Page 1664 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 13 May 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I think there is the potential for this debate to go around and around in the same way the prison debate did, and the amendment is an attempt to get around some of that. One of the things it seeks is a clear definition of the terms being used in this debate. I think from there we can start to have a genuine discussion about what is actually being proposed for the University of Canberra public hospital and how that matches up to various people’s commitments and expectations. Then, once we have that clarity of definition, members can take different political positions, and so be it.
To my mind—this goes to paragraph (b)(i) of my amendment—the most important thing is to understand what the need is, to understand what the analysis is and to understand what the experts tell us. None of us in this place are experts on how many beds are needed for a certain types of treatment over the coming decade in the ACT. But we have people that inform us of these things. What we need to do, I think, is to have transparency around what that analysis is.
Mr Corbell has spoken of the analysis by Professor Poulos. My amendment calls for the tabling of that in this place. Mr Hanson may choose to announce that the Liberal Party wants to support a certain number of beds. Mr Corbell will come in here and tell us his decision in respect of a certain number of beds. We can then all objectively judge that against the analysis by Professor Poulos.
Mr Corbell has argued that he has had that work done by Professor Poulos and that is the decision on which the planning is proceeding. I absolutely accept him saying that, on face value. But if that is put on the table Mr Hanson can then decide whether he agrees or disagrees with Professor Poulos’s analysis. If he decides that he wants to put more beds in, that is a decision he can take. Mr Corbell’s position will be clear and justified by that analysis, assuming his position matches the analysis that he has put on the table. We can all make our own judgement about that.
That is the basis of my amendment. I think it goes to ensuring that we have absolute clarity in this discussion, because right now, sitting here and listening to this debate this morning, I can hear people using terms that suit their arguments. I think that creates some of the confusion that, for example, has been expressed by the ACT branch of the ANMF. I am concerned that the ANMF—the local branch who have taken considerable interest in this and have, obviously, a level of expertise as well—feel that they are unsure of what is being proposed and how it matches some of the earlier proclamations of what was going to be provided in this space.
The third part of my proposed new paragraph (b) talks about the total number of new, additional subacute beds proposed, alongside the transfer of existing spaces. Again, I think this is important. Some of this is available in the public documentation already. I have certainly seen tables that go to explaining some of this. Again, I think the value of tabling that in this place is that we will have clarity about what is being put forward by ACT Health and by the minister. We will then have a sound basis from which to have a debate.
Again, if members then want to disagree with that, that, of course, is their position. But it will give us absolutely clarity on what the position is and provide us with an
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video