence). Much of the attraction of taking up a Calvary contract is to be away from the horror that is ACT Health administration – the two are very distinct entities. You are, however, entirely correct in saying that Calvary employees are entitled to everything set out in ACT enterprise bargaining agreements.

I now feel really, really gipped because I never got a “Welcome to the ACT Public Service” letter, even when I joined TCH! Those sorts of warm fuzzies make all the difference. ;)

#13
bd8410:07 pm, 07 Mar 11

verbalkint said :

The reason they are both including the asset on their books is as a result of varying legal and accounting opinions about whether of not a particular interpretation, recently included in the standards, applies in this case or not.

The calvary opinion on the matter is detailed here:

http://www.calvary-act.com.au/assets/docs/act_bruce/reports/advice%20_received_by_the_%20directors_of_chcact_in%20finalising_the_statutory_account_2009-10_part_2.pdf

merlin bodega said :

Proving yet again that auditors’ opinions are worhtless if both sets of accounts are unqualified. Who were the auditors?

The information provided by Calvary on their website is a great example why you do not get lawyers to try and interpret accounting standards, they have no idea and try and apply legal terms that are completely differently defined. It’s also placed there to attempt to cover the arses of their auditors, from their annual report looks like they are Deloitte, but is it a coincidence that there is no advice from them included on the site?

At least Katy has now realised that the accounting for a building is no reflection on the legal ownership..

Advertisement
GET PREMIUM MEMBERSHIP

Halloween in Australia?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

IMAGES OF CANBERRA

Advertisement
Sponsors
RiotACT Proudly Supports
Copyright © 2014 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.