Page 2417 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 17 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HANSON: I think you are. You have demanded that we should have a position. You have called for us to have a decision. It is basically, “Come on; you are either with us or you are against us.” Well, no. What we would say is that we want to see the proper scrutiny process.
Are we simply going to accept what the government tell us? To do so would be taking a leap of trust with this government in the way that they manage the budget—and we see where the position of the budget is—and to take a leap of faith with the government in how they manage health. I am sure that I do not have to remind members here of the situation we find ourselves in with the number of GPs, the bed occupancy rates, the sorry state of elective surgery—we saw in the latest AIHW report that we are waiting for elective surgery here almost twice as long as in other states—and emergency departments where the time you will wait to be admitted through the emergency department is over 10 hours when the worst figure in any other state is in the six-hour region.
This is a government that would be asking us, based on their performance in the budget and their performance in the management of health, to simply take a leap of faith and join with them in this endeavour, without the proper scrutiny. That would be negligent. And if you refer to the words said by Mr Stanhope, he would have to come into this chamber and agree that it would be negligent of us not to do what we are doing, which is demand full scrutiny and consultation, accountability and process when it comes to this sale.
Ms Gallagher: Proposed.
MR HANSON: Well, proposed sale, Ms Gallagher. But until we see the detail, it is obviously difficult for us to form an opinion on exactly where the process is at.
Ms Gallagher has told us that this is a proposed sale, that this is a potential. But what we have seen is that this is a minister who has said to us that she has put her plans on the table, that when she led up to the last election she said that she had put her plans on the table. She has her reasons why she has said that she did not do that, but for her to then have said in a public forum that in relation to health policies her plans were on the table was entirely disingenuous. It was not the case. What she should have said is: “All of our plans are on the table less those that are subject to closed door deals, behind closed door deals.” That would have been a more accurate description of where she was at in the development of her plans and her policy.
Negotiations and discussions on this matter have been ongoing since August. It is still a little unclear to us as to where those discussions are at and what sort of plans have been presented backwards and forwards. Maybe the minister can illuminate the matter for the chamber and let us know exactly where we are at—what she has proposed or not proposed. Is it a matter of just phone calls? Is it discussions? Do we have documents that have been signed? Where are we at in that proposal? I would encourage the minister to be forthright and let us know.
Let me move on. We are talking a lot about Calvary, but I just want to mention Clare Holland House—the impact on Clare Holland House and where that fits in this
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .