Page 1673 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 30 April 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The other point I wish to mention in my summary is what I read from pages 2 and 3 of the Enfield report, observing that Mr Enfield had had an unparalleled overview of the health system over many years. As leader of the Rally, I put considerable weight on his statement that there had been problems in management and fiscal processes for many years in that health area. No jury could convict this Minister of dragging the system into a crisis.
The third point I made, which caused the frivolity on the Opposition benches, was that Mr Connolly had made the rather non sequitur statement that a Minister is responsible for all the doings of his public service - a sort of a truism read in good academic style from some tomes - but he did not make the connections that are necessary to find a level of culpability in a Minister, a level of neglect or whatever the case can be. No evidence was put forward by Mr Berry.
On the principle that Ministers should take the fall for any of the failings of their public service departments, I now table an article called "Opinion" by Bruce Juddery which appeared in Australian Business of 30 January 1991. In it the Leader of the Opposition makes some extraordinary comments about the public servants that advised her, and those claims clearly are extraordinarily ill matched with those comments made by Mr Connolly. I observe that Ms Follett did not rise to defend her statement or explain in any way why she said it.
The fourth and final point I wanted to make before I sat down - I could have done this 15 minutes ago - was that there have been significant reforms in the health area. Mr Berry failed to document the level of reform and the level of non-reform to justify his case. For example, a Board of Health has been created, and that was a prime proposal put by the Residents Rally. A member of the Rally executive, in fact, sits on the hospital planning committee. Quite a number of the Residents Rally's reforms - a birthing centre, palliative care and emphasis on a whole range of issues - have been met by this Minister.
Mr Wood: But is he a good Minister? No, do not answer it; talk over it.
MR COLLAERY: So, standing as both a Minister in this Cabinet and the leader of an alternative party, I do not support the motion that Mr Berry has put. He only descended into rhetoric. The level of interjection and frivolity all day from the Labor Opposition suggests that they were never serious about this motion. It was a try-on in the faint hope that someone on this side would rat on our promise to deliver stable, competent government for the Territory.
Mr Wood: Is he a good Minister? No answer. Presumably he is not. What a significant speech!
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .