Page 578 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 24 February 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Mr Smyth: You’re the minister.
MS GALLAGHER: You have had the briefings. You have had—
Mr Hanson: What happened to my random drug testing legislation this morning?
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Mr Hanson, come to order!
MS GALLAGHER: I am talking about Calvary here, Mr Hanson. You do have another portfolio. You have been to all the meetings. You have had all the briefings. You have met with all the players. And what do we see? Absolutely no idea.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (11.43): I thank Ms Porter for bringing this motion on today, because I think what it does is highlight that there are concerns inside the Labor Party about this proposal and this process. It is interesting that in paragraph (2) Ms Porter calls on the Minister for Health to continue to work with the Little Company of Mary to examine all options available. That is something the minister did not do at the start. There was a fixation by the minister.
It is interesting that the Treasurer has been handling this issue, not the Minister for Health. We know that there are no extra health outcomes out of this. This was a deal done in secret. It was a bad idea from the start, it was bad process from the start, and we all should remember that this process started before the last election at a time when the minister said all her plans were on the table.
Now we know from 2004 that the minister did not have all her plans for school closures on the table, even though it was said that the government would not close schools. We now know that the minister, true to form, in the run-up to the last election, did not take this idea to the people. Why did she not take the idea to the people when she obviously had the opportunity to? Because she knew then that it would not fly unless it was done in secret.
Now the minister says, and she continues to say, that the information supplied is unassailable. But it is interesting that the only people who have supported the minister are those who have been paid by the minister. That is not to cast an aspersion on Ernst & Young. Ernst & Young gave answers against the questions that they were set, but they were questions set by the minister. Yet there are at least four individuals, and others, who have put forward ideas, but they are people that do not agree with the minister, so she says, “Well, they’re just wrong.” People like Sinclair Davidson, Dr Dwyer, Andrew Podger—well respected round this neck of the woods—and Tony Harris are all saying there are other ways to do this, but the minister still says that the numbers she put forward are unassailable.
Obviously the minister has not read it, but it would be nice to have it on record, so I would like to table Sinclair Davidson’s analysis of the proposed purchase of a public hospital, Mr Assistant Speaker, and I seek leave to do so.
Leave granted.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video