Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes the concern of many Canberrans about the significant legislation that the Australian Capital Territory Labor-Greens Government has passed to compulsorily acquire the Calvary Public Hospital;

(b) notes the ACT Government has attempted to avoid any scrutiny of the acquisition legislation, by developing the bill in secret, deliberately avoiding any consultation or exposure draft process, and expressly refusing to hold an inquiry into the legislation;

(c) notes the timeframe from the tabling of the ACT legislation to the acquisition of a major public hospital is extraordinarily short and unnecessary;

(d) notes public statements by the ACT branch of the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation expressing concern over the lack of any consultation, which may not be consistent with the obligations in the ACT Government's own enterprise agreement;

(e) has grave concerns with this attack on religious institutions and on the ability of private and religious health care providers to care for the sick;

(f) calls on the Albanese Government to introduce legislation to stop the forced acquisition of the Calvary Public Hospital; and

(g) requests the President of the Senate to formally provide this notice to the Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory.

The sad thing today is we didn't need to have this debate. Why do I say that? Because if we had a prime minister of Australia who had any form of backbone, he would have already passed legislation to stop what is one of the most egregious takeovers of a religious body that is providing health care to thousands of people within the ACT. But guess what? Because the Prime Minister of Australia (a) doesn't have a spine and (b) is himself not opposed to this takeover, he has sat by and done absolutely nothing. What is the clear message that he is sending to the residents of the ACT that are crying out for this Commonwealth government to show some leadership and step in? I'll tell you what; he is sending a very clear message to all religious and private healthcare providers around Australia: 'I will not stand up for you. I will not stand up for your beliefs. I will not stand up for the service that you provide to so many people who come to you for care, because I don't care.'

Let us be very careful; it is the Prime Minister of Australia's inaction that has meant, today, we stand in this place and have to express our disappointment at the ACT government for what they are doing. This is nothing more and nothing less than an ideological approach to a hospital that provides care to thousands and provides religious based care. It is nothing more and nothing less than an ideological approach. I say to the ACT government: shame on you. Shame on you for undertaking what is nothing more and nothing less then a legislated grab; that is exactly what they have done. They haven't been able to come to an agreement with the good Calvary Hospital, and because they could not come to an agreement—let me tell you what they've done. They basically say in their own legislation that they've had to do this because an agreed position between the ACT government and Calvary was not reached. This sends a very, very clear message to all Australians that, if you don't give the ACT Labor government what they want, they will actually come in and forcefully take it, with no negotiation, no transparency and no committee inquiry into what they are doing. They will just rush legislation through their parliament. And they are going to take away the right of the Calvary hospital to provide their much-needed service to so many thousands of Canberrans.

But it's not just about this, and this is the problem. It is not just about this particular takeover. This should actually send a shiver down the spine of anyone in Australia who believes in freedom of religion. Make no mistake: the Prime Minister of Australia not showing some spine—unlike Peter Dutton, who has spoken out and backed the Calvary hospital—is making it very clear to people all around Australia that he will not stand up for you. He does not believe in freedom of religion. Under his watch, this is what his government is allowing. It is preventing a religious organisation from caring for the sick, the frail and the aged. This is an absolute disgrace.

Not only that but where are the ACT federal members and senators? I know where they were today when we asked for an inquiry into this. They voted no. Guess what? Senator Pocock, an ACT senator, actually abstained from the vote. He could not actually show his true colours as to where he stands on this important issue. Well, guess what? In this place, you get to take a side. You are either for or against. This is an absolute disgrace. The Prime Minister has shown absolutely no spine and, quite frankly, should hang his head in shame. If he is not prepared to stand up for the rights of religious bodies in this country then, quite frankly, shame on him.

Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In contributing to this debate, I think it is important to say at the outset that there are important principles being discussed this evening in relation to this motion. I object to the motion. The Greens will be voting against it. It gives us as a Senate the opportunity to discuss two significant points of principle, however. The first is the right of this chamber to inquire into the workings of legislatures at the state and territory level. It is my view that this chamber as a chamber of the national parliament does have the right to inquire into the workings, decision-making and policy of other chambers of the Commonwealth because, at the end of the day, we are all here representing all of the people of Australia. However, there is an important threshold that must be met before such an investigation or inquiry should appropriately be launched by this chamber. Firstly, there should be compelling evidence of systemic failure negatively impacting upon the people of one of the states or territories of the Commonwealth. Secondly, there should be compelling evidence that there is an active effort to cover up that systemic failing driven by corruption or other motives. In this case, neither of those thresholds have been met. For the coalition to suggest any differently is ridiculous.

The ACT government, proudly and ably contributed to by three Greens cabinet-level ministers, have taken the decision to run their health system in a way that best serves the people of the territory, as is their right and their commission on behalf of the voters that contribute to the constituencies of the ACT Legislative Assembly. This chamber recently passed a territory rights amendment bill to give to the territory full rights to govern itself. Yet the Liberals bring this motion into this place today to backseat-drive them, to question them, to present to this chamber the idea that we should be meddling in the way they run their services. Well, that is just not on, particularly in the absence of any evidence that those two thresholds have been met.

Now, let us go to the substance of what is actually happening in the ACT at the moment in relation to public health care and the hospital system. The ACT government has made the decision to acquire the land of Calvary Hospital, to acquire the staff and operations and to bring them into the governance of the ACT structures for the public health system. This is a decision that has been made by the ACT government, which is made up of a coalition of Greens and Labor MPs, and it is one the federal Greens fully support. It is a necessary decision that has been made to enable the effective delivery of healthcare services across the ACT.

The ACT should be supported to get underway in building a bigger, modern hospital as part of a single network, on the north side, that provides all Canberrans with the healthcare services they need, close to their homes. That is what this is about. It is about the people of the territory getting the health care they need, when they need it and where they are, in the most effective way possible. While this decision was made by the chief minister, the decision was made at the cabinet level, with your Greens MLAs at that table. The acquisition is also subject to scrutiny from various committees on which the Greens have MLAs sitting. A single-network health system will mean better efficiencies in the delivery of public health services in the ACT, better mobility of services and staff across the three hospitals, and clearer clinical governance. These are all good things that should be welcomed and supported.

The ACT government believes that a single-network health system is the best option for the territory—and they are right in this belief. They are being guided by the evidence. This will create a more effective and integrated health system, benefiting patients, staff and the community for decades to come. Now, I do understand that there are concerns held by staff at Calvary and by some patients and hospital administrators as to the nature of the transition. I want to assure you that in particular the ACT's mental health minister, Emma Davidson, is committed to ensuring that staff have the ability to go to work on the day of the transition in the same team with the same manager in the same building and keep their workplace and pay conditions. This is something to which the minister is absolutely committed. Such individuals are also being encouraged to make use of the CHS info kiosk at the Calvary Centre to raise their concerns and also to make use of the hotlines that have been created to talk through what this will mean for people.

I've had the very great pleasure to work with Minister Davidson personally for years. She is a human being of integrity and of extraordinary intelligence and determination. I have every faith that every fibre of her being and every inch of capacity in her office is being put to work to enable this transition to be the success that the ACT needs it to be. Concerns held by the community should be openly shared with political representatives. That's their job. And the appropriate role of political representatives from the other side of parliament is to encourage those members of the community to reach out and to engage with the government in the ways that have been offered.

Finally, I would just make this observation: the ACT Liberal Party—that moribund and inept organisation which, for many decades now, has completely failed to win the support of Canberrans to govern the territory—could learn a lot, I think, from the example being given to them by the Greens in the government, in the way that they are ensuring that the public health needs of Canberrans are centred. Rather than endlessly entering the Assembly with nonsense motion after nonsense motion in a continual attempt to delude themselves into a sense of relevancy they no longer possess, they would be much better served taking their time and energy to sit down and think about who the hell they want to be in the context of the ACT Assembly, because they are no longer relevant to the vast majority of Canberrans.

This attempt to whip up a fear campaign in this community will not work. It will not give them the sense of purpose that they seek. I commend the ACT government, and Minister Davidson particularly, for the work that they are doing to create a better public health system for Canberrans.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Cash for this opportunity and I welcome her concern for the health system in the Australian Capital Territory. I also thank Senator Canavan for his motion earlier for an inquiry. I know he has experience in the ACT. He has been to Calvary and he does hold genuine concerns.

But let's call this out for what it is. This is just wedge politics here. We finally have some concern for the territory. Where has that been for the last 10 years? We have seen 12 City Deals and not a single one to the ACT. We have seen our national institutions run down to the point where the roof is leaking—with $6 billion of national collections at the National Gallery at risk from water leaking because the previous government didn't think that it was worth investing in Canberra. Now, all of a sudden, they care.

I circulated a motion earlier to actually say to the ACT government that there should be an inquiry into this, because I believe there should. There are genuine concerns when it comes to the way that this has happened in the ACT. But stop trying to infringe on our territory rights. These have been hard-fought rights as a territory to stop the Commonwealth from reaching into our own affairs. An inquiry should happen, but it should happen at the territory government level where the Liberals, Labor and the Greens who sit on those committees will be able to probe, ask questions and find out about the concerns that have been raised by Canberrans—the concerns about the effect that this will have on the health system in the ACT and the concerns about consultation.

We know that there are many health challenges here in the ACT when it comes to our health system. We have one of the lowest GP-to-population ratio in the country. It is lower than many rural and remote areas. That is something that the federal government can help out with. I have been making representations to the health minister and speaking to his office and the department about what can be done in that area—because it is of real concern to Canberrans. We have one of the lowest bulk-billing rates in the country and one of the biggest gap fees rate. Talk to Canberrans who are trying to find a GP or find a specialist. It is very hard to do. Those are genuine concerns.

I do think that there should be an inquiry, and I've written to the Chief Minister and the health minister asking them to consider an inquiry at the territory level. So, whilst I do appreciate that the opposition is now concerned about this, it is not for the Senate to reach into the territory's concerns on something where there is actually no federal jurisdiction. I've written to the Chief Minister and the health minister asking them to consider an inquiry at the territory level, but it is not for the Senate to reach in to the territory's concerns on something where there is actually no federal jurisdiction.

I want to thank the people who have got in touch, spoken to me around Canberra, sent emails or made phone calls to my office, both in support of this move by the ACT government and many others raising concerns about what this means for health care, the lack of consultation with doctors and what this potentially means for other religious based organisations here in the ACT. These are all valid concerns, as I said, but the inquiry deserves to happen at the territory level, as it happens in the other states.

As for the opposition to be running this line that I am somehow against an inquiry! And after I wrote to the Chief Minister and to the health minister and put forward a motion to amend Senator Canavan's motion that would have had the President asking the ACT government to actually run an inquiry, which I believe is the fitting role of the Senate here.

The question remains, because that wasn't supported: does the opposition genuinely want an inquiry, or do you want seven months—which will be six months after this has taken place—to be able to run your agenda? Are we actually about outcomes here and ensuring that Canberrans are heard, or, now that's something has happened where you can see the wedge, are you going after it?

Canberrans, people in the ACT, fought long and hard, for 25 years, to overturn Commonwealth laws that constrained the territory. We're almost half a million people now. We are grown-up enough to legislate for ourselves, and, at the next territory election, people will be able to decide. My role as a federal representative is to advocate for the people of the ACT, not to reach into legislative assembly affairs and try and override things.

I would urge other senators in this place—there are so many issues that we have to deal with. There's no shortage of issues, and today we're spending this time and time voting on a motion seeking to reach into matters that sit firmly with the territory. I move:

That the motion be amended as follows:

Omit all words after 'That the Senate' and insert:

(a) reaffirms its commitment to territory rights, including upholding the rights of the people of the Australian Capital Territory to elect and hold to account a territory-level government;

(b) notes the concerns of some Canberrans expressed about the ACT Government's decision to compulsorily acquire Calvary Public Hospital, including the concerns of:

(i) certain stakeholders, that the Bill was not subject to consultation nor an inquiry process within the ACT Legislative Assembly;

(ii) parts of the ACT healthcare community about the impact it may have on the health workforce, including losses of staff from the ACT's hospital system; and

(iii) people of faith about the continuing role of religious institutions in delivering for-purpose services, including in the healthcare, aged care and education sectors.

(c) notes any inquiry into this matter is most appropriately initiated and facilitated at the territory-level.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to take the opportunity to congratulate you on not responding to any interjections from around the chamber. You were very orderly in your speech. Thank you very much, Senator Pocock.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to 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.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Colleagues, I think I should welcome to the Senate former senator Zed Seselja, who I see in the public gallery. His former colleagues may not have welcomed him, but I thought I should do it just in case he missed out! It's very nice to see you back here. I only ever see you in the night-time on television. It is good to see you are out and about during the day!

This, colleagues, is an issue—as all of us know—that is unique to the Australian Capital Territory. It arises from a decision of the Australian Capital Territory government and, of course, it is and should be a matter for the people of the Australian Capital Territory. The decision reflects the unique nature of the ACT's public hospital system, a small jurisdiction that only has two acute public hospitals. It would be highly unusual for the federal parliament or this Senate to launch an inquiry into a matter that entirely relates to a decision of a state or territory government.

Of course, under the National Health Reform Agreement, state and territory governments are wholly responsible for the operation and management of public hospitals within their jurisdiction. That responsibility includes decisions around using private or not-for-profit providers to operate public hospitals. Under the National Health Reform Agreement, the Commonwealth government pays its share of every bit of activity that happens in a public hospital. The Commonwealth government also pays for public patients being treated by private providers, such as the Calvary hospital.

But the government does not intervene in these sorts of decisions. The states and territories are the system managers of their public hospital systems, and that includes responsibility for the purchase and operation of public hospital sites. So this is entirely a matter for the state and territory governments. The National Health Reform Agreement recognises that state and territory governments are indeed the managers of their own public hospital systems. That's all I have for you.

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I realise this debate is limited in time, so I'm going to keep my remarks short so that my other colleagues who I know want to contribute to this debate have the time afforded to them as well. This is a very sad state of affairs, and I want to say in the very strongest possible terms that I am deeply concerned about and condemn the ACT government for this unprecedented move against Calvary hospital. I want to strongly express my dismay that the Prime Minister is not doing what he should be doing, and that is to stand up for this organisation and, indeed, for the community in making sure that the transfer of ownership of this hospital doesn't go ahead. It's very disappointing indeed.

Mr Barr's government is behaving like a Third-World dictatorship, frankly, in ramming a new law through the ACT parliament, because they forced their way, with no consultation. The Prime Minister said that he would lead for all Australians and work to unify Australia. Where is he? Where is the Prime Minister? The Prime Minister said: 'The ACT government are expanding their public hospital service delivery and restructuring healthcare provision as a result. It's not seen as providing any precedent by the ACT government and should not be seen by anyone else in that way.' How weak is that, frankly?

Let's be clear. This is a direct attack on the Catholic Church and its institutions. This is an attack on religious freedoms. This is an attack on people of faith. The message here is that, if you don't submit to their ideological left-wing governments, they will come after you and your freedoms. Archbishop Christopher Prowse was correct when he said:

I find myself wondering if I understand the purpose of government in Australia any longer. If the Catholic Church, despite long years of service, is a target for government takeover, who is safe from similar predations?

He's right. What is the purpose of government? I tell you that it is certainly not to make premeditated attacks on organisations that do good in our communities. This is an incredibly dangerous precedent that we're seeing here. I condemn the ACT government for this, and I strongly urge the Albanese government to step up, do what is right in this case and protect religious organisations such as this, which has been delivering wonderful services to Australians for 44 years. It has 76 years left on the lease that it currently has. That was, in fact, established by the Chief Minister at the time, Senator Gallagher. This is an outrageous attack.

This is an issue that has concerned Australians, not just those that reside here in the ACT but, indeed, people from all over Australia. I have received a countless number of emails from constituents in Western Australia who are very concerned about the precedent that this creates. I was going to read a few of the emails, but I am going to allow my colleagues to finish off this debate. This is a serious issue. It sets a dangerous precedent, and I urge the government to do something to remedy this situation and block it from happening.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a servant to the many different people who make up our wonderful Queensland community, I support this motion from Senator Cash, Senator Canavan and fellow senators to refer the takeover of Calvary hospital to a committee inquiry. This blatant attack on religion in health care has caused trouble for 'PAN AM'—or Canberra, as some still call it.

Legislation to seize the hospital from the Catholic Church has passed the Australian Capital Territory parliament—legislation developed over a long period of time, partly in secret. In fact, this is the second attempt ACT Health autocrats have made to force Calvary out of health care. The only God autocrats respect is the god of power—power used in pursuit of a genuinely evil agenda. The ACT has legislated abortion and euthanasia. The Catholic Church insists on putting humanity around those rules, which has inflamed ACT autocrats. Nobody is going to get in the way of the health autocrats' agenda to murder babies and murder our elderly—and now considering murdering children and the severely handicapped. As an aside, the right to die, as we are seeing in Europe, will become an obligation to die.

There are 14 Calvary hospitals in Australia delivering health services in a faith-based environment, healing of millions of Australians since their start in 1885. Churches around Australia provides hundreds of aged-care homes. Each of these must be looking over their shoulder at what Canberra Health autocrats are trying to do at Calvary.

My public address to a pro-life rally in Rockhampton two weeks ago and a subsequent video on this topic has been met with an interesting response from the Left—the control side of politics. I will address that now. The common reply, repeated verbatim from a legion of social media bots and mindless zombies, is this: there is no place for religion in health care. It seems to me that this is a most hypocritical statement. When religious groups protested drag queens exposing themselves and reading adult sex stories to kids in libraries in 'drag queen story time', religious groups were told, "If you don't like it, don't go." Well, let me direct your argument right back at you: if you don't want religion in your health care, don't go to a Christian managed hospital. While we are at it, if you don't like religion in aged care, go to another aged-care facility and, if you don't like religion in education, don't send your kids to a religious school.

See how it works? It's freedom of choice. That's what is irking the Canberra bureaucrats—freedom. We know how much autocrats have embraced utilitarian agendas and how COVID has normalised such behaviour. Clearly, these health bureaucrats have no intention of surrendering powers obtained dishonestly. I imagine they can't wait to tear that cross off the front of the Calvary hospital. Calvary hospitals have treated millions of Australians who are happy to be treated in a religious hospital. Federal parliament has precedence over ACT law. This matter is rightly within the Senate's purview, and I am strongly in support of Senator Cash and Senator Canavan's motion.

This is partly about property rights and partly about freedom of choice. Property rights are fundamental to human progress, fundamental to innovation, fundamental to freedom and fundamental to responsibility. Federal Labor, in this term of government, has nationalised the gas industry. The federal Liberal and National parties stole farmers' property rights in the Howard-Anderson Liberal and National government. Now the ACT wants to steal churches' property rights and nationalise religious values.

We need a Senate inquiry. The federal Constitution has powers to deal with religion. My message to Canberra health autocrats is simple: God decides who lives and dies, not you.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

AN () (): It's a great privilege to speak on this motion, and I do so as someone who proudly lived in Canberra for around five to six years. My wife and I had three kids here. We bought our first home here. It's a lovely town, and we thoroughly enjoyed our time here.

One of the things that was great about living here around 15 to 20 years ago were the world-class health services that were on offer here in the ACT. Obviously the ACT, being a relatively small and self-contained jurisdiction, doesn't face the same challenges as other jurisdictions in providing health services over vast landscapes, but the ACT government did a good job of providing health services. We had a child at the Calvary hospital, two others at Canberra Hospital—all fantastic, all great. I particularly want to take this opportunity to thank the nurses and doctors and midwives at the Calvary hospital, run by Little Company of Mary. They provided a really dedicated service. You could tell it was run by a faith based or community based organisation. They took a lot of pride in their local hospital and the services that they provided, so it has been disappointing, on a personal level, to see how the Little Company of Mary has been treated—and, by extension, the 1,800 dedicated people in the health workforce at the Calvary hospital that's just a skip, a hop and a jump from where we are today.

As I said, I haven't lived here for 15 years. Although sometimes it still feels like I do at different times, without kids and family being here I'm not as connected to the situation of the health services here today. I do still know a lot of people who live here, a lot of families and friends, and it has been sad to hear from them about how far health services in the ACT have fallen over the past 10 or 15 years. You only have to read the Canberra Times from time to time and you can see the crisis that is going on in the obstetrics ward at the Canberra Hospital and the issues with the emergency overflow ward that's been built and has not ever been used. It's really being mismanaged down there at the Canberra Hospital. There are a lot of issues.

I recognise that the ACT, while being a small jurisdiction, now has to cope with the growing populations of Jerrabomberra and Queanbeyan—they often come in to use the services of a different jurisdiction. And while that creates pressures and difficulties, something is going wrong with the management of the health system in the ACT. I don't see how this quite shocking, rushed decision on the Calvary hospital will in any way help deal with those serious issues which are affecting local Canberrans today.

It's very important to make sure everyone understands what happened here over the past few weeks. It is shocking to see a government come in and use its quite draconian compulsory acquisition powers to take assets off private entities, and the way this has been done and the haste which it has been pursued gives rise to serious questions about what the hell is going on here? It was only a couple of weeks ago that the ACT pushed—or rushed—this legislation through the Legislative Assembly. There was no inquiry into it. There was only a day or so of sittings to consider the legislation. And not only that, but the proposal—let's wait to see if they actually do it—is they will march into the Calvary hospital on 5 July, within five weeks of the legislation passing, and take over the whole hospital. They'll set up a whole new payroll for 1,800 workers.

And what about the workers there? There has not been any mention of this from the other side, which is apparently the party who represents nurses and unions and the health sector. Not a word from them about how the workers have been treated. A lot of those workers have chosen to work for Little Company of Mary rather than a big bureaucracy. We all love and want to work for different people, but some people don't like working for a big government bureaucracy. There are certain cultural and other issues that go with having to work for a government bureaucracy, so some of those workers made the choice to work at a smaller organisation at Belconnen. Their lives have been thrown into disarray by this decision, and so now they have to make a choice within weeks on whether to take a redundancy or continue in the job that they love in caring for people in their community. It's just shocking that people have been treated like this for no good reason. There haven't been any good reasons given about why this has to be done within five weeks. They want to do it now. They could have had a one-year or two-year transition plan and had some consultation sessions with the doctors and nurses to find out what they wanted to do.

The advice I've been given is every one of those 1,800 workers currently at Calvary now has the option to take a redundancy. You would imagine that, like in all redundancy processes, there will be a significant number of those 1,800 who will take the money. They'll take the redundancy. Some might be getting towards the end of their career. Some might not, as I say, want to transfer to work for a government. They'll go. They'll take the money and run. Where does that leave the people of Canberra? How are they going to be served by proper and adequate health services if hundreds of qualified nurses and doctors suddenly leave the health system?

I don't know if the ACT government is living on a different planet, but all of us right around the country, not just in Canberra, can see the massive pressures that are on our health system and services at the moment. There is not a surplus of qualified health workers sitting and waiting, lining up to take vacant positions in a hospital anywhere in the country, let alone here in the ACT, which always has low unemployment and pretty tight labour markets. So how are they going to replace these people if a few hundred leave? Apparently the ACT government are hoping—hoping—that 85 per cent of people don't leave. Even then you're still talking about a couple of hundred vacant positions, so that figure seems optimistic. Who is going to replace these people? How are Canberra people going to continue to have adequate health services if the ACT government fails here?

As has been discussed by other colleagues, the Little Company of Mary had an 88-year contract to provide services at Calvary hospital. There are still 76 years of that contract to run. That contract was actually signed by this ACT government. It wasn't Kate Carnell. It wasn't a former Liberal government that signed that agreement. It was signed by the Labor-Greens government that's still in power. It was signed, in fact, by the now finance minister, Senator Gallagher. In good faith, the Little Company of Mary signed that agreement for 88 years, and, 12-odd years into it, it has been ripped up—ripped up with five weeks notice. Is that any way to treat a partner, a long-term partner, that has existed in the ACT and done a very good job in the ACT for almost 50 years? Is that any way to treat someone like that? It's just abominable behaviour.

When we come back to this question of compulsory acquisition, yes, the ACT government have this power, which is delegated to them by the Commonwealth government and effectively replicates provisions and powers we have under the Constitution. But these kinds of draconian powers must be used very carefully and very rarely, in extraordinary circumstances. The powers are there; we know that. The powers are there. But, if they're abused, that will destroy the social contract and trust we have with the community and the people. Even our own Constitution recognises this, obviously, at a high level, when it says that acquisition of property must be 'on just terms'—on just terms. The ACT (Self-Government) Act says the same thing in section 23. It replicates those provisions. The ACT government can acquire property, but it has to be 'on just terms'.

There are serious questions about whether or not the ACT government is acquiring these assets on just terms, when it is doing so in such a hasty fashion, when it has given 1,800 workers just five weeks notice for whether to take a redundancy or not and when it is doing so in a way that provides no opportunity for the local Canberra community to have their say, to contribute to an inquiry and to put a spotlight on why and how this decision has been made. I should say the Little Company of Mary have not even been given a price. They don't know yet how much they're going to be paid. Apparently there will be some amount worked out. There will have to be, given the legal obligations of the ACT government. But that hasn't even been decided yet. How is that at all on just terms?

This parliament delegated that power to the ACT parliament. They are a unicameral parliament. They do not have an upper house like the federal parliament. They are subject to the constitutional provisions that flow through that ACT (Self-Government) Act. I do think it's incumbent on us, given that we have delegated those powers to the ACT, to ensure that they have been properly applied and not abused, because this is a great power. It is a very, very significant power for any government to be able to step in and take away someone's assets, take away someone's business. It's an extremely grave power. And with that great power comes the great responsibility to use it prudently, diligently and carefully. We should play a role, as parliamentarians, to make sure that representative governments are held to account, to their own people, in using such great powers.

That is why I proposed a Senate committee inquiry and why I think the 1,800 workers at Calvary Public Hospital and the 350,000-odd Canberrans who live here and rely on those health services deserve to have their say through an inquiry into such an extraordinary intervention by the ACT government. Unfortunately, that inquiry did not get up today. I've got great respect for Senator Pocock, who seems like a good guy, but he's been pretty soft here, not to be able to give his own local constituents a platform and a voice that they've been denied by their own territory government.

There was no way that our Senate inquiry could stop the ACT government. It couldn't. There has been a total mischaracterisation by people who don't want an inquiry, to somehow suggest an inquiry would stop this or take away their powers. We can't do that, obviously, as senators. We can't even do that through legislation of our own—obviously, the House has to do it as well. All an inquiry would do would give Canberrans a chance to make a submission and to appear before an inquiry. It would give the nurses and doctors a chance to have their voices heard. Obviously, the ACT government doesn't want this. They don't want an inquiry. They don't want to feel uncomfortable by having direct criticism of their decisions. But I think democratically elected politicians should be made to feel uncomfortable sometimes. That's how our system should work. They shouldn't get an easy ride when they make decisions of this gravity. They should have to face up to the furnace of a public inquiry examination of their decisions, which is not happening here.

Senator Pocock tried to rescind my motion, tried to move an amendment to get rid of any inquiry and, instead, request that the President of the Senate write a letter to the ACT government relaying the local Canberrans' concerns. Senator Pocock, that's the equivalent of playing touch footy, not rugby. Sending a letter is a soft touch. It's the softest thing you can do. If you've got a constituent and you don't know what you're doing, you send a letter. You're not doing much at all, whereas having an inquiry would put a blowtorch onto the Barr government and the decisions and roles that the bureaucrats have played here in Canberra. That's taking real action for your constituents. Some other constituents might be unhappy about that, but at least it's giving them a voice. It doesn't necessarily mean you have to support a particular option, but you're helping them have their say through a democratic process.

It's very unfortunate that we have resolved, as a Senate, not to help and assist Canberrans, not to ensure that decisions made by democratic parliaments are properly scrutinised. I'll see what I can do next week, while we're here, to continue to hold this decision to account, because it is concerning, not just to Canberrans but to everyone around the country. As I say, we have great power as elected governments to compulsorily acquire assets from time to time, but we must ensure that those powers are used properly and prudently, and that has clearly not happened in this case, so we've got to take action here. Otherwise, if nothing happens here and we're a soft touch in this decision, it'll be a big green light to other governments that might think they can bully businesses and local community groups to get their way. I would hate to see our country go down that path. What's happened here in the ACT is regrettable. We could play a small role in helping to fix that and give local Canberrans a voice. It's very disappointing that we haven't chosen to do that in the Senate here today.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in relation to this matter to support the comments of my colleague Senator Caravan. I listened very carefully to Senator Pocock's remarks. I understand and empathise with his desire, that this is a matter which should properly fall within the province of the ACT government. But I would say to him—through you, Madam Acting Deputy President—have a look at how the ACT government has dealt with this matter. When this legislation was first reported upon, I went and read the legislation. I haven't seen anything like this anywhere in Australia. It is extraordinary. The fact that this legislation would be introduced and passed without an inquiry within the ACT parliament and inadequate consultation with the faith based institution is just extraordinary. Senator Canavan has talked about the impact on employees being forced into this terrible situation. The compensation is to be worked out sometime in the future under regulations. It's just extraordinary.

Through you, Madam Acting Deputy President, I say to Senator Pocock: I have seen nothing like this. Our offices across Australia are being inundated with concerns about this. Many people involved in faith based institutions, be they hospitals or schools, are concerned this will happen to their institutions. This has caused a lot of concern across the whole of Australia. Across state and territory borders, there's a lot of concern. I personally have a deep concern as to whether or not the ACT government would do this if it weren't a faith based institution and whether or not they think a faith based institution is an institution that can be subject to this sort of predatory behaviour, as it was described by Senator Ruston. That causes me deep concern. Religious based institutions have been providing health care and education services for centuries. In many cases they were the only provider of those services for centuries. And here we have the ACT government adopting such a belligerent approach. It is absolutely extraordinary.

I have read Senator Pocock's amendment. I would say to Senator Pocock—through you, Madam Acting Deputy President—they had no desire to have an inquiry at all. Perhaps there would have been a way through this if they'd said, 'Let's give them the opportunity to have their own inquiry first before we act.' Perhaps that would have been a pathway forward. But they have absolutely no desire whatsoever to have any inquiry. The end result of that will be, if the ACT doesn't determine to have its own inquiry, that the people of the ACT will be left with no inquiry at all. The fallback option, because the ACT assembly doesn't have an upper house, is this Senate. I would have been reasonably satisfied if it were a fallback option, if there weren't an inquiry in the ACT where all the parliamentarians of all the parties within the ACT had conducted their own inquiry and all Canberrans had the right to have input with respect to a public inquiry. But they have been denied that opportunity. So, unless there is an inquiry here, there will be an inquiry nowhere. That is the issue.

I come back to the point that to have passed this legislation the way it was passed and for it to be put into effect on such short notice is just extraordinary. There was no consultation with those employees. They were given five weeks notice to determine whether or not they wanted to take redundancy or continue within the organisation. I have no idea as to whether or not the ACT government has really thought through all of the different issues arising from such a complicated compulsory acquisition of this nature—that is, acquiring a hospital. You have the physical assets. You have all of the contracts and relationships between contractors and the hospital and between patients and the hospital. There's staff. This is extraordinarily complicated. There are the privacy issues. It is just extraordinary. I genuinely find it nearly impossible to fathom that a government of any state or territory would go down this path. I find it absolutely nearly impossible to fathom. I think there should be an inquiry somewhere. There needs to be an inquiry somewhere. The reality is, if it's not in this place, there won't be one. If the ACT government—and maybe Senator Pocock can continue his discussions with them—refuse to have an inquiry, given an opportunity, then I think Canberrans deserve to participate in an inquiry somewhere else. If the ACT isn't prepared to do it, I think this Senate should be used as the vehicle to deliver it.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to also share my deep concerns about the decision of the ACT government regarding Calvary Hospital, which is callous and reckless to the extreme. It is astonishing to me, when reading the legislation, that the ACT government has the power to bring in the police if the transition is not made in an orderly way as it requires under the legislation. This is appalling for this wonderful institution, which has served the people of Canberra and the ACT so well for such a long period of time. And Senator Pocock, I too want to express my disappointment that you did not support an inquiry. Senator Canavan put forward a very important motion in the Senate today to support an inquiry into this shocking attack on Calvary Hospital, and it is incredibly disappointing that you weren't able to stand up for the people you represent and allow a light to be shone on what is happening here, allow the appropriate transparency. No matter whether you agree or disagree with this decision, surely it would have been appropriate to give your constituents the opportunity to understand with a sufficient degree of detail and to scrutinise this terrible, terrible decision.

And I have to say, as shadow minister for education, that I am deeply concerned that this may lead to further attacks on schools of faith. We know that the Albanese government, after announcing an inquiry into religious educational institutions and antidiscrimination laws, has, in concert with the ALRC, put out a consultation paper, which has attracted scathing criticism from legal experts and religious schools, who have expressed serious concerns about the proposed restrictions on freedom of religion. Look what's happened in Victoria. The Andrews government has attacked independent schools by providing, in its latest budget, that they will no longer be exempt from paying payroll tax—which of course also constitutes a terrible attack on schools of faith.

So, I say: shame on the ACT government; shame on those senators who are not standing up to the ACT government. This is a shocking abuse of a public hospital in the ACT, the best-performing hospital in the ACT, which had some 76 years left to run on its lease. How arrogant of Mr Barr, who said, 'You've got 76 years to go, but we'll let you stay for 25 years.' And of course now the death knell has sounded on this hospital.

We proposed today to attach scrutiny to this decision, to hold the government to account, and it is incredibly disappointing that this proposal for an inquiry did not succeed. There is no doubt that this is an attack on religious institutions. I very much doubt that the ACT government would have taken these steps if Calvary was not a hospital underpinned by strong religious convictions and faith. This sets a very dangerous precedent, and it is no wonder schools are worried. It is no wonder other faith based hospitals are worried. It is no wonder other faith based institutions, no matter the religion, are worried. This sets a very dangerous precedent, and I condemn this decision in the strongest possible terms.

Penny Allman-Payne (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for debate has expired.

Jana Stewart (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to have item No. 23 on page 14 under reports remain on the Notice Paper.

Leave granted.