Page 3423 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 25 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We are not sure, for example, whether Acton Peninsula is the place for a clinical medical school. Again, surely a clinical medical school has to be associated both with a university and with a hospital. There will be some argument, I submit, and there are people better qualified than those sitting in this room to comment on whether a clinical medical school ought to be co-located with the university or with a hospital. I think there is a body of professional opinion that would suggest that it ought to be associated primarily with a hospital, and that its secondary role is associated with the university. We are not saying that such a school should not be there; we are saying that it is not for us at this stage arbitrarily to make a decision about it. We have not yet heard the arguments for or against.
To try to bind the Government with this kind of motion is totally irrational; it is totally inflexible. No government - and I am speaking from opposition - ought to feel itself bound by this kind of unthinking motion, which takes no account of changing circumstances, no account of changing public opinion, and purports to lock a government into a course of action that may be totally contrary to what the community really wants. As I said, there has been no ground swell of public opinion on this issue that I have detected. There are a range of voices expressing different opinions. Our responsibility, as elected representatives of the people, is to listen to those opinions, sort them out, come to a rational, logical decision about what the community wants, and then move to put that into effect.
I reiterate, Madam Speaker, that I cannot accept this as a motion that would bind the Government, because I believe that it is too inflexible. In any case, we have no right to truncate that public consultation process that has been going on now for nearly two years. I point out that the discussion paper was the result of a joint study put in place by the Alliance Government when it was in power two years ago. So, this debate has been going on for a long time. These are the sorts of decisions that you should not take off the top of your head. They should not be taken on the spur of the moment. They should not be taken without a real and proper analysis of what it is that the community expects of us. I do not think we know what that is and, for that reason, I will vote against Mr Moore's motion. As I foreshadowed, if the Labor Party proceeds with its amendment, I will be compelled to vote against that as well.
MR STEVENSON (11.48): I know how to solve the hospital bed shortage in Canberra: Reopen Canberra hospital, the only Royal Canberra Hospital that in the hearts of most Canberrans will ever be worthy of bearing the name. There is no doubt that in Canberra we will need another hospital. All one can do is argue over when.
Mr Kaine: And where.
MR STEVENSON: Indeed, one could argue over where. One could argue against the will of the people, who first of all voted overwhelmingly to retain the Royal Canberra Hospital. When the Labor Party had their chance, had the power to retain the hospital, they closed it. It is all very well what you say when you are in opposition - as Mr Humphries said yesterday, "Now I can tell the truth", or words to that effect - but the important thing is what you do when you have the power. When the Labor Party had the power, they let down the people in Canberra who wanted the Royal Canberra Hospital to remain open.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .