Page 5175 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 18 November 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
single person in the Canberra community who thinks that $77 million is not too much to be paying for a hospital that we have already paid for.
This desire to reclaim Calvary has been part of the government’s agenda for years. We saw that with Simon Corbell, and it has been a pretty grubby episode, I would have to say, in the ACT’s history. But the sale of Clare Holland House has taken it to new limits. There is no evidence and no justification to support the sale of Clare Holland House, other than that it is being used by the government as a bargaining chip, as a pawn, to make sure they get the Little Company of Mary over the line on their proposal to sell Calvary hospital. There is no other rational explanation, and even the Greens, I think, would agree that that is the case.
The archbishop has said about the process:
… this whole episode has been puzzling to me and left me with the sense after twelve months that something fundamental has gone wrong in the process, at least at the level of communication.
Indeed, the process has been flawed. Katy Gallagher had this plan stitched up. She wanted her heads of agreement signed before the last election. She wrote to Little Company of Mary asking for that heads of agreement to be signed. At the same time she was saying to the electorate, “Our plans are all on the table.” Clearly, they were not on the table. When she said it, to put it bluntly, that was not true.
We are now in a position where we have just finished the period of consultation, which has been a sham. We know that the government are committed to this deal. They have made it very clear that they are committed to the deal, so I am not quite sure what this period of consultation has been about, unless this is an exercise in spin, in PR and in marketing.
Turning to the Greens, I would ask Ms Bresnan to clarify something when she speaks. You asked the Liberal Party, Ms Bresnan, in July: “Do the Liberal Party actually support this?” “Do you?” would be the question. Rather than your motion, which asks that a letter be written on a subject that we already know the answer to, why don’t you clarify your position in this place? Why don’t you let us know this: when the appropriation bill is tabled, will you be supporting it or will you not be supporting it? Ms Bresnan, I think that is the substantive issue here, rather than asking the government to write a letter seeking an answer to a question that we already know the answer to.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (12.22): Mr Speaker, this motion is simply a sham. This motion is about pretending to be concerned, but delivering nothing constructive to further the debate. This motion is simply catch-up because the Greens failed to analyse what the deal actually was, as so eloquently pointed out by Mr Hanson, when they said it was simply the sale of the hospital.
It is about spin. It is about a party that have been caught out, now trying to cover themselves so that when they are held to account at the next election they will say: “We tried. Here is a motion that we moved.” But it is a motion that adds nothing and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video