Page 5171 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 18 November 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
However, what has been brought to the forefront in these discussions and the negotiations has been that some of these issues could always have been there; so it is less about the building. When you talk to people, it is not about the building and it is not about the lease. It is about concerns on safeguards in terms of control of the care and the actual service that is provided to patients. They are things that I am actively engaging with Little Company of Mary on to seek to address the community’s concerns.
I did presume the motion would get up. As I said, I am comfortable with paragraphs (1) and (3) and with the amendment, paragraph (4 ). It is probably useful for me to do that anyway, to provide further information to the Assembly as we navigate through the final decision-making stages of this proposal.
MR HANSON (Molonglo) (12.07): I have seldom seen a more politically opportunistic motion than that tabled by the Greens in this Assembly today. It is a stunt and nothing more. This is just a case of the Greens playing catch-up on the issue of Clare Holland House. We will not be supporting the motion as it stands.
There was much media fanfare from the Greens last week about standing. The title of the article in the Canberra Times was “Greens stand firm on opposition to the hospice sale”. Let us be very clear. The Greens are not standing firm. They are, if anything, very wobbly on this issue. They know the facts just as everybody else in this place does.
Tom Brennan, the chairman of Little Company of Mary Health Care, has made it very clear that he will not separate the Calvary and Clare Holland House deals. The Calvary deal is entirely contingent on the sale of Clare Holland House. He said this publicly in a meeting on 12 November with the Palliative Care Society. He said, “We will not split the two.” He was unequivocal.
Amanda Bresnan, who has tabled this motion today, was at that meeting. She heard it. She also had a private meeting with Mr Brennan, I understand, on 13 November. She might like to inform the Assembly whether she inquired of Mr Brennan whether he would split the proposal at that stage and whether Mr Brennan advised her at that stage whether he would be prepared to do so. I think we know what the answer to that is.
The Chief Minister and the Minister for Health, Katy Gallagher, also know what is going on. The health minister said today that she will not be supporting the separation of the deal. And she said yesterday in response to a question in question time:
I have approached Little Company of Mary myself and asked them whether they would consider the proposal being separated, as part of an outcome of the consultation process …
The government remains committed to the proposal as it stands, and LCM have indicated a number of times that they are not prepared to not have a role in public health care in the ACT.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video