Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Hansard source

Unlike the Labor Party during question time! The issue that we have before us today in response to some of the commentary that we just heard from Senator Pocock is much bigger than the issue that he makes it out to be. This is a very dangerous precedent that has been set by a territory government in relation to the rights of an institution to provide services to a community. It sets a precedent that says that, if you don't do what a government demands that you do, then we will just take over your assets. So, whilst I understand and respect the perspective that Senator Pocock puts on the rights of the people of the ACT, I think he fails to recognise there's a really serious dangerous precedent that this sets.

It's a really disappointing situation to find ourselves in here, in the ACT, where a government would seek, in such a predatory way, to usurp the assets of a private organisation. But it's equally disappointing to see that the federal Labor Party, who is in power, who is the national government of this country, has made no attempt whatsoever to defend the rights of the organisation that has been predated on. The Prime Minister's weak acquiescence to this situation is a very sad and disappointing reflection on him and his preparedness to stand up for the rights of organisations such as Calvary.

This hospital has had a proud history of providing services to the people of the ACT for a number of years. It has provided quality health care and provided an alternative for people who live here in the ACT when it comes to their health care. Yet last week we saw the ACT government rush through a piece of legislation that allowed it to compulsorily acquire the assets of this organisation, with no regard whatsoever to a whole heap of consequences.

All Senator Canavan and the rest of us who have put our names to this motion today that we're speaking to want to find out are some of the details around the likely impact of this action on the people of the ACT. It's all well and good to say that this is a matter for the ACT and the ACT government should look into it and inquire into it. The ACT government have made their intent very clear. Their actions cannot be questioned in terms of their intent. They clearly have moved to make sure that they get their own way by using their legislative power to run over the top of an institution that in this instance was providing health care to the people of the ACT. Unfortunately, I don't have the faith that Senator David Pocock has in the ACT government doing anything at all about investigating the consequences of the action of the ACT government, because by their very actions they have shown that they actually don't care.

We know also from consultations and discussions that we have subsequently had with people who are likely to be impacted by this—like the doctors, the very people who operate in these places and care for people in the ACT—that they weren't consulted. It's a really sordid tale we're hearing today. When the ACT government didn't get its way—when the ACT government sought to cut short a lease that was in place for 76 years and the Calvary hospital pushed back against that—the ACT government said, 'If you're not going to play ball, we're just going to take your assets.'

The underlying principle here that we believe is so fundamental and so important for us to be arguing for is that it attacks the very basis of freedom of religion and the ability for those organisations who have a religious basis to provide services to our community. That's what this is all about. This is not just about the acquisition of the Calvary hospital here in Canberra; it's about the ability of governments to compulsorily acquire assets of all organisations—in this instance a faith based organisation—without any regard whatsoever.

So when we look at it where will it end up? Is it a precedent for faith based schools? Can they just take those over? What about faith based aged-care providers? Are they going to go in and take over those as well? There is the potential for a grab on just about anything any government wants by using their might, power and legislative advantage in government. I think every Australian should be very concerned about what we have seen here. As I said, it's a very dangerous precedent and the question has to be: where are governments going to go next? Anybody listening should think very carefully about supporting a government that would take this kind of predatory action.

Once again, it's very disappointing that the ACT Supreme Court has dismissed Calvary's challenge. Obviously we acknowledge that that decision was a decision of the court. The court confirmed today when it brought down its decision that it really was an absolutely appalling use of public power for ideological reasons but it was lawful. We do not dispute the fact that the ACT court has found the actions of the ACT government lawful, but we do say that the actions of the ACT government are appalling in terms of their abuse of their public power.

Guess who's likely to lose out from this? It won't be the ACT government; it will be the residents of the ACT who will lose out. The fact that the ACT government is prepared to implement these standover bullying tactics just because it can't get its own way, is, I think, a very sad indictment. If the ACT government was half as good as it seems to think it is, why on earth couldn't they have gone and negotiated an outcome with Calvary Hospital? That is the way most business deals are done in this country. That's the way this country operates. We're a free country and a free economy. If you want something, you go and do a deal for it. If you don't get your own way, you don't—basically—steal the assets of another organisation.

It is a sad fact that I have to stand here today and condemn the ACT government. I have to condemn them because what they have done is shown the rest of Australia that if governments want to have their own way they can do it lawfully, without any regard for the people that it impacts and without any consultation with the people that it impacts. They can just take things and leave communities without any support whatsoever or any recourse for these sorts of things.

That is why we are calling on the Prime Minister to intervene: unless the highest power in this land actually says, 'This is something that we do not accept should be able to happen,' this precedent can be repeated elsewhere. If the Prime Minister actually had the strength of the office that he holds, he would be standing up and saying, 'This is an attack on the freedoms of private organisations in this country, and we can't stand for it.' But he didn't. He said absolutely nothing. So, despite the Prime Minister repeatedly promising to deal with the issue of religious discrimination, we stand in here today, when the first real test of the Prime Minister was put before him, and he did nothing. Under his watch, this government is preventing a religious organisation from caring for the sick, the frail and the aged. This is an absolute disgrace and the Prime Minister should be ashamed that he has stood by and allowed these standover, bullying tactics to predate over an organisation that has provided a service to this Canberra community for the length of time that it has.

We believe that there should be a Senate enquiry, because we believe this chamber has the ability to shine some light on the unbelievable lack of process in place for this action to be taken. Despite what Senator Pocock might say about the ACT government, it is absolutely clear that unless a body is able to look at this in an impartial way—without the damage to this particular organisation being the direct result of the actions of a government, that being the ACT government—we will never get to the bottom of the flaws in this policy. I commend Senator Canavan and others for seeking to take this matter to a Senate committee, so that we can get some sunlight on this, get some transparency on this and get to the bottom of the actions of the ACT government, so we can make sure that this doesn't happen again anywhere else around Australia.