Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2011 Week 03 Hansard (Tuesday, 29 March 2011) . . Page.. 980 ..
and Victoria, who said, “No, that is not good enough.” They fought the so-called reforms, particularly the GST element. They demanded that the federal government go back to the table. This is the reform about which Katy Gallagher said, “No, we have got the best deal possible.” They went back to the table and actually secured the same amount of money, if not more—I believe there is a little bit more that comes to us—without the requirement to give away the GST.
It was also in June last year, you will recall, that there was a process that we were asking repeated questions about throughout the estimates process. The minister was telling us that she simply did not have the detail. I remember particularly the issue of what was going to be in the capital element of this. We were told that it was going to be 60 per cent for planned capital.
I was asking the question whether that included the capital asset development plan, which would mean up to $600 million. The minister was unable to give me an answer on that. Her answer was, “We are working through the details of what that means.” I know that capital has been taken out of it now but it has just been an extraordinary process that we have got to get to this point.
The Health Amendment Bill 2011 sets out the legislative framework for the local hospital network for the ACT, a network that proclaims to consist of four hospitals here. We are going to have the Canberra Hospital, Calvary Public Hospital, the QEII Family Centre and Clare Holland House. Really, this is such an act of desperation. It is trying to create the illusion of a hospital network being created that we would include Clare Holland House and the QE centre in this.
Ms Gallagher: They want to be in it.
MR HANSON: Well—
Ms Gallagher: They are inpatient facilities.
MR HANSON: They are public institutions. I do not think it would matter whether they want to be in it or not, minister.
Ms Gallagher: They are inpatient facilities. Okay, you argue to keep them out then, Jeremy—
MR HANSON: But the point I am making is that we are including elements in a hospital network to try and create the illusion of four organisations but really we only have two institutions.
We also have got to recognise that this organisation will only act as an advisory council, which essentially provides yet another level of bureaucracy in the health department that is already top-heavy on management and too light-on with doctors and nurses. The membership of the advisory council is an issue that has been discussed over the last few days. There is no doubt that it should reflect the diverse expertise and experience across the ACT health system. There are a number of people involved in the system. It is imperative that within the advisory council these people