Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (27 June) . . Page.. 2023 ..
MR STANHOPE (continuing):
I have only had an opportunity to read very briefly the report that has just been tabled by the minister, but I have found no finding in this report of the Special Death Review Committee that suggests in any way that the Special Death Review Committee found that the claims of Dr Jeans were patently false. They were the words used by the minister in question time today, that Dr Jeans' claims had been found by a committee of his peers to have been patently false.
The minister may, for the sake of completeness, have referred us to that part of this report that he has just tabled that actually suggests that Dr Jeans told a patent falsehood. That is a very serious allegation. The minister for health has come into this place today and suggested that somebody who is a visiting medical officer at the Canberra Hospital has, in relation to this matter, told a patent falsehood. There is no more serious allegation, I would have thought, that a minister for health might make, under privilege, of a senior surgeon in this town, a VMO, somebody with whom a contract was negotiated on behalf of the minister.
Mr Moore: I will show you.
MR STANHOPE: The minister says that he will show us the patent falsehood. The committee quite obviously does not agree with some of the interpretation that Dr Jeans may have had in relation to this matter. I just read it very briefly, very quickly, as I was listening to the minister, but there is no suggestion that I could find that Dr Jeans was guilty of a patent falsehood.
That is why I made the remark that I did in terms of breast beating and the "pure as the driven snow" and "knight in shining armour" image that the minister presents in this place, that he would not reduce himself to that level, that those of us who have participated in this debate have done so only for some vile political purpose. Not him, of course; he would not reduce himself to that. Everybody else has. The AMA has and the Australian Nursing Federation has. Some of them even are simply posturing in this manner for the purpose of achieving Labor Party preselection for the next election, no less, according to the minister. That is the motivation of some other participants in this debate.
So what do we have? We have the minister's description of others involved in this debate. Some of us are just being crassly political. I am not quite sure which Labor Party members are from amongst the ranks of the AMA. I could perhaps check whether any members of the AMA are currently seeking Labor Party preselection. I am not aware of any, nor am I aware of any member of the ANF seeking Labor Party preselection, albeit that they would be excellent candidates and we would, of course, welcome and embrace them. But I know of not a single one that is motivated in their comments in relation to this matter by a desire for Labor Party preselection.
Mr Corbell: It is a bit puerile.
MR STANHOPE
: Absolutely. Of course, you have to put it in the context of the minister's speech. He would not do that; it is just everybody else. It is members of the AMA who want to be Labor Party candidates. The ANF have their own purposes, plus they are motivated by greed. They are simply motivated by a desire to improve their conditions and their pay. Of course, we are just scoring mean political points. And then
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .