Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Let me tell you that the takeover of Calvary Hospital has nothing to do with an attack on territory rights. It is an attack on religion and it is an attack on the right to hold property. Section 116 of the Constitution says there is a thing called freedom of religion and, whether or not you like it, governments don't get to walk in and seize property whenever they don't like what is going on. So I think that this bill should be passed, because what has happened here is just the start. One of the reasons the ACT government has given is that somehow a one-provider service model will give you the best outcomes. Since when has having monopolies controlling any sort of system or any sort of service the ideal outcome?

And then you've got another part of the Constitution, section 51(xxxi), which provides that the parliament has the power to make laws with respect to the acquisition of property on just and fair terms. Since when does a government have the right to come in and seize property for no reason other than the fact that they just want to run the entire place and mightn't like the look of you? This is an egregious attack on property rights and an egregious attack on the right of freedom of religion. I ask that this bill be voted up. I don't want to hear about territory rights, because the individual comes first and the individual has the right to choose the sort of health service they want. As to this whole idea that somehow you're attacking the territory, I'm sorry, but the ACT was only ever set up to serve the rest of the country. It is not there to become a little quasi-monopolistic, dictatorial state where it gets to override freedom of choice, freedom in regard to health and freedom of religion.