Page 139 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 16 February 2011

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

MR HANSON (Molonglo) (11.22), in reply: I thank some of the members for their contributions, certainly Mr Seselja and Mr Coe, but I will turn to some of the extraordinarily bizarre comments made by some of the other members.

I turn firstly to the Chief Minister and his defence of Katy Gallagher. He did not actually refer to the motion. He did not go into one element of the detail of the substance contained in the numerous points of the motion. It was a motion that was designed to make sure that the details were there—that it was not just some esoteric motion—and it contained an enormous amount of facts. But we heard nothing but vitriol and attack on the Canberra Liberals.

I just point out that the attack included: “All you do are censure motions. Censure motions are boring.” And, as the Chief Minister said that, what arrived on my desk in front of me was a censure motion from the government of the manager of opposition business, Mrs Dunne. So, as Mr Stanhope was attacking us for having the temerity to put in a censure motion, one landed on my desk.

Let me make the point that, despite the extraordinarily bad performance of this minister, this is actually only the second time that we have moved a substantive motion against her, and the reason that we have done this as private members’ business—rather than, as we would have, at the first opportunity yesterday—is that the last time we tried to move a substantive motion, the Greens would not even let us speak. I sought leave to move a motion, but, no, they would not allow that. The Greens and Labor conspired to prevent debate in this house, so we are having to do this now—a complete break of convention.

What we are seeing from the Greens and the government is a failure to have a debate in this place when it comes to censure motions, and that is why we had to have this as private members’ business.

I think probably the most extraordinary speech, though, was that from Amanda Bresnan. I think, now, that a decision might have been made by the Greens that they are going to unleash the ideology that they have kept hidden for the last two years. Rather than holding the government to account, acknowledging the motion, dealing with it and recognising the failings of the minister, Ms Bresnan actually sees it as some sort of right-wing conspiracy, some movement that I have to back the doctors.

Mr Barr interjecting—

MR HANSON: If you had been here, Mr Barr, you would have heard some of the comments she made.

This is where you are heading with this coalition with the Greens. I think Mr Barr would be quite disturbed that I am actually acting as a tool for the VMOs; that this is all part of some private health conspiracy—

Mr Barr: You are acting as a tool, Jeremy, but I am not sure—

MR HANSON: that we are acting on behalf of—

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video