Page 1347 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 24 March 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
have transpired to date, and I will be moving amendments to appropriately reflect what has occurred. Clause (1)(a) in the original motion implies that the government having its initial discussion with LCM confidentially rather than, say, through the media is a bad thing.
The Greens party, however, appreciates LCM’s desire to have quiet discussions about such a proposal before it went public, as the proposal is somewhat controversial for a church-based body and they did, obviously, need time to consider the proposal further, before answering media inquiries. This was a request by LCM themselves and it should have been respected.
Clause (1)(b) implies that the government is yet to demonstrate the benefits that will be gained by its purchase of Calvary hospital but I would argue that most of the interested ACT population have already been convinced of the benefits and that the only ones to remain unconvinced are the Liberal Party.
I have sympathy with clause (1)(c) but think the disquiet in the community from the previous process was mainly about the possible sale of Clare Holland House and all that it entailed. As such, I will be moving our amendments to reflect how the community reacted to the government’s first proposal.
Clause (1)(d) is similar to (1)(a) in that it is fair to allow the church time to consider such a matter in private before engaging with the public. Clause (1)(e) is unrepresentative of the proposal in that it implies there are already a number of details available. And it is my understanding that, while a proposal about the purchase of the hospital sits before the church, the details have not yet been sorted out or discussed; so there are not yet any details the minister can provide. And these are, of course, all subject to negotiations, assuming that the church is willing to negotiate.
I do agree with clause (1)(f) in that the government has only presented one option, as I have already noted. This is a matter which has been frustrating and I do fear that the government believes it has all the knowledge on what is possible. I think there could have been more trust in the government and its dealings in the Calvary debate if its discussion paper that was issued last year had included some more options.
When it comes to clause (2), the Greens support the Liberals’ call for a number of documents and, now that the parties are in a position again where matters are able to be made public, it is fair that the information is provided. I am proposing that we change the words “fully disclosed” to “provide” as I note there is likely to be a high level of confidentiality around some of the documents, like those outlined or legal options available to the government. I think we need to acknowledge that these legal processes will have an impact. I think the Liberals may find that the minister has already provided the Assembly with a number of the documents, like those linked with anticipated benefits.
I note that the motion does not contain a date by which the minister must table all the documents but I do understand that Mr Hanson may be moving an amendment to insert a date. In some areas this may be difficult as it may be hard for us to set, as discussions about the price, sublease and governance and management arrangements
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video