Page 988 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 29 March 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I agree around the quorum, so the amendment will require at least six council members to be present before the business can be carried out; I think that amendment is sensible as well.
In relation to tabling the annual report, it was not really an oversight of the legislation. It is just that the annual report would be tabled, like all annual reports are tabled, but again if we can make it more explicit that is fine.
I am determined to not have this local hospital network a toothless tiger, as Mr Hanson has referred to it as. From all of my consultations with stakeholders, everybody is keen to work together to improve the health system. All health systems are on a plan for continuous improvement, and the feeling I pick up from all those consultations is that, whilst our local hospital network can only be an advisory, the only reason it is advisory—and I would not have had it advisory by choice—is that we cannot compel Calvary to be directed by the council under the contractual arrangements we have with Calvary. If we did not have those different ownership arrangements, this local hospital network would not be advisory, but that is the environment that we operate in. I have said to all of those people that I have met with over the consultation that I am determined to make this local hospital network not be seen as a toothless tiger. It will have influence, it will be given the resourcing that is required and, whilst we might not always agree with them, we will always respond to its recommendations, and I know members of the Assembly will as well.
The reason around QEII and Clare Holland House forming part of the local hospital network was not to create a network where a network did not exist but to pull in all our inpatient facilities across the ACT. Those two are inpatient facilities, no matter how small they are, and certainly in the feedback that I got they were very happy to be considered part of the network.
In relation to the GST carve-up, I have to say this. The Liberals campaigned to spoil this agreement and to scare around GST money leaving the ACT to fulfil national health reform. The GST was never leaving the ACT, but under the new agreement, where we do not have to attribute GST revenue, the Liberals will be pleased to know that the money will leave the ACT now. So whereas it was never going to leave the ACT before, Mr Hanson, and that being your main concern, under the new arrangement, which you have said is so much better because it does not hypothecate GST, the money will leave the ACT. The ACT government will hand over exactly the same amount of money, what we were being asked to preserve in GST revenue, and we will hand it to the new national authority that is going to manage these.
Mr Seselja: So you negotiate another deal? Is that what you are saying?
MS GALLAGHER: No, no, not at all, because I have never said that that is the critical issue.
Mr Seselja interjecting—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video