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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (19 November) . . Page.. 3762 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Mr Humphries, too, was very confused as to what this motion was about. He said, "What is it about? It is not about mental health, I can see that. It is about disabilities and it is about infection prevention". That is right, Mr Humphries. This is a motion about a number of issues in health. This is the big picture. Is that so difficult for this Government to look at? Your reviews that are coming out now and your strategies are talking a lot about intersectoral action and the whole picture. I do not know why it was so hard for Mr Humphries to understand that, and I hope that after this he has a better understanding.

He also said that we have assisted other members of this place in devaluing the currency. Once again, the implication is that this motion does not have anything in it that really matters, so I have raised an issue of little import and therefore devalued the currency of a want of confidence motion. I repeat: I believe that this is of critical importance to the people of the ACT, and that is why I have brought up this motion. Another point Mr Humphries made, which is an interesting one, is that we may not see a very good media coverage of this in the Canberra Times, therefore it has no value. I have been watching media for many years, and I can tell you that the things that matter in this world and in this society do not necessarily get good media coverage. That is a serious point.

Mrs Carnell used in her initial response a predictable tactic of quibbling over my choice of words, saying that I had said that you should put your pens down. I have explained what the intention was there, and I am disappointed to see once again that she has misrepresented what I have said and not actually addressed the issues. I keep repeating that they are major structural issues in health, particularly in the area of disability, mental health and the public primary health care system, which is what Mr Osborne has raised. He thinks it is an issue that has been dealt with in the past. I am sorry; it has not been dealt with. It is still occurring, and we still do not know how many people no longer can access the doctor because they do not have the money to pay the up-front fees.

Mrs Carnell also said that the only reason I am doing this is that I do not agree with her health policy. Once again, it is much bigger than my views on her policy. This is about major government responsibilities for the people of the ACT. Indeed, I do not agree with the priorities of this Health Minister, and it is my right, therefore, as an elected member in this place to make that quite clear. I have the right to disagree with her priorities. This is not about me not agreeing with her. It is much bigger than that, and I think it is very disappointing that we keep getting this debate brought down, if not to the personal, certainly to not the issues I am attempting to get discussed. Mr Humphries also felt that no-one else in this place had addressed the issues of this motion. Mr Moore certainly did, Ms Reilly certainly did, and I believe Mr Berry did, although he did focus on the budgetary aspects of it. Mr Osborne did briefly address the first part.

The question about how well this Health Minister is dealing with her portfolio, I believe, has to be seen in context. I am prepared to use this Government's own metaphors, if you like - it is their philosophy, really - that we have small government and that that government runs on the principles of business. The principles of business usually involve things such as demand assessment and so on. I would like this Government to show me

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