Page 154 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 15 February 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR HANSON (Molonglo) (11.19): I am not overly surprised that we would see Greens support for a Labor amendment that waters down a Liberal motion. We have got quite used to that in this place. What we are seeing from Katy Gallagher’s amendment is essentially a watering down of the motion and an attempt to make excuses for breaking her election promise—trying to say that this is all in the health funding envelope, when it is not in the budget paper. You can go to budget paper 4 of the 2011-12 budget, page 234, and look at the budget policy adjustments; and you can go to 2014-15 and look at all that growth funding there—growth in cancer, growth for demand in surgical services and women and children’s hospital operating costs, growth in demand for acute services, increased critical care capacity and all that sort of stuff. But there is no walk-in centre, so—
Ms Gallagher: That is because we are not in that financial year yet.
MR HANSON: No, but it is in there—the 2014-15 estimate. So it is in the growth; it is in there. The point is, and this is the thing that is instructive—
Ms Gallagher interjecting—
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ms Gallagher, you may talk to the amendments yourself later.
MR HANSON: This is the element that is instructive from the Greens’ proposed amendments: whereas Katy Gallagher said in her amendment that the ACT government will take over funding in full from 2014-15 and that this has been accounted for in this expense in the forward estimates, the Greens have omitted that. That is about the only thing they have omitted, but they looked at what the government said in terms of the budget and said, “We can’t come to that because we see no evidence”—just as the Canberra Liberals see no evidence. They are quite happy to support the government on a number of things where they can follow the government’s excuses, but when it comes to black and white and where it is in the budget—where the funding is, literally, “Show me the money”—even the Greens cannot force themselves to agree with Katy Gallagher on that one, because the evidence simply is not there.
Katy Gallagher has attacked me personally for not attending a meeting that occurred on the health funding envelope. Let me explain what occurred. It was at 0800 in the morning. An issue arose with my family and I had to look after my children. That was explained to Katy Gallagher’s staff at that meeting. My senior adviser said, “Jeremy has a family matter and cannot attend.” We sent three staff—three staff, Madam Deputy Speaker. Katy Gallagher knows that I could not attend because of a family issue, because it was at eight in the morning and a situation arose where I had to look after my children that morning—in fact, take them to school. My staff apologised for my absence and explained that it was a family matter. And three staff attended.
Just imagine if Katy Gallagher did not turn up to something because she had a family issue on and I started attacking her. Just imagine the outrage that would come from the other side then if Katy Gallagher explained that there was a family issue and she
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video