Page 2427 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 17 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I am also concerned that this should be subject to scrutiny in the Assembly and be referred back to this place for a comprehensive review. If necessary, the Assembly could at that juncture put that forward to a committee, either a select committee or a standing committee, to review it in more detail, in a scrutiny of bills type affair.
So I do have some concerns with Ms Bresnan’s amendment at this stage. I am not sure that it achieves everything we want. I will continue to consider that and I will have a chat to Ms Bresnan. What the opposition and the Greens both want is the right result for the people of Canberra.
Ms Gallagher: What—and the government doesn’t want that, Jeremy?
MR HANSON: No; I agree that you do as well. That is what we all want. But what we need to do is make sure that we are assured that this is the right decision before we move forward. We have got to make sure that the process that is being followed here reassures the community of that. I could reflect back to some of the words that were used by Mr Stanhope, when he was in opposition, about making sure that governments are open and accountable, making sure that broad consultation on major decisions is taken with the community, making sure that there are no backroom deals—something we want to make sure there is no sense of in the decision-making process.
So at this stage I am probably of the view that we could get rid of the first paragraph in my motion talking about the concern that we have with the Stanhope-Gallagher government. But, in terms of the action that we are calling on the government to do, I am a little concerned that Ms Bresnan’s amendment does not fully hold the government to account and does not provide for the sort of consultation we need with the community, so we will have some discussions around that.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (11.11): We have to ask the question: why is it that we are debating this in the Assembly today? And why is it that we know about it at all? We know about it because the Canberra Times reported it, because people with concerns gave information to the Canberra Times. And I am concerned that the process so far does not give me, and probably does not give anybody in the ACT, any confidence that the government actually has a process.
It is very instructive when you read the last sentence of an article published last week in the Canberra Times titled, “ACT Government weeks away from purchase of Calvary Hospital”, by Mr Victor Volante. The last line is: “The transaction is unlikely to require Legislative Assembly approval.” I wonder: did Mr Volante make that up, which I doubt, or was he told, or was it intimated to him, that of course it does not have to go back to the Assembly? Last week at a Property Council lunch the minister—and she changed her story yesterday—was saying that she did not believe she had to do an approp bill. Now she has got advice that she has to have an approp bill. This is the problem: this deal has been conducted in total secrecy.
No-one on this side of the house has asked the government to put on the table its bargaining chips. We have never asked for that. What we have sought on behalf—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .