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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Wednesday, 23 June 2004) . . Page.. 2516 ..

says there is a problem with using this notion in respect of crown leases. And yes he is right. But was he going to be part of the solution? No. I wonder why, Mr Speaker?

Most members in this place have dealt with this matter in good faith and in what we thought was a bipartisan way. But when it came to the crunch today, this minister walked away from what has previously been a bipartisan approach—a multipartisan approach—to this important health issue. He is the Minister for Health; he is the Minister for Planning. If he wanted to sort it out, there is no-one more qualified in the Stanhope government to do so.

But basically what we had today was a series of petulant outbreaks rather than sitting down and saying, “Okay, we are all singing from the one hymn sheet. Can we just make sure that we are all on the right verse, and how do we get the harmonies right?” And the harmonies have not been here today because this minister does not want it to happen.

I thought it was priceless to hear him say, “I’d hate to be in a position where I had to close down a pharmacy because they were in contravention of their lease.” There are hundreds of businesses across the ACT operating every day in contravention of their lease. And what do the compliance people in the planning authority do about it? Not a sausage. So what would change if we did find an unintended consequence? Would he not come back and fix it or would he really want to go out and close the pharmacies? You have to ask the question: what is the motivation of this minister?

The majority of this Assembly is in favour of supporting primary health care through health care professionals in our community, and this is what this bill does. I commend Mrs Cross for her bill and I commend Ms Dundas for her very neat and very well thought out amendment that I think saves the bacon.

MRS BURKE (4.02): I, too, would like to offer my support and congratulations to Mrs Cross for formulating this legislation today and to Ms Dundas for coming up with the amendment. I support our local pharmacies, Mr Speaker. Evidence of the fact that the government does not is that not one member is sitting opposite right now.

I believe that we are going down yet another path that will be very detrimental to the Canberra community. If we travel down this track that the minister wants to take us, we will for sure see a reduction in services. Despite what the minister says when he stands up reading from his prepared speech—no latitude; no room to move: ‘We’re just going to stick this way; blinkers on; let’s go, no matter what the cost; I’ll bulldoze through; I have made my mind up; that’s where we’re going”—he wants, as does the rest of the government, which is obvious, to remove the essential and valuable services of the local pharmacy. It seems we now have a local government that done a backflip, only this time it is not taken the advice of its federal counterparts on a sensible move; they are again taking this community on an unknown journey.

I will not take too much time, but I believe it is worth reiterating a couple of the comments I want to make. Health is going to be viewed as a retail commodity. Is that what we want to see—people just becoming a number; you are on a conveyor belt; zoom in, zoom out, that is it; no care; no over-the-counter service; no compassion; just straight on the conveyor belt?

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