Page 5174 - Week 17 - Thursday, 13 December 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The Chief Minister, who has left the house, of course, talked about the gold plated Taj Mahal that I would have provided in hospital services. From an ideological point of view, I would have no problems of conscience about providing a gold plated Taj Mahal hospital system for the people in the ACT including - - -
Mr Humphries: Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The comments by the Chief Minister were made in the debate on the previous amendment, not on this amendment at all. That is a reference to a previous debate, in effect. I think Mr Berry should confine his remarks to comments being made in this debate.
MR SPEAKER: I think that is a long bow, Mr Humphries. Please get to your point, Mr Berry.
MR BERRY: The relevance, Mr Speaker, is that any gold plated Taj Mahal that I would provide, without any problems of conscience, would be targeted at delivering services to all of the people of the ACT. It would not be a service such as that planned by this Government to provide services only to the bottom end, while the people who manage the delivery of those services to the bottom end of town are from the top end. It strikes me that there is something of a conflict there. The people who are going to be receiving the services in our hospital system are not involved in the process. This Government seeks to draw the line between those that have and those that have not, because it - - -
Mr Humphries: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I emphasise my point from before. We are talking about the composition of the board. Mr Berry is talking about class and providing services to the non-government sector. It is not relevant to this debate.
MR SPEAKER: I overrule you on that one, Mr Humphries. I believe it is. Please proceed, Mr Berry.
MR BERRY: It is very clearly on target, Mr Speaker, and I am very surprised and deeply disappointed that Mr Humphries does not understand it, given that he is Minister for one of the most important portfolios in social justice terms in the ACT. How can a Minister say that class distinction in the delivery of hospital services is not relevant? It is entirely relevant because, as I have said in the debate previously on this very matter of the make-up of the health board, Mr Humphries proposes that the board will be run by the top end of the town and those at the bottom end of the town will not have any involvement. What the Government has set out to do is to resist attempts by the Australian Labor Party to involve in the delivery of hospital services, firstly, the biggest community organisation in Australia - the trade union movement, which, as I said earlier, represents around 50,000 people in the Australian Capital Territory - and also non-government service providers and consumer organisations. I have also said that there would be elected employee representation on the board.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .