Page 1356 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 24 March 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR HANSON: I will endeavour not to. Paragraph (1)(c) of the original motion said that the process had caused significant community disquiet as a result of the flawed process in its attempt to purchase Calvary Public Hospital. Indeed, there has been significant community disquiet. The Greens’ amendment to that basically said that that was all tied to the sale of Clare Holland House. Indeed, I recognise that much of the disquiet in the community was as a result of Clare Holland House; there is no doubt about that. But there was also significant disquiet about the Calvary sale itself. Indeed, there was the Catholic Church across Australia—and we saw that with George Pell, and also locally with the archbishop. The AMA raised some concerns, and a number of other people have raised concerns, particularly in the community. I think we saw the volume of letters written in to the Canberra Times about Clare Holland House and Calvary. Both matters raised significant disquiet.
I propose, in my amendments to the amendments, that we simply say that it “received significant community opposition in response to its first proposal” and we eliminate any reference to it being more about Clare Holland House or that it was more about Calvary hospital. I think both caused an amount of disquiet.
The Greens are seeking to remove the comment that the government “has continued to conduct secret negotiations surrounding the purchase of Calvary”. It has continued to conduct negotiations and, no, they did not—I am just inquiring about the number of conversations going on, Madam Deputy Speaker. It seems that when the Liberals do that, you are instantly on top of people.
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Hanson, will you not tell me how to do my job? I watched you ignore Ms Gallagher as she was making her presentation. I was wondering whether you were interested, actually, in what she was saying—obviously not.
MR HANSON: Fascinated, Madam Deputy Speaker.
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do note there are conversations going on in the chamber and I will ask people to desist. You can continue, Mr Hanson.
MR HANSON: Thank you. The second point that the Greens are seeking to remove is that it “failed to provide the Assembly or the community with the details of their renewed attempt to purchase Calvary”. Indeed, it has failed to do so.
I am disappointed that they will be removing those, but I do accept that that is the normal course of these things—that if there is anything that might remotely criticise Ms Gallagher for something she has done, the Greens will seek to amend that and to remove it. But with respect to the substantive issues regarding calling on the government, I think there is actually more agreement between the Greens and me. I will be seeking to amend the change to the first paragraph, where they have asked that the government simply provide these documents, so that it is more specific and actually calls on the government to table those documents in the Assembly by the close of business tomorrow.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video