Page 878 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 9 April 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
millions there but it is going to hold up a medical centre based on hundreds of thousands of dollars. It just does not make sense.
It does speak somewhat to the ideology of this government. They say that back in the dim, distant past the federal Liberal Party did not support Medicare. Let us have a look at the lack of support and the cultural disdain that this government have for those who are trying to run a business. That includes GPs like Dr Jamiel.
The sad reality is that we do have the lowest rates of bulk-billing in the nation. Although there has been some improvement in GP numbers, it was under this government that the GP crisis emerged where we had the lowest number of GPs per capita in the nation. Finding a GP in this town became incredibly difficult.
The minister can make this waiver, and he has outlined the criteria for doing so. On the two points, as to whether this is providing a perverse outcome and whether it is a fair or just result, I would say there is a very strong case for the minister to waive this. It is a perverse outcome. As Mr Smyth has highlighted, this is meant to stop land banking. This is meant to stop speculative investments where someone just holds on to the land for a while and does not develop it. That is clearly not the case. Dr Jamiel has written to the minister outlining this situation. So the minister is aware of the facts of the case and has not waived the entire fee as he is able to do under the FMA.
It is not dissimilar to the Kingswim school that the opposition, by way of Mr Wall, advocated for very strongly. And there are many others. We have spoken to others in the community. We will come to this place repeatedly, and I do not care whether the minister likes it or not. This is not all going to be done in the backrooms where the minister plays the king and determines whether he is going to grant a waiver or not. Clearly, he is not going to be making decisions that are in the best interests of the community without significant prompting from the likes of the opposition.
We will consider these cases and whether they have merit. Clearly, in the case of the Kingswim school and in the case of Dr Jamiel’s proposal for a medical facility, they do have merit. We will continually bring into this place items where we think there is merit in waiving the extension of time.
The suggestion that Mr Barr made, that “it’s going to be the shadow treasurer’s mates”, was disgraceful and I am glad that he withdrew it. But I think it does smack of arrogance to say that we would only be doing this to look after some developer mate when the minister knows the circumstances of this case. He knows full well that this is about a medical centre and not some supposed developer mate. It is an outrageous comment and I think it brings the minister no credit at all.
I commend Mr Smyth. We will bring forward more motions like this because where there is a perverse outcome, where it is not just and fair—and it is quite clear that there are many cases across Canberra where that is the case—we will stand up for members of the community. Whether it is a swim school, whether it is a medical centre or whether it is another case that is not fair or just but is perverse, we will stand up and we will not allow this minister to allow such perverse outcomes to be inflicted on the Canberra community.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video