Page 3964 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 25 August 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
It is quite clear from the Greens’ amendment that they do not want to see the detail. As we saw from Ms Bresnan when this debate first emerged mid last year, when she said, “No, public health should be in public hands; we’ll sign up to this deal,” before she even looked at the fact that this contained any reference to Clare Holland House, she actually gave a speech in this chamber at length without even mentioning Clare Holland House, saying how she thought this was all a great idea. It was only when she came late to the game, realising that Clare Holland House was part of this deal, that she noted some objection.
Once again, we see Ms Bresnan’s fear of the detail, not wanting to get engaged in the process in any substantive way, but simply relying on the nod and the wink from Katy Gallagher. “Don’t worry. It’s all right. Just sign up for this deal. Here’s the blank chequebook.” That is what Katy Gallagher has been saying to the Greens all along, and Meredith Hunter and Amanda Bresnan have been swallowing it hook, line and sinker. We see it every step of the way on this Calvary deal, as we see on so many other matters of importance in the health portfolio and others that are debated in this Assembly.
We will not be supporting the amendment for that very reason. It takes away any requirement for the government to present the documents. We want them to present the documents. This prevents them from doing it. It certainly does not compel them to do it. It also takes away the important aspect, which is to say, “Make sure that the plans to purchase Calvary hospital now are shelved and shelved for good.” So we will not be supporting the amendment.
MS GALLAGHER (Molonglo—Deputy Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Health and Minister for Industrial Relations) (8.30), by leave: I formally move the amendment to Ms Bresnan’s amendment:
Omit paragraph (2), substitute:
“(2) calls on the ACT Government to:
(a) outline, as soon as practicable, the process that will be undertaken for engaging with the public about the way forward and what timeframes can be expected; and
(b) present to the Assembly, as soon as practicable, further detail regarding the four options to proceed with Calvary Public Hospital and, in particular, providing an overview of the positives and negatives of these options.”.
It is as circulated and just amends paragraph (2) of Ms Bresnan’s amendment. Instead of supporting the section which talks about moving to public ownership of public hospital services, I am required to bring back to the Assembly as soon as practicable details regarding the four options and, in particular, provide an overview of the positive and negatives of those options.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (8.31): This goes to my narrative, I am afraid, that, again, Mr Hanson’s motion is about coming clean with the community about what
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video