Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 04 Hansard (Wednesday, 24 March 2010) . . Page.. 1346 ..

We are calling on the government to disclose and provide to the community the details of what is occurring. We want to know what the detail of the latest plan is so that, instead of the government, behind closed doors, hiding this and not telling us what is occurring, we know what it is. We want to know: what is the analysis for this and where is the business case? Where is the detailed analysis that supports this case?

I would like to know what the details of the proposal are. I want to know what sort of price they are talking about. I want to know what the duration of any subleases will be. I want to know what the government’s management arrangements are going to be for this new deal. I would like to know about the correspondence—who the government have been writing to with regard to this and who has been writing to them. What benefits are there? What evidence is there of any benefits for the health of Canberrans and what economic benefits are there? There is a lot that we are calling on the government to do. We want them to be open and we want them to be accountable. The only way they will do that is if we force them to do so by asking questions and demanding answers through motions such as the one before us today.

MS BRESNAN (Brindabella) (11.14): The Greens generally support Mr Hanson’s motion about the ACT government’s potential purchase of Calvary Public Hospital. However, I will be moving some amendments later. The Greens believe public healthcare facilities should be in public hands. It is something we have been consistent on and we are pleased to see the ACT government continuing to pursue this goal.

The Greens would ultimately prefer to see both public hospitals in the territory owned and run by the government. There were concerns raised by the Auditor-General about the accountability and efficiency of public-spent funding when it comes to Calvary, which could be alleviated if it were government run. But the Greens do appreciate that the government’s proposal to purchase the hospital and leave the Little Company of Mary to run the hospital may be the best deal we can get, especially given the power which the church holds and which was handed to them by the previous commonwealth government.

In fact, the church may still say no to the deal; so nothing yet is set in stone. If the church does say yes, it is willing to consider the deal, there are a number of details that would need to be worked out and the ultimate approval of all parties, including those in this place, does weigh on the detail. But in comparison to the last proposal we had, which involved the sale of Clare Holland House to the Little Company of Mary, things have improved and the government has the Greens’ in-principle support.

The Greens have previously expressed our concern about why one proposal or deal was being pursued at the outset and that other options had not been considered. Again, I will state that we have always been supportive of the ACT government having ownership of Calvary hospital. However, we do not think that you solve one problem by creating another, which specifically relates to the sale of Clare Holland House, the ACT’s only hospice.

In relation to the amendments, looking at the text of the motion that the Liberals have proposed, much of clause (1) provides an inaccurate description of events as they

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video