What struck me was that the anxiety was predominantly about how healthcare could be delivered according to the values these wonderful people believed was essential if Calvary was no more.

Of course, there were personal concerns but this was secondary to the deeply held belief that healthcare makes most sense, is most wholistic, is most effective when delivered in accord with a value system that prioritises human flourishing. These members of the Calvary community do not see these values mirrored in other health providers.

On the last day of autumn, the ACT Assembly passed its most draconian piece of legislation to seize land, rip up a long-term contract and take control of a much-loved and valued health service.

The grounds for this was not a failing of Calvary; it is not claimed that Canberra health service will deliver better health outcomes or do so at a lower cost to the community.

Rather there are three claims the ACT government has made: integration, efficiency and accounting standards. There is also a more subtle agenda mentioned quietly: if we are going to invest a billion dollars then we want to control it.

As this debate has played out in the public sphere - rushed as it has been - well over 30,000 people have signed a petition to "Save Calvary". Some have claimed that some signatories come from outside the ACT - this highlights the regional and national concerns about this action. I want to thank all those who have signed the petition; all those who have expressed to me their deep concerns with what is widely regarded as an extraordinary government overreach.

I have been contacted by people of diverse faiths and none who are concerned that this high quality, well-run healthcare establishment can be the squashed by government.

At the same time, it is claimed by industrial associations that the government's actions violate the principles in their enterprise agreements. It is absolutely clear that the views of community bodies and patients have been also relegated to a secondary consideration.

The difference between these two narratives? The first focuses on humanity, the latter on corporatisation. The first seeks to bring about human flourishing; the latter measurable outcomes at the lowest cost.

The first is a reflection of deep engagement and genuine relationships established overtime and through shared values; the latter is a mechanistic approach that could just as easily concern a production line as human lives.

Efficiency and careful attention to costs is important for all leaders. Yet in this instance, during the truncated negotiations with the government, Calvary demonstrated how they could build the new northside hospital for less than half the price the government has cited.

How did they demonstrate this? Because they had already delivered one for South Australia through a public-private arrangement similar to that which Calvary has had for 44 years.

The difference is that it would not have delivered ACT government control.

Should this act take effect, we will never know about efficiency or the benefits of integration because there will be no point of comparison - Calvary will be no more and there will only be Canberra Health Services.

READ MORE:

What we do know and have seen played out in the Assembly is that public healthcare will be diminished since humanity, human values and human flourishing will, by government decree, take second place to accounting standards and efficiency measurements.

People whether patients or staff will become secondary to a balance sheet and, at best, become line items. Not unimportant but certainly secondary.

This week I will return to Calvary to engage once more in an exercise of human relationships. I will share the priority of human lives and human flourishing with staff who have been united by shared values of hospitality, healing, stewardship and respect.

I will meet the same people who worry that they will now be identified not as human beings who seek the best in and for others but who will be known by their identification numbers and whose contribution will be considered in terms of a government's efficiency dividend. It may be more efficient but it is not genuinely human.