Page 2435 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 17 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (11.32): I shall be moving an amendment to Ms Bresnan’s amendment, which I am just asking the Clerk to circulate. For the convenience of the house, I will speak to Ms Bresnan’s amendment and, when the amendment is circulated, I will formally move it.
As a member for Ginninderra, the future of Calvary hospital, which is the pre-eminent health facility in my electorate, is an issue of vital importance to me, and I think it is to most of the members of my electorate that I speak to. The reason the Canberra Liberals have brought this issue before the Assembly today is to ensure that if we do make a decision one way or the other, it is the best decision for the health care of the people of the ACT, and particularly for people in my electorate, which Calvary hospital serves. That is the prime, sole and only motivation of the Canberra Liberals.
We want the best health outcome for the people of the ACT. It may not suit the minister’s conversation that she is having with herself about how she likes to demonise the opposition. It may be inconvenient for her, but that is the motivation of the people on this side of the Assembly. We seek to serve the people who elected us. I seek to serve the people of Ginninderra, for whom Calvary is a vital cog in their social structure.
Just for the information of the house, because it has not been read out here today—and clearly the minister has not read this—what the substantive part of this motion, paragraph 2, does is to call on the government to do particular things. It calls on it to develop a comprehensive business case. It does not say, “Table it today.” There is no time line in here that says, “By such and such a time, this must be tabled.” At an appropriate time that business case should be provided. But the government must develop a business case outlining the long-term costs and benefits of such a transaction.
Ms Gallagher: What, you don’t think that work is being done, Mrs Dunne?
MRS DUNNE: It may have been done; it may be being done. But it is not here and it has not been committed. There has been no commitment to provide that information to the people of the ACT for the benefit of their understanding of this procedure. It boils down to this: the minister has said that the business case so far, her dumbed-down version—it is a pretty dumb version—is that “I think it is a good idea that we should change the ownership.” At the same time, both here and in question time yesterday, the minister said there will be no difference. The people of the ACT will not see a difference at Calvary hospital as a result of this transaction.
I ask myself and my constituents ask me: if the government is planning to spend $90 million or $100 million of their money—that seems to be the ballpark figure—we need to know what we are going to get which is substantially better. What is going to be the benefit for the ACT community? It seems to me that the only benefit for the ACT community is a financial transactional difference.
That may be a potent argument but I do not think that the people of the ACT care very much about the ownership. They care about the quality of the service and the ethos
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .