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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 8 Hansard (24 August) . . Page.. 2332 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

that we needed a licence to occupy it. This is the basic fact against which everything must be measured. We gave the land away. We lost our right to occupy it, and that is the problem we have.

In terms of the questions that need to be asked about the hospice, it would be appropriate for this Assembly to ask a range of questions in relation to the expenditure of $4.5m on a new hospice. They go to all those issues around the style of hospice that we need. What is the most appropriate form of hospice care? Should the hospice be co-located with the hospital? Should it be a stand-alone facility? Should it be located with some other subacute facility? What is the implication of actually providing for a block that allows for the future expansion of the facility in years to come to provide 60 aged care beds?

That is a very significant proposal, a very significant suggestion. It is one that demands close scrutiny by the Assembly and by the community. It is a proposal that I have severe doubts about. A suggestion that the land that we are seeking to identify as a location for a hospice should be large enough to allow for the expansion of the hospice into a 60-bed aged care facility is a most inappropriate proposal on face value and one which we need to address. We can only address it by asking those who know and understand hospice care. We can stand up in this place and debate it as we are now or we can ask the detailed question of health officials, of members of the hospice and of members of the hospice society, people who have been ignored in the debate today.

It is simply absurd for the Government to deny the Assembly the opportunity of scrutinising the expenditure of money and it flies absolutely in the face of the claims made by the Treasurer this morning that what he was looking for was an accountable and transparent process. Those were his words this morning. This morning the Treasurer wanted an accountable and transparent process. This afternoon he is not even prepared to allow members of the Assembly to ask officials about the proposals. It is just an absolute nonsense.

MR BERRY (5.13), in reply: Mr Speaker, I seek leave to alter the time period for the notification of members from 5.15 pm to 5.30 pm. I think I will be the last speaker as nobody else wants to have a go and I should conclude within five minutes.

Leave granted.

MR BERRY: Mr Speaker, enough has been said about the issues. It is really a matter for the committee to look at. I am pleased that the Chief Minister is here. I will just repeat a quote of hers:

That, in itself, is enough reason to have an estimates committee look into this Appropriation Bill.

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