Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2011 Week 09 Hansard (Thursday, 25 August 2011) . . Page.. 3976 ..
a proportion of one GP per 11,000 people. We know that west Belconnen is an area of socioeconomic disadvantage, so this is once again evidencing these public health principles.
Secondly, cooperatives have a long history in this country. As I grew up in country Victoria, driving through country towns you would see mechanics institutes, little buildings set aside as community cooperatives for learning, support and education, which were established in the 19th century. In the bigger towns, you would see dairy farmers cooperatives, organisations put together by dairy farmers to sell their produce on a cooperative basis. These were collective organisations; they were working to provide self-help. In the case of the west Belconnen community health centre, they are providing health benefits. They are usually democratic, and they are often not for profit. These are an example of collective action, a value which is very dear to the ALP family and is also strongly part of Indigenous philosophies.
Finally, let me talk about the funding of the west Belconnen community health centre. There was an initial grant of $220,000 from the commonwealth and $220,000 from the ACT government. Since those initial grants, west Belconnen competes for funding with other GP practices on a level playing field. There is no extra benefit that it receives. I think the west Belconnen community health centre cooperative should be commended for that.
Statement by Mr Rattenbury
MR HANSON (Molonglo) (6.15): I rise tonight in response to the comments made under standing order 46 by Mr Rattenbury just prior to the adjournment, where he said that he had been misrepresented. I stand by the comments that I have made in this place with regard to Mr Rattenbury and his attitude towards science and towards scientists. You need to examine the facts to confirm—and I think my case is quite clear—that Mr Rattenbury does have an attitude towards science and towards scientists which is inconsistent with the requirements of the office of Speaker and of a member of this place.
Let us look at it very clearly. Mr Rattenbury is a long-term member of Greenpeace. Greenpeace broke into the CSIRO. They destroyed property and, in doing so, intimidated scientists and traumatised staff. It was act of vandalism. Worse, it was a criminal act. And it was an act committed against science. The motivation for this act was to destroy science. The singular motivation was to destroy science.
Mr Rattenbury has repeatedly refused to condemn this action. He has had plenty of opportunities, both in this place and in the media, to condemn that action, but he has not. What he has done in discussions relating to this is: he has said that he supports unlawful protest. If someone is talking about a specific criminal act and his response is to say, “I support unlawful protest,” the deduction that any reasonable person will take from that is that he supports that act. You cannot separate the two. If he is talking about a criminal act, if he is talking about this attack on science and says, “I support unlawful protest,” clearly, what he is saying is, “I support that act of Greenpeace.” The reality is that until Mr Rattenbury comes into this place and says, “I condemn that act; I condemn that attack on science,” then I believe—and I think others believe—