Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2009 Week 07 Hansard (Wednesday, 17 June 2009) . . Page.. 2412 ..

(c) has not adequately demonstrated the costs and benefits to the public health system of the purchase-sale of Calvary and CHH; and

(d) has not provided details of the potential appropriation in the 2008-2009 or 2009-2010 ACT Budgets; and

(2) calls on the Stanhope-Gallagher Government to:

(a) develop a comprehensive business case outlining the long term costs and benefits of such a transaction;

(b) provide an alternative course of action should the purchase-sale not proceed;

(c) conduct extensive consultation with the Canberra community of the purchase-sale;

(d) provide the business case, alternate course of action and results of community consultation to the Assembly; and

(e) present an Appropriation Bill to the Assembly concerning the decision to purchase-sell Calvary and CHH.

Obviously we have already had an amount of debate on this issue through the estimates process and in public. It seems to be a matter of a difference of opinion about the level of scrutiny and accountability and the consultation revolving around this issue before we can make a decision or not. It is, in the main, in this regard that I would like to address my comments today.

It goes to the very heart of what the role of the opposition is in this place. I consider that the role of the opposition is very much about providing scrutiny of the government and the decisions that they make and ensuring that the government is acting in the best interests of the people of Canberra. I would hope that those opposite and on the crossbenches would agree with that proposal.

To ensure that the government are making those decisions, it is appropriate that we scrutinise that they have done the necessary work and analysis to support any decisions that they are going to make on such a significant investment. These sorts of decisions should not be made in a vacuum behind closed doors; they should subjected to rigorous and robust debate and scrutiny, both in this chamber and in the community. The government need to ensure that due process is being followed by the government.

The purchase may in fact be a good idea. There are certainly arguments for that case; we have heard those arguments and we are not discounting them. But until we have all the relevant information available to us, it would be imprudent to form that view—until we have all the information.

Mr Seselja: Full disclosure is what we are asking for.

MR HANSON: Indeed, Mr Seselja: “full disclosure” is a phrase that I think is most appropriate.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .