Page 582 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 24 February 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
asset holding of Little Company of Mary Health Care with no guarantee that such assets will be owned by the territory. They refuse also to acknowledge the continued negative effect on the territory’s bottom line.
The third amendment requires the ruling out of compulsory acquisition. This possibility does exist in the self-government act and is a valid position for any government. However, as we have said in this case, it is not our preferred option.
Mr Seselja: So it is on the table?
Mrs Dunne: So it is on the table. It’s crazy, but it’s on the table.
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Mr Hargreaves): Order! Members of the opposition, Mrs Dunne, please.
Mr Seselja: Are you considering it, Katy, or not?
Ms Gallagher: We’re considering all the options, Zed, as any—
Mr Seselja: You didn’t do that before, though, did you?
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Members will come to order. Ms Porter heard everyone in silence. Ms Porter.
MS PORTER: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. The fourth part of the amendment calls on the government to examine funding options in conjunction with Little Company of Mary Health Care to mitigate the government’s concern over the implications of future capital investments. This is really absurd. Does this mean that the government would need the agreement of Little Company of Mary Health Care before entering into capital investments? I think not. Anyway. The fifth part is almost identical to my motion, and I am not sure why we need to amend it when it is clearly there. Again, the government will be opposing Mr Hanson’s amendment.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (11.56): I am not going to thank Ms Porter for bringing forward this matter today. If you look at the tenor of this motion, Ms Porter should have brought this matter to her caucus long before this became a public issue. This is the sort of motion or the sort of issue that Ms Porter, as a member for Ginninderra, someone who says that she is interested in the hospital system in her electorate, should have taken to her caucus. This is because what it actually does is ask the Minister for Health to do the job now which she should have done long before this became a public issue—long before Ms Gallagher went out and said that the only way forward for our relationship with Calvary is to buy the hospital.
Ms Porter should have been there putting the brakes on in caucus saying: “Listen here, minister. Are you sure this is the only way forward? Are you checking? Are you checking to see if this is the only way forward? Are there other ways to deal with this? Is this just an accounting contrivance?” Mr Harris says that it is just an accounting contrivance. Mr Podger has said that it is just an accounting contrivance. Did she ever challenge anyone in the caucus to check the facts, go through the issues, before this became such a divisive issue in the community?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video