Page 3168 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 11 September 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR SPEAKER: Members, I might comment, before Mr Moore continues, that under standing order 170 I must rule a submission out of order if it does not conform with the standing orders; but I will, as I have done on previous occasions, allow the Bill to proceed and review the issue. I must also point out, in response to Mr Jensen's statement that this issue is before the Standing Committee on Administration and Procedures, that in fact the secretariat are weekly ringing through to the executive services people, asking for report back from the Federal Government. We still have not received that. That has been outstanding for a considerable time and I think it needs to be drawn to a conclusion.
MR MOORE (11.38): Mr Speaker, I present the Royal Canberra Hospital Bill 1991. I move:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
Mr Speaker, the Bill that I present is very similar to one that was presented in June 1990 by the current Chief Minister, then Leader of the Opposition. The major difference to be found in the Bill is in the schedule. The schedule of services that was provided by the then Leader of the Opposition provided for a community hospital.
When Mr Berry had his feasibility study done - the financial structure and the financial options were set out in his feasibility study - it was quite clear that to continue the concept of a community hospital on the Royal Canberra Hospital site would be a much more expensive option than proceeding with a general medical/surgical hospital. I refer specifically to options 4 and 5 in that study.
Mr Berry has often said, since making the decision to close the Royal Canberra Hospital as a hospital, that things had gone too far for them to have any other choice. So far as he is concerned, they have taken the responsible way. By accepting that we will have a general medical/surgical hospital rather than a community hospital, the cost to our community will be approximately the same. That is as it was at the time that Ms Follett tabled her Bill in June 1990. Those are issues that I raised at some length yesterday, Mr Speaker, and I think it is pointless for me to go back over that material. If anybody wishes to check that, they can simply turn to previous pages of Hansard and can there follow those arguments.
What we have, though, is a case where, in recurrent terms, there will be an expenditure of some $13m required in order to establish and maintain a general medical/surgical hospital - option 4 of the feasibility study - on the Acton Peninsula. That will be made up of some $11.14m in recurrent expenditure and some $20.5m in capital expenditure. When one looks to appendix J of the feasibility study, under option 4, the levels of service are listed and they match the schedule which I have put in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .