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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 10 Hansard (5 December) . . Page.. 2625 ..

MR CONNOLLY (continuing):

recently come into this place, are prepared - I guess it is not an unreasonable thing to do - to trust the word of the Chief Minister of the Australian Capital Territory. One should be able to trust the word of the Chief Minister of the Australian Capital Territory. One certainly could for the previous 31/2 years.

Mr Speaker, when we objected, when we said that the abolition of salaried medical practitioners was going to tear apart the fabric of the community health centre system in the ACT, reassuring words flowed like honey from the Chief Minister. "It does not really matter on which basis they are employed.", she said. "You need not have salaried doctors. You can have private doctors providing the same service". We heard the line that we have heard in interjections; that we, the Labor Party, had not been increasing the number of salaried practitioners and that you can get the services equally well from private practitioners. Independent and Green members tended to accept many of those honeyed words.

Mrs Carnell: No, they did not. They changed it.

MR CONNOLLY: They later changed it because it became clear, Mrs Carnell, that you were not standing by your word. Your sweet assurances were, "Do not worry. The public will still be going to the health centres. They will still be seeing the doctors in the health centres. All they will need to do is to produce the green card, the Medicare card, and they will still see the doctors. They will still be going to the health centres". That is the clear impression that Mrs Carnell is seeking to achieve.

When it became clear that members could not trust that assurance, on 24 August, after Mr Osborne had sought assurances from the Chief Minister and, on the basis of those assurances, voted against Labor's motion, he then asked a question in this place. Mr Speaker, I do not purport to speak for Mr Osborne, but the record will show that he was gravely concerned by the answer that he got to his question. He formed a view about the assurances that he had been given, either publicly or privately, or in combination, as to the continuing viability of the health centres. He formed the view that the continuing ability of his constituents, my constituents, and constituents in Belconnen, to access those health centres was under threat. As a result, on 24 August Mr Osborne moved a motion in this place which read as follows:

That this Assembly rejects the Government's announced decision to remove salaried practitioner services from community health centres unless the health centres are managed as 100 per cent bulk-billing practices for general practitioner services.

Mr Speaker, that motion was carried. The Government, sensing the will of the chamber, did not even divide on the issue. The Government realised that it had lost on that and that the clear will of the Assembly was, as contained in Mr Osborne's motion, that the salaried doctors not be removed from the health centres unless 100 per cent bulk-billing could be guaranteed.

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