Page 3147 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 22 August 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Sydney regularly now for cancer services. They used to have to do that under the Liberal Party. They do not today. We did not have the range of mental health services that we have available today.
These are all the types of actions—and many, many more—that the Chief Minister has listed in her presentation today. They are not the sign of a government which is failing to address and tackle the health concerns of our community. Indeed, they are the signs of a government, the record of a government, prepared to invest, prepared to lead and prepared to respond to the challenges of delivering health services to a growing and rapidly ageing population.
Of course, the most interesting aspect of the debate today has been the parallels that have been attempted to have been drawn between this no-confidence motion and the no-confidence motion that ultimately led to the resignation of Kate Carnell as Chief Minister. Let us look at those parallels. They are actually quite enlightening, but not in the way the Liberal Party has sought to portray them today.
Kate Carnell was the chief advocate of the redevelopment of Bruce stadium. She was the chief urger; she was the number one cheer squad leader; she was the instigator of the Bruce stadium redevelopment project. That project was thoroughly scrutinised by the Auditor-General in a 12-volume report. That 12-volume report found that the Chief Minister was the minister responsible for taking the proposal to the government of the day in a series of cabinet submissions. Those cabinet submissions laid out the governance and financing arrangements for the Bruce stadium redevelopment. Kate Carnell made the cabinet submission. Kate Carnell proposed the governance and financing arrangements for the redevelopment. And what failed with Bruce stadium? Governance and financing. She was the author. She proposed the structures. The structures failed. She was held accountable.
Mr Hanson interjecting—
MR CORBELL: There is a distinct difference between that process and the actions of a rogue officer who did the wrong thing but whom the Auditor-General found was not influenced or directed—directly or indirectly—by the Minister for Health in relation to her actions.
Mr Hanson interjecting—
MR SPEAKER: One moment, Mr Corbell. Stop the clock, thank you. Mr Hanson, you are now warned for interjecting. Mr Corbell, you have the floor.
MR CORBELL: Thank you, Mr Speaker. At one level with Bruce stadium we had systematic failure—failure of governance and financial arrangements, proposed, instituted and overseen by then Chief Minister Kate Carnell. On the other hand, we have a finding from the Auditor-General that there was no direct or indirect influence on the officer who did the wrong thing and that the officer who did the wrong thing has been found by the Auditor-General to potentially have seriously breached the provisions of the Public Sector Management Act. Those are the facts. Those are the distinct and very clear differences in the circumstances we face today.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video