Page 2442 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 17 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: So you are not closing the debate at this stage?
MR HANSON: No, I am not closing the debate. I am speaking to Mrs Dunne’s amendment to Ms Bresnan’s amendment. I do support Mrs Dunne’s amendment, for the reasons that she has outlined. We want it to be as easy as possible for this motion to be accepted by the crossbench. She has removed some of the preamble.
But I will make a point that the preamble is correct. There is nothing in there that is not correct. The government has conducted secretive negotiations surrounding the potential purchase of Calvary hospital and Clare Holland House. And I think that that is indisputable. It has failed to consult the community on the potential purchase/sale of Calvary and Clare Holland House, and that is true. It has not adequately demonstrated the costs and benefits to the public health system of the purchase and sale of Calvary and Clare Holland House. That, again, is true. And it has not provided the details for the potential appropriation, either in this year’s budget or in the next financial year’s budget.
Although I am quite happy for those to be removed—and I understand why Mrs Dunne has done so, and I support her doing so—I think it is appropriate that I add the point that there is nothing in that preamble that in itself is necessarily that emotive or could be considered untrue.
MR COE (Ginninderra) (11.56): I rise to support Mr Hanson’s motion on the future of Calvary Public Hospital and Clare Holland House. It is about transparency; it is about disclosure; it is about full disclosure; it is about consultation; it is about prudence; and it is about the taxpayers.
The debate about Calvary is a debate about how this government does business. The Calvary hospital is about to become another one of this government’s failed projects. Because it is not telling us the information, how can we possibly vote, how can we possibly give a view on something when you are not going to give us information? What we want is for the government to give us all the information so that we can have an accurate view.
What has happened so far? We have had secretive negotiations; we have had no community consultations; we have not seen any cost-benefit analysis and no proof that it would be a good deal for the people of the ACT. We cannot make a call one way or another without seeing the evidence. There are no financial details in the budget papers. All this adds up to a situation which is pretty unfortunate. We are in a dangerous place, because the government to date refuses to provide a business plan, refuses to consider alternative courses of action and refuses to engage the Assembly on the issue.
Everybody has questions about this issue and so few people seem to be able to get answers. The archbishop has a lot of questions. The AMA have grave concerns, according to the estimates process. They have also questioned whether a government-run hospital would provide services that are any better than they are now. Again, we cannot make a call on this, because the government is not providing information.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .