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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 8 Hansard (25 August) . . Page.. 2440 ..

MR MOORE: I think Mr Smyth was next to me when I phoned Sister Berenice. I spoke not just to the Hospice and Palliative Care Society but also to the management of the hospice. I went further. I spoke to Dr Michael Barbato, the chair of the Hospice and Palliative Care Partnership Team, to make sure I had tied everybody in so that we knew what all the stakeholders wanted. All the stakeholders told me that they were very keen on a central location.

With somebody from Planning in Mr Smyth's department and somebody from Health in my department, I drove out and looked at the sites that we had identified from the Territory Plan - a site in Garran and a site in Griffith. The site in Garran is absolutely lovely, with one exception - it backs on to Hindmarsh Drive and is very noisy. The site in Griffith seems to have significant appeal.

That is the process we have been through, and we are now having the same assessment done on the site in Griffith as was done on all the other sites - the methodical method that Mr Stanhope is talking about. That has been done. What I do not want the Assembly to do is require me to consult with the Commonwealth. There is no reason to consult with the Commonwealth on this issue. That was sensible, Mr Stanhope, as your original motion stood, when you believed that the Hospice and Palliative Care Society felt that Yarralumla Bay was the only site. Perhaps in drawing up your amended motion you may not have realised - and I understand this - that the Hospice and Palliative Care Society, along with the other groups, now believe that a better site is Griffith. They see it as a compromise but they understand that all the sites have pluses and minuses.

Yarralumla Bay is a beautiful site. There is no question about that, but the complexities in winning that site, with the uncertain outcome of attempting to change the Territory Plan and the National Capital Plan, make it unsuitable for now. The Hospice and Palliative Care Society understand that, because they realise that the hospice would need to be relocated to Canberra Hospital, where we have space, while that process was going on. They said, "That is a reasonable compromise. We appreciate the efforts you have gone to. We think that the Griffith site is a good compromise". Even today the consultant who assessed the other sites in a methodical way is doing the same with this site so that Cabinet can make comparisons and have a sensible basis upon which to make its decision. Cabinet will take into account the views of the Hospice and Palliative Care Society, the Hospice and Palliative Care Partnership Team, the hospice itself and Calvary.

Mr Stanhope, the frustration for me is that the things that you are requiring us to do have already been done.

Mr Berry: Somebody disagreed with you.

MR MOORE: The frustration is not because he disagrees with me. I am used to handling that. That is fine. The frustration is that this has already been done. The hard part, I suppose, is that I did not continue consulting with you. I deliberately did not continue consulting with you, because the last time I consulted with you I got shafted. If you say we can consult without you shafting me, then I do not mind consulting with you. But I will stop doing it if I get shafted in the process. Why would I continue it?

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