Page 2438 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 17 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I note also that the minister refused to repeat that statement in the Assembly. And we can only assume that she refused to repeat it in the Assembly because misleading the community is one thing but misleading the Assembly is another. But we believe misleading the community is a very serious thing, nonetheless. Perhaps the minister, if she is confident that that statement was true, can repeat in the chamber for us that she had all her plans for health on the table prior to the election. But of course she cannot, because the facts speak for themselves on this. She had a plan to purchase Calvary hospital and she did not want to be open about it.
We heard a bit of the Greens’ position, which I think is a very concerning precedent, on this. They seem to be giving the minister an extraordinary amount of latitude. And if we look at the Greens’ position on this, they essentially are saying that, because the organisation asked for it, that is why she did not have to be open with the community prior to the election. That is essentially what we have heard, that the Little Company of Mary, whom I have a great deal of respect for, a private organisation, asked the government to keep it secret.
Let us change that for a second; let us pretend it is a developer and it is a land deal and they are asking for that consideration prior to an election. What other deals with private organisations can be kept secret and can excuse a minister for misleading the community prior to an election? This is a very dangerous precedent that the Greens appear to be signing up to. I would put on the record my concerns and the concerns of the opposition over this apparent precedent. How far will they extend this principle? Essentially they are saying that, if a private organisation asks the government to keep something quiet, then it is okay to not just keep it quiet but to deny its existence and to claim something that is not true as a result. That is what the Greens have accepted.
We have a real concern. I think that is why there is a real difference of approach here. I think Ms Bresnan’s amendment to Mr Hanson’s motion is not really seeking the full information. And that is the problem with it and that is why we cannot support it.
Mrs Dunne is seeking a compromise because the Greens have expressed concern particularly about the first part. Here is the compromise. But what the amended motion, with Mrs Dunne’s amendment, would do is actually still provide for full disclosure. And that is what we are asking for here. That is the key.
It seems that the Greens have lowered the standard here on full disclosure. They have said you do not have to be honest before the election if you are asked to keep things quiet by a private organisation. That is the new standard that is being set, and we have real concerns about that.
We believe there should be full disclosure on this. We believe that it is a very important decision. We believe that the minister should have been open about it before the election. And in fact it is only because it was out in the Canberra Times that we are even talking about it now.
No doubt the minister’s preference would have been to stitch up the deal before there was any scrutiny, before there was any accountability. In fact, based on what she told
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .