Page 4476 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 14 October 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
facts right. They did not do so and they went to the media. They got it wrong and they looked like the fools that they are.
Getting back to the issue, Ms Gallagher, the issue is that the Greens are going to block it, you are going to block it and you are avoiding scrutiny. You had an opportunity here to add further weight to your case and you shunned it. Why? The community will be asking, “Why?”
The Greens—to finish off on them—have an entirely contradictory position. They are arguing in the media—and I have heard them do it—saying, “Public health should be in public hands.” That does make sense for the Calvary hospital and I accept that—that is entirely consistent with our ideology—but they are also saying, “We’re happy to have the deal where Clare Holland House can be transferred.”
Ms Hunter: We haven’t said that, Jeremy.
MR HANSON: You said quite clearly that you are going to support this deal.
Ms Hunter: You’re just making it up on the run now.
MR HANSON: We will see in February, won’t we? We certainly will.
Turning to Mr Corbell, I was a bit surprised at the criticism that he had of the opposition when we actually want to gather information and do analysis on this proposal. The Liberal way of doing things is to gather the facts, examine the details and do the analysis. That enables us to make the decision. That is very different from the Labor way of doing things, which is to make the decision and then go through a process of justifying that decision. Through periods of consultation—the sarcastic note of my voice when I say “consultation” probably will not be reflected in Hansard—you have to justify that decision. Well, what a shame.
As my colleagues have said, this was not about politicising the Auditor-General. That is her job—asking her to review the facts. I would have hoped that if the Treasurer had been telling us the truth in this place, it would have simply supported and added weight to her case. Why would she not do it? Why would she not allow the Auditor-General to have an independent, non-political look at the facts of the matter? She accuses me of politicising the process. When I say, “Here’s an option to take the politics out of it and have the independent Auditor-General look at it,” she says, “No, no, no.” How ridiculous. What do we want? We want scrutiny, we want accountability and we want openness.
Ms Gallagher: And we want you to come up with a position.
MR HANSON: I will tell you: we will come up with a position in February when we have done the research, when we have done the analysis and when we have gathered the evidence. Labor and the Greens clearly do not want scrutiny. I can see no other logical explanation. They do not want the scrutiny. They are hiding from the scrutiny. What we have seen today from the Greens is that they are prepared to put their ideology way out in front of public accountability. That is the simple response of what
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .