Page 3948 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 25 August 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
before and that we have debated before about the change in the accounting standard. The accounting standard has changed, and we have changed our position.
What this motion reflects is that the Liberal Party would not have changed its position. If the Liberal Party was in the position the government is in, if it had taken advice on the operation of an accounting standard and then that advice had changed, is the Liberal Party seriously telling us that it would not have changed its fundamental position? We had a position—
Mr Seselja: We would not have had your position. You were wrong then.
MR STANHOPE: That is a different argument. Then why are you moving this motion? You are saying that you would have adopted a different position at the time. Perhaps you would have. We did not. We pursued a position consistent with the accounting standard and the advice we received. The advice changed, the accounting standard changed, and we have adopted a different—a new—position. So there is absolutely no logic at all in your position. Absolutely none.
And I think it is fair for the government to ask the Liberal Party to tell us what you would do now. The government, through the minister, has put forward four possibilities. It would be interesting to hear from the Liberal Party—from the Leader of the Opposition or from the Shadow Minister for Health—what their position now is in relation to the best way forward in relation to the development of an integrated public hospital system: an integrated, seamless public hospital system working as one.
We have put four possibilities on the table. Tell us what you think of those four. Go through each of them. That would be productive. That would be positive—rather than standing here today and saying, “If we were you and we received advice to change, we would not change our position. We would maintain a position based on advice that was no longer relevant and that was no longer appropriate.” That is what you are saying through this particular motion.
That is the absurdity. That is how patently political this motion is. The Liberal Party is standing here today with a motion, which, at its heart, says, “We, the Liberal Party, if we had received that advice and, if we had accepted that advice, as you would, from Treasury and from the Department of Health and others, and then the advice changed, we would not have changed our position.” That is just a nonsense, and it is so patently a nonsense that it actually exposes this motion for what it is: just a tedious, tortuous repetition of a position that you put that has absolutely no credibility. I think you are exposed for how patent and how nonsensical this particular motion is. It should be rejected out of hand.
Ms Gallagher: How about a bit of independent thought, Jeremy. Ever tried that?
MR SPEAKER: Order. Ms Bresnan.
Ms Gallagher: Have you? Or is it too dangerous?
MR SPEAKER: Ms Gallagher, thank you.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video