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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 9 Hansard (28 August) . . Page.. 2725 ..

Mr Humphries: There are other ways of sending a message: Education, for example.

MR BERRY: Mr Humphries says that education standards are important as well. There is no question about that, but you have to have a solid education system, and your Government could never claim to be a great advocate of advanced education.

I return to my original point. At the end of the day, the consultation between various Health Ministers is a consultation between conservatives, conservatives who do not seem to have a grip on the need to maintain quality of access to health services. I see that the Federal Government is tightening the system up to make it more difficult, and that will impact on ordinary working people, poor people, the aged, young people - the sorts of people whom many of us in this place claim to represent. I say that health in the future is going to be higher on the political agenda. I think many people throughout the country enjoyed under Labor a Medicare system which they will not see under the conservative Federal Government, despite their promises. I think that is something to worry about for the future. I doubt that it will be an issue raised with any sincerity at these ministerial councils in the future, and I despair for the future of our health system under those conservative Liberal governments.

MR MOORE (4.24): The main theme of Mr Berry's response to the report of the ministerial meetings in Hobart was that it is a set of agreements of conservative governments. I think there is some truth in that and, indeed, I share some of Mr Berry's concerns. Where I part company with him is that one of the most conservative of those conservative governments is in New South Wales. Mr Berry may disagree; but, if I was referring just to the right wing of the Labor Party under Premier Carr, he may well turn a blind eye to my saying that they are conservative. But in this case the ministerial representative is Dr Refshauge, who is from the left wing of the Labor Party and has now shown himself to be at least as conservative as, if not more conservative - certainly more conservative on the issue of the heroin trial - than his Liberal counterparts in South Australia, Mr Kennett in Victoria, and the Chief Minister here.

There is no doubt that Dr Refshauge, had he been at that conference and made a statement, would have made a significant impact. Instead, as the Canberra Times editorial pointed out following that meeting, it was a wimp-out. It was a very weak position - the sort of position we are seeing more and more from the Labor Opposition here, who say, "I am appalled by one thing, but I am not going to do anything about it". That seems to be the growing modus operandi, seen particularly clearly through recent statements of Ms McRae's.

Mr Humphries: Pontius Pilate.

MR MOORE: I hear an interjection from Mr Humphries, using the term "Pontius Pilate". I did not use that term, and I am not quite sure how he wishes to apply it, although I can think of several examples where it might apply.

Mr Speaker, the statements that were made by Mrs Carnell go well beyond just the issue of the heroin trial. We can recognise that comments such as "conservatism" and "redneck", which Mr Berry used, apply to New South Wales in particular, as well as to other places. But I think there are a series of positive outcomes and positive statements

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