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

We have seen unprecedented use of onerous government powers here in the ACT over the past few months. We're very lucky to live in a nation where governments have typically judiciously used the enormous powers that are gifted to them in our Constitution. Most Australian governments have not sought to simply appropriate people's private assets without due process, without due warning and without due consultation. I think this is perhaps the first and most egregious case in our nation's history where an elected so-called democratic government has, within a matter of weeks, done an almost midnight raid. They walked into a business, walked into a Canberra institution—the Calvary hospital—and said: 'Hey, it's a nice business you have here, guys, but we're just going to take it over.' That's exactly what happened here in the ACT a couple of months ago.

In early May the ACT government demanded a meeting with the Calvary hospital executives. At that meeting they were handed a letter from the Chief Minister of the ACT which said: 'We are going to take over your business, take over your buildings and rescind the contract we have with you that has 76 years left. We're going to take that over with six weeks notice.' Just six weeks notice was given to the Calvary public hospital, despite the fact that they had been a valued partner in the ACT providing health services for more than 50 years. This behaviour, this conduct, deserves to be called out. It deserves to be called out so that we don't see it repeated in this country.

The Senate finally had a committee hearing on the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Amendment Bill 2023 a few weeks ago. The Catholic archdiocese here gave evidence that this was the first time in our nation's history that an institution of the Catholic Church had been taken over in a compulsory fashion. Catholicism has sometimes struggled in this country. It has had some degree of opprobrium associated with it at different times, but apparently never has a government gone in and just taken over the assets of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church runs lot of different things in this country, especially in the health and education spaces, and this was the first time a government did this.

This was a shock to the ACT people. As I said, Calvary has been a valued partner of the ACT for more than 50 years. I myself lived in Canberra. It was a great place to have kids. We had three children, one of whom was born in the Calvary hospital. I think I speak for anybody who has lived in Canberra or still lives in Canberra when I say that the services of the Calvary hospital have been greatly valued by the ACT people. So, whatever the ACT government wanted to do with public hospital services here in the ACT, this was no way to treat someone in your community. The Calvary public hospital was a valued someone in the ACT community, and it was completely beyond the pale for an elected government to march in and use these most severe of government powers to just kick them out with not even a thankyou note: 'Thank you for your service. You're gone.'

Keep in mind that today we're about four or five months on from this saga, and we still don't know—more importantly, the Calvary public hospital don't know—how much the ACT government is going to pay them for this. They've taken over the assets. They took them over on 3 July. They marched in and took the crucifix down off the Calvary public hospital. It was the first thing they did, I think. They still haven't been given a final figure. How can this be in any way just? How can this be in any way on the just terms that the ACT government has to operate under when it acquires property, which this parliament has enforced through the ACT (Self-Government) Act?

Before I get more onto some of the specifics, I do want to stress that this private senator's bill simply requires the ACT government to have a review. I recognise that the ACT government is a democratically elected government. They've got an election next year, and the timing of that election might have something to do with how hastily they have done this, but eventually the Canberra people will have their say on the behaviour of their own government. But I do think they also deserve to have their say while their government is in power, and all this bill would require would be for the ACT government to have a review to give the people of Canberra their say and give the people of Canberra an opportunity to put forward the luminous concerns we received through our committee process to their elected representatives.

As I've progressed this debate, I've noticed that the ACT government seems to be confused about the concept of territory rights. The ACT Labor-Greens government seems to think that territory rights are to protect the politicians, not the people, and that somehow territory rights are there to protect the rights of those who are lucky enough to have well-paid positions in the ACT Legislative Assembly, not to protect the rights of the Canberra people. Well, I fundamentally reject that. The rights of the ACT and other territories are in fact there to protect the people of that jurisdiction. The people of that jurisdiction deserve not to have the untrammelled power of government imposed on them in this fashion. So I think it is perfectly reasonable to request the ACT government to conduct a review here.

I particularly reject some of the hypocritical squealing we've heard from other senators in this place about this issue. I've seen Greens senators pop up. Suddenly, the Greens are wonderful defenders of territory rights—and, presumably, state rights too. They've got a bill in this place at the moment that wants to stop the Beetaloo basin project. The Northern Territory government has been democratically elected to develop the Beetaloo basin. It was their policy platform. They want to do that. They want to build this thing called Middle Arm, and the Greens here want to come in and stop it. Okay, fine—but don't come back into this place and somehow say that you support territory rights when you actually have a bill to stop people from totally doing something. My bill doesn't do that. My bill doesn't stop the ACT government from deciding how it provides public hospital services. It simply would give the Canberra people a say, and I think that's perfectly reasonable.

The people who should be at the front of the line to have that say, if this review were to occur, are the 1,800 health workers, nurses and doctors who have had their lives turned upside down by a so-called Labor government here in the ACT. So not only do the people of Canberra just get six weeks notice on what would happen to their public hospital services but, more to the point, those 1,800 workers had just six weeks notice that their lives would be turned upside down.

This is a Labor government and I thought the Labor Party cared about nurses and doctors. I would love to hear from the Labor senators who respond to me what they think about the treatment of nurses and doctors in this fashion. Many of those nurses and doctors decided to work at Calvary here in the ACT because they didn't want to work for a government; they didn't want to work for a big bureaucracy. There is a whole lot of other issues that seem to be going on at the Canberra Hospital that is run by the ACT government and some people chose that, no, they would prefer to work for a charitable not-for-profit company. Some workers would also be of faith as well, whether it is Catholic or other faiths. We heard evidence from people who were of different religious faiths who felt valued within the Calvary hospital organisation and that is why they chose to work there at Bruce in Canberra. But they had their lives turned upside down with six weeks notice—no consultation, no discussion, no, 'Here, we're thinking about this option. What do you think? How do we make this easier for you?' No, just straight in.

Much worse was revealed in our committee. While the ACT government gave just six weeks notice and rushed through the legislation in the Legislative Assembly, there were obviously a lot of details to be worked out when seeking to take over someone's assets within such a short frame of time. In evidence to this committee, Calvary were not given assurances that, if they were to offer redundancies to their workforce, they would be compensated for those redundancies. Would the ACT government underwrite those redundancies? They were given no such guarantees for much of that six-week period. In fact, it was not until, I think, Thursday 30 June, the Thursday of that week, that they were given the assurance that the ACT government would underwrite the redundancies. It was only on that day that Calvary could provide formal redundancy offers to the 1,800 workers.

The takeover was on the Sunday and, thanks to the ACT government's behaviour, they were only able to give three days notice.

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

It was only one working day.

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

As a Senator Scarr has pointed out, it was really only one working day's notice to 1,800 workers to make a grave decision about their future. I was flabbergasted that a Labor government would treat health workers in such a clearly cynical fashion. Because, clearly, the agenda was to limit the number of people who would take redundancies so there wasn't too much of a disruption to ACT health services, so, cynically, the ACT government made it very, very difficult for health workers in this territory to take up their industrial labour rights. The Labor Party are stopping workers here using their industrial labour rights to choose a redundancy in a situation where they were no longer employed by that employer. That is what has happened.

I need to also comment on the clandestine way that the ACT government has conducted this in the last 12 months. After the meeting I mentioned that I had with Calvary, a couple of days later—within days—the ACT government had a full bit of legislation ready to go to take over the hospital. The history was that, about a year before that, the ACT government had started negotiations with Calvary Hospital on the construction of a new hospital, a northside hospital, which was a promise to the Canberra people for some time but hadn't been done. They were negotiating that situation. Calvary had been provided an offer to buy the hospital, rip up the contract et cetera. Calvary wrote back to the ACT government saying, 'Hey, that is a bit too much land than we would like.' Sorry, they weren't ripping up the contract; the offer was for a 25-year contract, not the 76 years left. Calvary said, 'No, we really want to do the 76 years.' They wrote back to them in November last year and didn't hear back. They got a recognition letter in January saying, 'We note your correspondence,' but nothing again until May this year, when a whole bunch of legislation, this big hammer, taking over their property was lobbed on them. Clearly the ACT government had been working on that behind the scenes while they were otherwise trying to say they were negotiating in good faith with Calvary. Again, the conduct of the ACT government here is beyond the pale. I've never seen a government in this country act like this, and hopefully we'll never see it again.

We asked at the Senate inquiry, 'When did you start drafting this legislation?' At the time, at that hearing, the ACT health minister originally said it was April and then came back and corrected the record and said it was March. Well, I was a bit surprised to read this week in the Canberra Times that new freedom of information documents show:

The ACT's cabinet signed off on the start of work to draft a law to compulsorily acquire Calvary Public Hospital Bruce a year before announcing the takeover.

So I think there's a question to be asked of the Senate here. The ACT health minister came here almost under duress. We had to go through the Senate to get this done—and I thank her for coming along. But it's a very serious matter to mislead the Senate, and it would appear to me—on the surface, at least—that there is a question to be asked about why the ACT health minister told the committee that the drafting of the law started in March, when freedom of information documents show it had been done earlier. In fact, apparently in those documents Ms Stephen-Smith had commented, in the feedback provided on the drafting notes: 'The point of getting the policy approval for legislative drafting was to commence drafting now, not wait and see. I'm keen to get an early look at what a bill might look like.' That's apparently what she said in these documents. So there are a lot of questions there.

The Canberra people have a lot of questions. Since I've taken up this fight, as a former resident of the ACT, I have been stopped in the street here in Canberra by many people aghast at how their own government has treated, as I said, a valued partner of this community—whatever your thoughts are on how public hospital services should be run. I think this community, Canberra, is a really friendly place. When I lived here it was a good-sized country town, and there were institutions here, like Calvary, that were the glue that held the place together. To treat someone like that is not consistent, I think, with the good nature of the Canberra people. I really do think that it is worth us making these points in the Senate. It is worth us holding up the principle of the rule of law and it is worth us at least helping the Canberra people have their say about this abuse of law.

Linda White (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Amendment Bill 2023. This is a piece of legislation which would require the ACT government to hold an inquiry into its own legislation, the Health Infrastructure Enabling Act 2023, which took effect on 3 July. There are a number of reasons why I've chosen to make a contribution to this debate today. Firstly, no doubt like many senators here, I have received a lot of correspondence from members of the public about this issue. At last count, I had received 1,300 emails. Some emails have been from the ACT; however, the vast majority of the contact I've received has been from other parts of Australia. I want to take this opportunity to address the points raised with me through my inbox.

Secondly, I think it's important to call out this bill and the committee process that surrounded it for what it is: a political stunt for the Nationals to dog whistle and whip up debates which highlight alleged religious divisions. Similarly, the Greens' choice to support a committee inquiry into a decision taken by their territory government counterparts when their ultimate position is now to oppose the passage of the bill not only made the inquiry a waste of the Senate's time and resources but revealed the Greens' support for what it was: a cheap political stunt designed to cause pain for ACT Labor members in this parliament and the territory legislature.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There's a point of order, Senator White.

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

I have great respect for Senator White, but she is making general statements which are impugning the motives of many, many senators in this place, including members of the Greens; my friend Senator Canavan, who was the mover of this private member's bill; and members on this side. I would ask that she withdraw.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator White, Senator Scarr has a point. I allowed you to go, but you were being critical of decisions of the Senate. The Senate makes its own decisions in a democratic way, so I'd ask you to be measured with your comments.

Linda White (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will measure my comments. Nevertheless, the politics aside, I want to set out why I think the bill is a bad idea. It's a matter of principle that this parliament and this Senate do not interfere in the self-government of the ACT and the Northern Territory or undermine the independence of those legislatures. The ACT was granted self-government in 1988. It is my view that from that point on it became inappropriate for the Commonwealth to cherry-pick issues that the elected parliament in the ACT could legislate on. Once the power to make its own decisions was handed out and the people of the ACT got responsibility and elected a government to represent them, the Commonwealth, out of principle, should no longer restrict it.

We saw the same principle applied last year with the debate on Restoring Territory Rights Bill. The parliament agreed, with the support of many coalition members and senators, that restricting the power of territory legislatures to make decisions about themselves for themselves was wrong. The debate found that restricting the rights of the territories to actually govern themselves through the prism of single issues was not right. Yet, with this bill, we are making the same mistake again by seeking to overturn the recently expressed will of this Senate that using a hot-button issue to justify interfering in the self-government and democratic processes of an entire Australian jurisdiction is just not right. The position taken with this bill is unprincipled, and I feel it is disingenuous.

The fact is that the ACT has an elected government and a well-equipped parliament, and interfering with it would be legally strange. The view was echoed by the ACT solicitor-general in his submission to the inquiry to the bill:

It would be unprecedented for one legislature to seek to direct the executive of another government to undertake an executive action … which really flies in the face of basic principles of our system of government. One jurisdiction should not be in a position to dictate what another self-governing jurisdiction does in such a fashion.

From those comments, it's clear that whichever organisation runs the Calvary hospital is a matter for the ACT people, enacted through a majority of elected members of the ACT parliament which makes up their executive. Reviewing that decision through an inquiry is not a matter for the Commonwealth government or the Senate. It was an executive decision for the ACT. Australians, acting through their local parliaments, deserve the same equal rights to legal self-determination and should not be stood over by this chamber or the Commonwealth government. This sentiment was well expressed in the ACT government's submission to the inquiry when it outlined:

… the majority of elected members of the ACT Legislative Assembly have so far concluded that they do not want and did not seek to create—

an inquiry into the decision—

The Self-Government Amendment Bill ignores existing mechanisms for deliberation, accountability, transparency and debate that have operated as intended. It instead attempts to interfere in the ACT's self-government and to impose a poorly defined requirement that undermines the Assembly's decisions on when and how to consider, scrutinise and pass legislation and is, on its terms, inconsistent with the principles of responsible government.

To me, that summary says it all. We should keep out of decisions which do not concern us.

Putting this matter of principle to one side, the second reason I wanted to speak on this debate today was to unpack what I see it as the merits of the ACT decision over Calvary hospital. From my point of view, the move to publicly insource the hospital sounds like a good idea. If you're going to spend millions of dollars over decades to publicly fund an entire hospital and its redevelopment, it makes sense that the territory government would also like to own it. The decision of the ACT government, contrary to a lot of letters I've received about this issue, was not a takeover. The former Calvary public hospital was a public hospital, publicly funded by the ACT government. All the buildings at the site were paid for by either the ACT government or the Commonwealth government.

As Calvary public hospital was funded by the government in order to provide a service, it was well within the power of the ACT government to terminate its contract of service with the contractors who formerly ran Calvary. What's more, it's not as though the decision came out of the blue. There's been significant consultation over this decision for some time. In fact, there have been two stages of public consultation over the proposal to in-house North Canberra Hospital, and a two-year negotiation process which, by all accounts, did not happen in good faith from the side of the hospital administrators. Throughout the negotiation process, the ACT government made it clear that, as a last result, it would consider legislating to acquire the land if necessary, and after two years of Calvary not coming to the party, it made a decision that the long-term best interests of Canberra were served by publicly owning and operating a hospital which was collectively funded by the people of the ACT. The transition of the hospital staff and administration of the ACT government occurred on 4 July this year. Given this extensive consultation and negotiation process and the fact that the transition has already happened, the substance of this bill is actually redundant. Forcing the ACT government to hold an inquiry into a decision that was two years in the making and has already happened, in my view, is ridiculous. I think Senator Canavan knows this and he is properly just as surprised as anyone that he even got an inquiry into this legislation in the first place. Sadly, though, as I mentioned earlier, I think this has been an attempt to whip up fear about religious freedom.

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

I rise on a point of order. I respect her right to make general arguments, but she referred to Senator Canavan introducing the bill and now she's talking about Senator Canavan whipping up fear through the presentation of the bill. That's the only way to interpret Senator White's comments.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator White, I just ask you to withdraw that for the benefit of the chamber.

Linda White (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sure. I'm happy to withdraw that. To me, the debate hinges on a few things—firstly, on a matter of principle. This bill sits badly with me. The Senate and the federal parliament should not seek to interfere or meddle in the decisions made by other democratically elected governments. This principle has been developed over a long time, and it was again confirmed with the passage of the Restoring Territory Rights Bill last year, which saw the principle of territory self-government reinforced by the federal parliament. From a technical legal angle, the evidence given by the ACT Solicitor-General to the inquiry that it would be legally unprecedented for one government to direct the executive actions of another government also confirms my view that this bill is a bad idea.

From a policy point of view, I also happen to think that it's fair and reasonable for the ACT government to own the land and hospital buildings that are entirely funded by the people of the ACT. If you're spending billions of dollars over decades on a public hospital, it makes sense you would want to own it.

Finally, while I take the criticism in relation to motivation, the people that wrote to me by e-mail definitely called out this reason. They said this was motivated by a view to limit religious freedom. They didn't talk about ACT rights or territory rights. What they said was totally homing in on religious freedom. I have no objection, and nor should any of us, to the rights of Catholic Australians to practise their religion or publicly put their views on issues in this way, but in no way should it undermine the public ownership of North Canberra Hospital.

The ACT government's decision is not part of a wider plot to undermine religious freedom in Australia. It was a government decision which would have been taken had the administrators of the hospital been based in faith or not. On that basis, I'm glad that the government will not be supporting the passage of this bill.

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

I want to say right at the outset that the Greens completely oppose the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Amendment Bill 2023. We completely oppose the bill debated today by Senator Canavan and find it to be quite a ludicrous proposition. Now, during the course of this debate there have been comparisons made between the Greens position opposing this bill and our current oppositional position in relation to the development of the Beetaloo gas basin and our support for inquiries into that project. Let me make very clear the distinction which we draw between an issue such as the ACT government making decisions in the best interests of its community in the commission of its public health service and the Beetaloo basin. One proposition is in the public good, the other proposition is demonstrably against the public good.

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

So you decide? The NT people don't get to decide, you decide?

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

That's the test, Jordon?

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

This is stunning! We have interjections from Liberal and National senators in this place, outraged that a political party would use its judgement as to what is and isn't in the public good! If they would like to rise during the course of this debate and make the argument that the development of the Beetaloo basin is in the public good, well, they're more than welcome to do so. But they cannot, because there is no evidence to support that proposition. The only people who would make that argument are coal-powered goons bought and paid for by the gas and coal industries. If anyone would like to rise and identify themselves as such, I will most certainly give them leave to do so.

Let's get to the substance of what is actually happening here, because I'm not going to go into the space of trying to sink myself into the minds of the people who put this piece of legislation together and whether or not they were seeking to incite some kind of fear campaign in their community based upon religion or any other attribute of a community member. What I do feel that I'm safe to say is that the motivation behind the putting together of this piece of legislation was, quite clearly, an attempt by the Liberal Party in this place to fill the howling void where an actual agenda of reform and positive change for the ACT should be when it comes to the ACT Liberal Party—a hollow, moribund organisation which has consistently failed to win the support of the territory and which has been told consistently at the ballot box, time and time again, that it does not have the community's support.

So the ACT Liberal Party, working together with their mates in here, are trying to make this into an issue. They tried to run this campaign to try to give them something to talk about. It was absolutely nonsense! I'm proud to be here as a member of a party that is willing to call it out, and I will attempt to drag this conversation back to the substance of what is actually occurring in the ACT. What is occurring in the ACT is that the Greens-Labor government of that territory, elected at a previous election, is seeking to build a public health system that works for the community—a public health system that delivers what the community needs. It is totally right and reasonable, given that the ACT government is looking to continue to spend a significant amount of public funds in building their health service, that they would want to own the infrastructure of that health service.

It is within the right and power of any executive government in Australia to cancel a contract with a private organisation. That is a standard established process, and if members in this place want to complain about that then they also open up a conversation for themselves about the right of executive government to do things like seize farmlands when farmers want to deny entry and operation of gas operations across Australia. Yet I don't hear LNP members of this place making the argument that companies should be prevented from doing that or, indeed, that governments should be prevented from backing them up in that action. In fact, what we've seen in this place is the LNP coming into these chambers and repeatedly arguing for the right of state and federal governments to override the wishes of farmers and First Nations communities when it comes to the exploration and extraction of gas, nuclear materials or other products on their lands. That's what we actually see, time and time again, in this chamber.

Again, I want to emphasise that the Greens want to support the decision that has been made by the ACT government, composed as it is of members of the Greens and of the Labor Party, and we support them in their broader push to build a connected, integrated and effective public health system. I celebrate them for the work they have done in building that system. We are sitting in the territory which has one of the highest rates of COVID-19 vaccination in the world. It was 98 per cent the last time I checked. That is an incredible achievement. It was a product of good deep work between different ministers within the government and community members. They were able to do that because of the way they work their public health system. After that demonstration of success I'm really excited to see what the future of an integrated, effective and efficient public health system in Canberra and the entire territory is, because they've demonstrated that they are very good at doing their job.

Finally I want to tackle the question of whether it is ever appropriate for one legislature to inquire into or to draft legislation in relation to the actions of another legislature. There have been various contributions on that topic of principle during this debate. My view on this is really simple. There are circumstances in which it is reasonable for a legislature to put forward a piece of legislation or to inquire into the activities of another legislature. They are, firstly, when it can be demonstrated a systemic failure by that legislature is impacting the members of the community served by that legislature who are also represented in the relevant chamber or the executive position of power and, secondly, when it can be demonstrated that there has been a systemic attempt to cover up said failure by a legislature or executive body. In those circumstances it is appropriate for a legislature, within the bounds of the Constitution, to draft and pass legislation in relation to that legislature. Those thresholds have not been met in this circumstance and no reasonable case can be made that they have been. In the absence of evidence otherwise there should be no course for this chamber other than to reject a bill such as the one we are discussing today.

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

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia I speak in support of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Amendment Bill 2023. Senator Canavan is quite correct to want an inquiry into the ACT government's seizure of Calvary hospital. I commend him for introducing this bill to the chamber. I was the first senator to speak out against this takeover—on 27 May 2023 at the March for Life rally in the Rockhampton Riverside Precinct. Senator Canavan was in attendance as well. I commend him for taking it up.

This is a blatant attack on religion in health care. It cannot be dressed up as anything else. I note that the Catholic archbishop has avoided using those words. That may be because the archdiocese is reliant on government funding across many health and welfare areas and does not want to ruffle feathers. It wants to protect that funding. What has happened to churches in this country is that they've been captured. I consider the Catholic archbishop's decision a poor decision. Bending in the wind is not what religion is about. Defending religious theology is a central function of the Roman Catholic Church.

This issue is a clash between religious principles that stand against abortion of a living viable fetus and health bureaucrats that would kill such a fetus, a human. It's a clash between religious principles that stand against ending life through euthanasia of a person, who may make a different decision free from coercion and momentary despair, and health bureaucrats seeking to use euthanasia as a device to balance their budget. The only god autocrats respect is the god of power.

The ACT has legislated abortion and euthanasia. The Catholic Church insists on putting humanity around those rules. That has inflamed ACT autocrats. The common reply repeated verbatim from a legion of social media bots and mindless zombies is: 'There's no place for religion in health care.' It seems to me that this is the 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 the 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. If you don't like religion in education, don't send your children to a religious school. See how it works? Freedom of choice. That is what is irking the Canberra autocrats—freedom. We know how much autocrats have embraced totalitarian agenda since COVID normalised such behaviour in this country.

Calvary hospitals have treated millions of Australians who are happy to be treated in a religious hospital and who are grateful for it. We know from many media reports the enabling legislation was prepared a year ahead of this takeover. Calvary were not informed of this and continued to negotiate on a new northside hospital in good faith. We know the ACT government just had its credit rating reduced. There has been no progress on negotiations over the cash compensation the ACT government must pay to Calvary for the seizure of its assets. I wonder if they have the money to pay?

Federal parliament has precedence over ACT law. This matter is rightly within the Senate's purview, and I am strongly in support of this bill. I said this before and I'll say it again: my message to Canberra health autocrats is God decides who lives or dies, not you.

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

This bill is an attack on territory rights. The people of the ACT fought for 25 years to have the Andrews bill overturned, which went through on the voices last year. There was unanimous support from the Senate to allow the ACT to debate and make laws that affect them. Last week, we lost a person who campaigned hard to repeal that bill. She sat behind me in the chamber as it was debated. She dedicated the end of her life to seeing that done. My commitment to her and to many others in our community was that I will stand up for the rights of territorians to have our own democratically elected Legislative Assembly and to hold it to account, rather than see federal overreach into the affairs of the territory. This is a principle we must stand by.

I will not be supporting this bill and I urge my colleagues to not turn their backs on territory rights after we have just finally got them back. I engaged with a number of people in the ACT on this issue who were supportive of the takeover of Calvary and to people very much opposed to it who wrote to both the chief minister and health minister saying they believe there should be an inquiry at the Legislative Assembly level. The two committees who could do that both decided not to hold on inquiry. Yes, we know that the committees are government-controlled, but Canberrans will be able to hold the government to account at the next territory election. We do live in a democracy here in the ACT and it is our democratic right to be able to decide at the next election whether or not we approve of the way that this and other issues have been handled.

I thank the Senate for the opportunity to speak on this. I will not be supporting Senator Canavan's bill.

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

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

I just want to make a brief contribution. I support the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Amendment Bill 2023. I'd like to see it move forward. What has been done here in the ACT by the ACT government is a massive overreach. It's no surprise that the Australian Capital Territory administration have done this sort of caper. This forced takeover of the Calvary hospital, the private Catholic organisation, is an absolute shame. It's a major breach of faith with the community and certainly for those of faith within the ACT. Indeed, the signal that it is sending right across the country is of a very concerning step that has been taken here.

I note that the Calvary hospital had 76 years of its lease remaining and operated under an agreement with the then ACT health minister, the soon-to-be Minister for Finance in this place, Katy Gallagher, since 2011. Calvary engaged in negotiations and even offered to return land to the ACT government. Despite all these efforts, the ACT government decided to forcefully take over the private hospital.

A lot has been said about this and whether or not this is an attack on freedom of religion. I for one believe that that is the case. I think that's evidenced by what happened on the very day after the handover occurred. What was the very first thing the government did? They got a crane, erected it, set it up and took down the cross. They didn't even allow for a couple of days to go by. It was the very first thing they did. I would have thought there were other things that might have been done. They could have sat down with the staff and talked to them about the changes that were occurring. But the very first thing they did was get some contractors in to take down the cross.

I think that demonstrates exactly what this is about. I think it's sending all the wrong messages. It's demonstrating the DNA of a Labor government and what they do if given too much power and too much control. I fear other steps they might take across the country. I'm very disappointed. I really do urge those that are listening to this debate, and those senators that in a moment will have a chance to vote on this, to support this very sensible bill that's been put up. I urge senators to support it in the strongest possible way, and of course that is by coming in here and voting for this legislation.

(Quorum formed)

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill be read a second time.