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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (27 June) . . Page.. 2021 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

Mr Deputy Speaker, it is their right to do so. Any person in our community is free to air their view on how public money should be used. But, as we all know, in addition to a debate about public moneys, there is a highly politicised element to this. The nurses' and doctors' unions have an interest of their own in the level of public funding. A large part of that funding would become salaries for their members, and contributions, of course, to those unions themselves.

The Australian Nursing Federation have, in fact, revealed that their campaign is part of the preparation for running candidates at the next ACT election. It is not clear whether they are planning an ANF-based political party or if this is all about manoeuvres for ALP preselection. The members of the ALP in this Assembly, needless to say, automatically say that the level of expenditure is too low, no matter how much we raise it.

It also seems that the individual surgeon who has launched this particular matter has personal interests in criticising the facilities for public surgery. In his letter of resignation two weeks ago, he twice referred to the level of remuneration for his public work.

With hindsight, it is astonishing how quickly the truth became a casualty in these allegations. The exercising of an opinion on the level of public funding to a government agency does not require sensational falsehoods to be circulated. In this case, a sensitive and, no doubt, traumatic situation has been used to score a point, and in doing so the reputation of our primary acute care hospital has been dragged into the mud.

Mr Deputy Speaker, unions and individuals with an interest at the hospital must understand that this government will make its funding decisions based on evidence, not simply on which groups have the loudest voices. Of course, the level of funding we can commit must be found within our overall budgetary constraints, as this government takes a firm view on living within our means. Happily, we can say to the community that a level of funding sufficient to maintain the Canberra Hospital as one of the finest in Australia can now be found and sustained within this government's balanced ACT budget for next year.

In the course of this media frenzy, we have seen the first inklings of the public fiscal policies which the ACT Labor Party would demonstrate if it should form a government at some future point. The opposition's health spokesman reacted to this situation by collapsing into the same financial irresponsibility of past ALP administrations: "Here is a demand for more public money. Don't wait to check the facts, simply pay it. A union wants money, pay up."

That is the ALP's approach to handling public money. It assumes that promising money is the way to popularity: attack the government at all costs, ignore the evidence and promise millions of public dollars. The government takes a different view. We regard it as a key responsibility of government to make decisions based on evidence. We say that a government would be derelict in its public duty if it allowed its stewardship of public money to be directed by unsubstantiated claims and allegations.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this surgeon's comments are plainly rebutted by the opinions of the senior doctors who sat on the death review committee. On Friday last I wrote to Dr Jeans to give him an opportunity to consider the committee's conclusions. I invited him, in his own time, to consider the possibility of a retraction and apology. I have been

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