Page 2446 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 17 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
|
Ayes 9 |
Noes 6 | ||
|
Mr Barr |
Mr Hargreaves |
Mr Coe |
Mr Smyth |
|
Ms Bresnan |
Ms Le Couteur |
Mr Doszpot | |
|
Ms Burch |
Ms Porter |
Mrs Dunne | |
|
Mr Corbell |
Mr Stanhope |
Mr Hanson | |
|
Ms Gallagher |
Mr Seselja | ||
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: The question is that Mr Hanson’s motion, as amended, be agreed to.
MR HANSON (Molonglo) (12.13): In closing, I thank the members for their contributions today to the debate on my motion. I thank Ms Gallagher for her words. Ms Gallagher and I obviously have a lot of disagreements, but I do believe that, although we have a somewhat different approach to and different views on this matter, she is attempting obviously to look at the longer term interests of Canberra’s health system. I do recognise that; I do acknowledge that. We have a difference of opinion regarding the process being undertaken here and the way it is being conducted.
I thank Ms Bresnan for her amendment. I appreciate that she has gone some way with those amendments to try and get out of the government what I was looking for—that is, more openness and accountability. But I do believe that the amendments do not go far enough, and that is why we did not support them.
What is apparent out of this debate is that we are being rushed; we are being rushed to come to a decision, almost forced to come to an opinion and being criticised for not coming to an opinion. On whose time line are we working—the Little Company of Mary’s or our own? I have great respect for the Little Company of Mary; they are a wonderful company who have for many years in the ACT delivered superb health care both at Calvary and at Clare Holland House. They have done an absolutely fantastic job, and I am sure all members would join with me in acknowledging that. But I am not sure why we are rushing. I do not think it is from their perspective. But, if it is, then that is not my problem and it should not be our problem. Our responsibility is to the taxpayers and the people in the ACT that use our health care system. I see no need for rush.
The sort of development that Ms Gallagher is talking about requires spending additional money at Calvary, which is a justification for the sale. The purchase is not in phase 1 of the CADP. It is in an outphase, but we have not been told when that investment will be made. So I cannot understand why we are being forced to rush this through, where a decision is being demanded of the opposition to support or not support the proposal, when, in fact, the implications of this sale will not play out for many years, and we still do not know when. It is really not apparent to me at all why we are being rushed to make this decision. It is odd.
What are the other plans? As Mrs Dunne said very well in her speech, the capital asset development plan is a 10-year plan worth a billion dollars. Surely, when they made
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .