Page 5172 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 18 November 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Let us be very clear that we all know what the response from Little Company of Mary will be, because we have all been told on numerous occasions. It is up to the government to separate the proposal. Katy Gallagher today in this Assembly ruled that out. It was the government, as we now know, that initially included the proposal for Clare Holland House with the deal to purchase Calvary; it was they who supported it; it was they that provided it to the Little Company of Mary; and it is for the government to separate it, because the Little Company of Mary are locked into their position.
I have found the changing rhetoric from the Greens most intriguing and I have asked myself the question: why is it that they were so quick to embrace the purchase of Calvary and the sale of Clare Holland House when it first came to light? I have researched the issue and I do understand that the purchase of Calvary is in line with their stated ideological position—and Ms Bresnan clarified it for us before—and that is:
The Greens think that public health services should be in public hands and we support the purchase; we think it is a good thing to be happening.
She said that on 17 June.
But the sale of Clare Holland House is entirely contradictory to their position and makes no sense. I must admit I have been a little confused about why it is that the Greens rushed to support the proposal. Could it be that the Greens’ sell-out is because they failed to notice the $9 million Clare Holland House package was part of the Calvary deal? Surely the Greens could not have allowed this to slip their attention. Surely their due diligence would have noticed that Clare Holland House was part of the deal. I have researched this. I think that is exactly what happened and I think you will find it quite interesting.
On 17 June I introduced a motion that, amongst other things, called for a consultation on the proposal. The motion was entitled “Calvary Public Hospital and Clare Holland House” and, amongst other things, called on the ACT government to conduct extensive consultation with the Canberra community on the purchase and the sale. Ms Bresnan amended my motion and interestingly removed all mention of Clare Holland House. She spoke to her amendment and she spoke to the motion and she did not mention Clare Holland House once.
Remember that her motion said “notes that the ACT Government is currently in negotiations to purchase the Calvary Public Hospital and … conduct a survey of health consumers who use Calvary Hospital on the level of quality of services provided”. Why is it that there was no mention of Clare Holland House? There was no need at that stage, according to the Greens. In fact, they voted against any consultation on Clare Holland House, as I proposed. All the Greens wanted and all they would support was a survey of users of Calvary hospital. They rejected my proposal for consultation on Clare Holland House.
Let me say that she went further and even had the gall to throw down the gauntlet to the Liberals. Let us hear what she said:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video