Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 5 Hansard (13 May) . . Page.. 1284 ..

MRS CARNELL: Mr Speaker, as I said before, this contract was signed a month late, not a month early. This was part of the contractual and negotiation approaches that are still going on on things like plans and so on, and we have asked the local community for input on issues that are important to them, such as traffic flow and parking. But in that letter we made it clear that we were going ahead with a private hospital, Mr Speaker. There is no doubt that we are going ahead with the hospital, but things like parking and traffic flow do need to be discussed with the local community. I understand their concerns are that the Garran Primary School is just over the road, and we have to make sure that safety for the schoolchildren is of primary importance, as it is, so those discussions will continue.

Mr Humphries: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Berry, during the course of that question, or at the end of the question, said that Mrs Carnell should apologise for misleading the Assembly. That is an unparliamentary reflection and it should be withdrawn.

Mr Berry: I said that if I were Mrs Carnell I would apologise, but I am not.

Mr Humphries: Mr Speaker, there is still a clear inference that she has misled the Assembly, and he should withdraw it.

MR SPEAKER: Mr Berry, are you making an inference that Mrs Carnell had misled the Assembly?

Mr Humphries: You certainly are.

Mr Berry: I have no way of determining how Mrs Carnell feels about this. I just tell the Assembly how I feel. If I were the Chief Minister, I would apologise.

MR SPEAKER: So it is not an imputation against the Chief Minister; is that right?

Mr Humphries: Mr Speaker, I have to press the point.

MR SPEAKER: It is not an implication against the Chief Minister, Mr Berry?

Mr Berry: No.

Mrs Carnell: Thank you.

MS REILLY: My question is to the Chief Minister in her capacity as Minister for Health. Calvary Hospital has publicly questioned the need for a new 100-bed private hospital, claiming it is "a little bit at odds with the continuing decline in the number of privately insured patients". Minister, Calvary Hospital is reducing the number of private beds it operates. How, then, can the new private hospital be justified, and what will be the effects on the existing private hospitals?

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .