Page 4429 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 14 October 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS GALLAGHER: Well, go on, Mrs Dunne. If you interject along those lines, you come into this place and prove that. We have not ever threatened anybody with a withdrawal of services or funding. We have made it clear that there are difficult decisions facing the government about how we fund services on the north side of Canberra. That is the discussion that we have had, and there are different scenarios.
I think the worst possible scenario to come out of this would be the building of a third hospital. I have been saying that on the public record, so with respect to any threat that the fallback plan is that we traipse off and build a third hospital, I stand here as the health minister and say that would be the worst outcome possible. And it would be the worst outcome because it would consign Calvary Public Hospital to the cobwebs of time, and I am not prepared to do that.
I have put forward a proposal that I think is the way forward, but if this proposal does not get the support of the Assembly or the broader community then we go back to the drawing board about how we manage the investment that we need to make on that site on the north side of Canberra. I believe Little Company of Mary understands that is the government’s position as well. But we are not going to sit here and support the politicising of the Auditor-General or asking the Auditor-General to become a decision maker for the opposition. It is simply an inappropriate role. The opposition knows this.
Mr Corbell: Lazy.
MS GALLAGHER: Exactly. It is a lazy opposition trying to delay the difficult decision that they are going to have to make in their caucus at some point in time when they are actually going to have to come out with a position on this. Instead of sniping from the sidelines and taking the view of the palliative care group and then taking the view of the Catholic Church, and chopping and changing between them, you are going to have to come up with a view all on your own. It is going to be difficult for you; we accept that. But the decision makers in this instance are appropriately resting within this chamber. That is where this decision will be taken, and it is wrong to involve the Auditor-General in that.
MS BRESNAN (Brindabella) (11.54): I thank Mr Hanson for bringing on the motion today. The Greens will not be supporting Mr Hanson’s motion. The motion appears to be poorly prepared, with little background research behind it. Going through the motion line by line, almost every item is disagreeable because it contravenes legislation, has already been performed or is unachievable. Starting with paragraph (1), if the Assembly were to pass a motion that referred a matter to the Auditor-General, in effect directing her to act in a particular way, we would in effect be contravening the Auditor-General Act 1996.
Mr Hanson: Read the motion, Amanda. It doesn’t direct—
MS BRESNAN: Perhaps you should read the act. Perhaps you should do some reading and research for a change. The same goes if we say in paragraph (2) that the Auditor-General “will” do something. It is important that this Assembly respect the independence of the Auditor-General and the legislation that establishes her role. The
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .