Page 4421 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 14 October 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Health Care Consumers Association, the Australian Salaried Medical Officers Federation and the President of the Institute of Public Administration Australia. There are Canberra Times editorials that have raised questions and concerns. You would have seen numerous letters to the editor in the Canberra Times expressing the community’s concerns; there was a corker there today. Numerous representations have been made to me and to my colleagues and, as I understand it to the crossbench, raising a number of issues of concern with this sale.
I share the legitimate concerns that have been raised in part by members of the community and in particular with regard to the process that has led us to this point. We know that prior to the last election the government had written to the Little Company of Mary seeking a heads of agreement. That is very different from what Katy Gallagher was saying in the debates leading up to the election where she said, “All of our plans are on the table.”
What we see is an echo of the school closures debate of 2004 where the Labor government said that there would be no schools closed and then, immediately after the election, commenced the process to start closing schools. What we see here is that the government said, “No, we have got all our plans on the table,” but all the time behind closed doors they were in negotiations with the Little Company of Mary for such a significant proposal that will have a huge impact on the way that healthcare is going to be delivered in the ACT.
It is also clear that the Treasurer—or health minister; I am not sure quite which hat she has on for this one—decided only to bring this forward as an appropriation bill after advice from Treasury basically said that she had to. It was in her mind that if she could essentially do this as a cash and asset transfer on the ACT’s budget without bringing it forward to the Assembly she would have done so. So to say that she is following a democratic process in allowing the Assembly to have a vote on this is a little bit disingenuous considering the starting point, which was clear, that she wanted to do this without having to follow that process.
A number of people have also raised concerns with the consultation process of six weeks. It is not a normal consultation period. I note that the Greens were arguing for 18 months consultation if a single school should close, but here we—
Ms Le Couteur: Come on, Jeremy.
MR HANSON: Well, that is what you argued, I am afraid.
Ms Le Couteur: Six weeks is the government consultation period.
MR HANSON: You argued for 18 months of consultation if a school were to close, but you are happy with a period of six weeks and, indeed, you were actually happy just simply with a survey being conducted and no consultation on this proposal. This period of six weeks is clearly just tacked on at the end of what is an already locked-in deal between the government and the Little Company of Mary. You think that six weeks is going to suffice; it is not. What we see again, similar to school closures, is that a deal is done, the decision has been made and at the end of the process you tack on some consultation, like a cherry on top.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .