Page 1353 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 24 March 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
long relationship with them. It is not the ideal in terms of industrial arrangements for staff. Indeed, a number of the industrial organisations are unhappy about not coming under ACT Health, but that is the reality of the situation we are in now.
If we can be allowed to make the capital investment that the infrastructure requires on that site, if we can build the private hospital that needs to be built on that site in a way that all parties can agree on, if the Catholic Church want to maintain management of it—Little Company of Mary have agreed to do that, even though it is not their preferred option and never was, but they are prepared to maintain a management role at that site—if that is the way this ends up then I think that will still be a reasonable outcome for the people of the ACT. I do not think it is the best outcome, but it is a reasonable outcome, and it will allow us to make those investments and, hopefully, under a new service-level agreement, have an improved networking arrangement across both hospitals.
In relation to Clare Holland House, the government is agreeable to that part of the motion. I think it is difficult to rule everything out forever, but this applies to the term of this government. I think the issues that did arise around the sale of Calvary that made it controversial were pretty much all issues to do with Clare Holland House. In fact, there was much broader support for the sale of the public hospital, and a number of organisations, including the Health Care Consumers Association, the ANF, the Salaried Medical Officers Federation and the Public Health Association of Australia, all supported the sale of the hospital—
Mr Hanson: She used to work for Tom Brennan, didn’t she? Didn’t she? Prue Power worked for Tom Brennan as a Labor adviser?
MS GALLAGHER: They all supported the sale of the hospital to the ACT government, and all for really good reasons.
Mr Hanson: As a Labor adviser?
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Hanson!
MS GALLAGHER: Well, I do not know that Mr Hanson needs to sink to besmirching Tom Brennan’s reputation now, because I do not think he is in here to defend himself, if we go back to the little argument the Liberals were running the other day.
Mr Hanson: You were besmirching people who got rid of the letter, weren’t you?
MS GALLAGHER: It is fine for Mr Hanson to have a go at Tom Brennan now.
Mr Hanson: That’s not what I was doing.
MR STANHOPE: Yes, you did.
Mr Seselja: That’s not what he said.
Mr Hanson: That’s not what I was doing.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video