Page 4517 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 14 October 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I remind members of the debate on 17 June this year on a motion moved by Mr Hanson which was substantially amended by Ms Bresnan and substantially watered down. It is part of a pattern that we have seen in relation to Calvary hospital where the Greens, once again, talk about openness and accountability but they are really only interested in talking about openness and accountability on things they are interested in and they are not prepared to look across the board. We have seen that today in relation to community housing. Mr Coe made the point that they wanted a factual analysis of particular formulae but they do not want a reference to the Auditor-General or to anyone else about the financial underpinning of the Calvary proposal.
Ms Bresnan seemed to take particular exception to my assertion that the Greens had already made up their minds in relation to the Calvary proposal. I refer members to page 2425 of Hansard of 17 June this year. In the third paragraph of her comments she says:
The thing we are still not clear about is: do the Liberal Party actually support this purchase?
Now that is an open question. The Liberal Party has not formed a view on whether or not it supports the purchase of Calvary hospital. We are inquiring into it and seeking to put together as much information as possible to help us to inform that decision. Ms Bresnan went on, after asking that question about whether the Liberal Party support this purchase, to say:
The Greens think that public health services should be in public hands and we support the purchase; we think it is a good thing to be happening.
So it is quite clear, and has been quite clear from the outset, that the Greens are in support of this matter and therefore the debate on this is closed. I think that the ACT has been ill served by the Greens on this matter. They have not been prepared to exercise any intellectual curiosity about whether this is a good deal, whether it is good value for money and whether or not they will actually be providing better health services for the people of the ACT.
On another matter, Mr Rattenbury, in the debate on the Courts and Tribunal (Appointments) Amendment Bill, tried to have a little go about how the Liberal Party had backflipped on murder. I want to put on the record that at no stage did the Liberal Party oppose the changes proposed by the attorney in relation to murder. We supported the bill in principle but we questioned whether the wording was appropriate and we sought more review. As a result of the review, which I chaired, there was a recommendation to the attorney which asked the attorney to consider an alternative form of words.
There was no recommendation that the attorney should adopt a particular form of words. The recommendation was very precise: it was to consider an alternative form of words. The attorney did that. He considered it and put forward a very considered piece of argumentation in favour of his position, which the Liberal Party supported because we had supported that proposal in principle. There was no backflip. There
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .