Page 5177 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 18 November 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
This is a government that have not learnt, and this is a Green party who vowed to keep them honest, who vowed to have a better process, who vowed that they would protect the public interest, and who will abandon that interest and that process, who will allow this sale to go ahead because they do what the government tell them.
This is about catch-up. As Mr Hanson so eloquently pointed out, Ms Bresnan, when she gutted the motion put forward by Mr Hanson, said: “Don’t you understand, it’s only about the sale of the hospital.” Yes, it is a hospital, and it is a religious organisation that we are talking about. We are not talking about anything else—land sales or anything like that.
This is a Green party who did not even know what they were talking about, and this is a Green party whose health spokesperson was not across the brief. So what do we have today? Having gutted a motion that would have sent this entire process to the Auditor-General, that would have ensured proper scrutiny, that would have ensured detailed scrutiny, we are now pretending, and the danger with pretending is that you often get caught out.
With respect to pretending to be concerned, putting up a motion pretending to hold the minister to some sort of account and asking Little Company of Mary to do something that both have already said they will not do is just to pretend. If you want to bring motions into this place, bring motions into this place that at least might achieve something. Simply to bring a motion into this place when you already know the answer—indeed, you had the answer again yesterday—is to pretend. This is about protection, this is about arse-covering, this is about looking to be doing something. This is about ignoring the truth of what is really happening.
We then get to Ms Gallagher’s contribution to this debate. It was quite interesting to hear somebody like the Treasurer, who I assume paid attention during estimates, who is also the health minister, say that no concerns have been raised with her. I refer her to the offering of Dr Paul Jones, the head of the AMA, during the estimates debate, when he said he is at a loss as to why this is going ahead. He cannot see any health benefits, and that is something the Treasurer, who is also the health minister, has not been able to make a case for, because there is no business case, there is no return on the investment and there is no health outcome that the minister can point to in this decision.
Mr Hanson: There’s already a hospital there.
MR SMYTH: The hospital is already there; it already provides good service. Indeed, you can go to the work done by Professor Sinclair Davidson. I want to read what the professor says about the consultation documents that the health minister has provided. The professor says that, contrary to what they imply, the ACT Treasury calculations do not support the purchase of Calvary Hospital; rather, they support the status quo or the base case. He goes on to say “the ACT Treasury analysis shows the cost-effective manner to be the maintenance of the status quo”. He goes on to say—
Ms Gallagher: No, he doesn’t. He’s got it wrong.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video