Page 1341 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 24 March 2010

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

---

(iii) demonstrate any economic benefits of the proposed purchase;

(c) has caused significant community disquiet as a result of a flawed process in its attempt to purchase Calvary;

(d) has continued to conduct secretive negotiations surrounding the purchase of Calvary;

(e) has failed to provide the Assembly or the community with the details of their renewed attempt to purchase Calvary; and

(f) has again proposed only a single option for consideration; and

(2) calls on the Stanhope-Gallagher government to fully disclose:

(a) the analysis, including any business case, developed to support their renewed attempt to purchase Calvary;

(b) the details of their proposal including:

(i) proposed price of purchasing Calvary;

(ii) duration of any sub-lease to the Little Company of Mary; and

(iii) governance and management arrangements;

(c) correspondence with stakeholders relating to their renewed attempt to purchase Calvary;

(d) any evidence of:

(i) benefits to hospital services arising from a transfer of ownership; and

(ii) economic benefits arising from a transfer of ownership;

(e) the opportunity cost to the community of purchasing Calvary; and

(f) any analysis conducted of alternative courses of action that may have been considered.

There is a bit of deja vu here; we are talking about Calvary hospital again. Many of us thought that it was over, but it has risen like a phoenix from the ashes. Mr Speaker, members opposite are all deep in conversation. I am distracted and I am disappointed that they are not hanging off my every word.

Mr Stanhope: What a hypocrite.

Mr Smyth interjecting—

MR SPEAKER: Order, members!

---

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video