Page 4432 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 14 October 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS BRESNAN: We actually did, Vicki; thank you. If you include the holiday period, her office would only have two months or so to perform the audit. Work like this, if done properly, would take more than six months. We already know the Auditor-General is short of staff and her office is incredibly busy. I also wonder how many other audits she would have to drop and leave aside if she were to take up this work and what other stakeholders she would be letting down.
Mr Hanson mentioned a number of groups who have raised concerns, and I acknowledge that. It is my understanding that the main concern the AMA has raised goes to why we have to pay for Calvary hospital in the first place. I have already addressed this in my speech. Just to note, we have been and continue to be in contact with the ACT Palliative Care Society. From the constituents’ concerns that have been raised by us, this will be the main concern that comes out of the consultation process. The Greens have already said that we will be listening to this very closely, particularly about the palliative care facility. We have received positive feedback on the proposal from nurses groups. I acknowledge, however, that Mr Hanson and I may have received different representations from different constituents.
I would also like to refer to a media transcript from this morning, an interview with Tom Brennan. It is in relation to the perception that the money that is given to Calvary for the sale will be taken out of the ACT. He has directly rejected that claim and has said that it is expected that a new Calvary hospital will be developed in Bruce. He has also said that the LCM board believes this is the best way to proceed with public healthcare in the ACT.
In conclusion, I think the motion before us is poorly drafted and poorly researched. Mr Hanson seems to think that there is some great conspiracy at work here. I am sure it makes for a good media bite and that Mr Hanson can say in one sentence that he is seeking greater transparency by asking the Auditor-General to review the sale. But the reality of the situation is more complex and takes more than a media bite to explain. The truth of the matter is that what Mr Hanson proposes contravenes the Auditor-General Act, has already been done or is not possible. The Greens cannot support this motion.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (12.04): Before I go into other matters, it is worth responding to some of what Ms Bresnan had to say. You can often tell when someone is trying desperately to justify their argument. We know that the Greens made up their mind on this issue a long time ago—we had the statements a long time ago—indeed, as they did on the budget. On the day the budget was handed down we recall Ms Hunter holding the budget papers above her head saying, “This is a great win for Canberra and a great win for the Greens.”
It is worth reflecting on that because Ms Bresnan was saying that one of the reasons for not supporting this motion was that the Auditor-General was overburdened and did not have the resources. These are the Greens who, on day one of the budget process, waved the budget papers over their heads and said, “This is a win,” including the lack of adequate resourcing for the Auditor-General. Did they negotiate? Did they use their position to negotiate for more resources for the Auditor-General? No, they did not. They actually were very happy with the resources that the Auditor-General
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .