Page 44 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 9 February 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MS GALLAGHER: As uncomfortable as that may make the opposition, you have not been able to find a mistake or an error in the analysis that Treasury has done.
Mrs Dunne: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question that Mr Seselja asked was in relation to the government’s views on compulsory acquisition. Do you think that we could get the Treasurer back to that issue?
MR SPEAKER: I draw to the Treasurer’s attention that your colleagues have not helped by diverting the Treasurer’s attention.
MS GALLAGHER: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The options that the government will consider will go right across the spectrum, from compulsory acquisition—
Mr Hanson: Crazy to crazy!
MS GALLAGHER: Yes, it is a crazy idea. It is a crazy idea. But we are left without the preferred option.
Mr Hanson: Well, we’re going to seriously consider it.
MS GALLAGHER: Well, you know, it would be interesting to hear whether the opposition actually think compulsory acquisition is the preferred way forward. But compulsory acquisition, we do not believe, is the way forward. But it has to be—
Mr Seselja: We’ll rule out the crazy options, Katy.
MS GALLAGHER: This is a sign of an opposition that has spent too long in opposition—and hopefully it will stay there. As a government, you put all options on the table. You then decide what the preferred option is. And some of those options will be options that the government does not support—and compulsory acquisition of Calvary is one of them.
Mr Smyth: You were pretty keen on it on Sunday night.
MS GALLAGHER: No, I have never been keen on compulsory acquisition, Mr Smyth. The government has not been keen on compulsory acquisition at all—for the problems that we all know would eventuate if we did follow that path. That path would involve tying up our public health system in the courts. It would bring on a very big blue between government and the church—and it would not deliver a new public hospital on the north side of Canberra, which is what this government is trying to deliver and is being continuously obstructed in by other members in this place.
MR SPEAKER: A supplementary question, Mr Seselja?
MR SESELJA: Minister, don’t these completely contradictory positions demonstrate a lack of reasonable contingency planning on your part?
MS GALLAGHER: No; they demonstrate a failure of the opposition to understand the difficult issues that are presented to the government in trying to build a new public
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video