Page 2441 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 17 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
not support it. I think it is pretty obvious what is going on with the first part of the motion.
In terms of the amendment which Mrs Dunne has moved, I do not know whether the opposition have read the recommendations in the appropriation report. We have members who actually agreed to these recommendations. We agreed to this as a committee. So I am not quite sure what they are talking about here. Basically an alternative course of action is what the recommendations actually state. The recommendations state that, if the sale is to proceed, we have plans about that; if it does not go ahead then the government must provide detailed plans about what their plans for the health service are. That is what it says. So I am not quite sure why you have got that in there.
In regard to the business case, I do not think the opposition have actually explained what they want with that. They have not actually put forward any course of action or anything we should be doing.
With regard to consultation, the reason we have referred to the users of Calvary hospital is that they are the people we should be talking to. They are the people on the north side of Canberra who are using Calvary. They are the people who are going to be affected; so they are the people we should be talking to. And that is what that says. It is something which does already occur to some as part of the—
Ms Le Couteur: Madam Deputy Speaker—
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Stop the clock.
Ms Le Couteur: I was going to raise a point of order that the member should not be interrupted. However, I note that, in that time, the opposition has stopped interrupting; so thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Ms Le Couteur.
MS BRESNAN: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I said, the people we should be consulting with here are the users of Calvary itself. That is why we have that added in the amendment to the motion. They are the people on the north side of Canberra who are going to be affected. They are the people who should be consulted, and they are the ones we should be talking to about the quality of service that is delivered there and what they would like to see for the future.
I am, I guess, a bit confused about what the opposition are trying to achieve. We have got the recommendations here and we have referred to them. We have got something about talking to the users of Calvary. They are the people we should be talking to. The opposition actually have not said how they will conduct the community consultation—and it is a wide-ranging consultation apparently—whom they are going to consult with, how they are going to do it. Again, there is a lack of detail, politicking, and we will not be supporting the amendment.
MR HANSON (Molonglo) (11.54): I speak specifically to Mrs Dunne’s amendment.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .