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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (29 June) . . Page.. 2301 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

asked a question in here on any matter across the range of my portfolio, I do not think there is anybody who answers better than I do in terms of understanding what goes on in my portfolio and where I am working. A lot more of my time and energy goes into the Canberra Hospital, community care and Calvary Hospital than goes into the issue of drugs.

That having been said, I also have a conscience and I am dedicated to following it. I have to say to Mr Rugendyke and to Mr Osborne in particular, through you, Mr Speaker, that I would like them to think about the abortion issue. This Assembly passed a law about abortion. It is a law that I vigorously opposed. It is a law that I despise. I would not have any law governing abortion at all. My personal view is that the medical processes and procedures would cover abortion in the most effective and appropriate way. We do not require a particular law for this particular medical procedure. But the Assembly passed the law. As minister, I implemented it. I did not like doing that. I do not know whether Mr Osborne has looked at his papers today, but today I tabled the third quarterly report relating to that legislation and the number of abortions that have occurred and people looking for information. I would prefer not to do that. Of course I would prefer not to do that.

That raises another question for me. Mr Osborne is now opposing a supervised injecting room because his conscious will not let him do anything else. It is interesting that he is not opposing the money that goes into the family planning packet. It is interesting too, to me, that I am not opposing Karinya and the money that goes to the Catholic organisation providing pregnancy advice. By the way, I do not ever intend to oppose that because I think some women will choose that path and will take that advice. I am quite happy about funding it. But that does raise a question in my mind about whether this is a political issue for Mr Osborne or whether it is a genuine conscious issue on its own.

That having been said, Mr Speaker, there is a difference between issues that are, if you like, put in your face and issues that have been bubbling along for some time and have been in process. I do not miss that. Mr Speaker, the notion that my focus is on a drug agenda and that I have not been focusing on the rest of my portfolio is simply untrue. The decision on the supervised injecting place trial has been made and funding ought to be approved by the Assembly. This government is compelled to fund a decision that has been made by the Assembly.

Mr Rugendyke, I know you are acting according to your conscious, but I have to say that I think you have not sorted out your priorities. There is a democratic principle first and then the issue of these fundings. Exactly the same principle drives a minister to facilitate a piece of legislation that has gone through. It is exactly the same principle that says a policeman who disagrees with a law still implements that law. I am not questioning your conscience, but I am saying to you that I think there is an order in which these things operate. That is my opinion.

Mr Speaker, there is one other issue that I want take up. It was raised by Mr Stanhope. It gives me an opportunity to correct an impression that I think I created earlier in the day that was not accurate. It is to do with the critical and urgent treatment funds. Mr Stanhope suggested that I was not spending enough. I said that we only recently got the funds. I think it is fair to make it clear that, in fact, they were received by the department in June 1999. I inadvertently misled the Assembly in that way and

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