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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Wednesday, 23 June 2004) . . Page.. 2523 ..

Australia, the National Competition Council, supports restrictions on competition in the pharmacy industry.

While I implore all members to give their support to ensuring that this amendment bill is passed into law, I must address some of the prolific comments made by our health minister. It was very interesting to me that this minister said that this is a flawed, imperfect bill. Gee! Last night we sat here until 1.30 in the morning debating 21 government amendments to their own Occupation Health and Safety Bill because it was not flawed or imperfect, it just happened to need 21 amendments in addition to the raft of other amendments that were put forward by other members.

My understanding, Mr Speaker, is that the only amendment to this bill we are looking at addressing this afternoon is to ensure that we address the concerns raised by the minister. If he had bothered to discuss it with us—me and the opposition—he would have realised that we were working very hard with the Pharmacy Guild of the ACT to ensure that we were addressing the concerns that the minister and others had raised. No, he was not interested in talking to me; he was not interested in talking to the opposition. In fact, I do not even recall my office ever having been approached by his office on this bill.

This minister could be considered funny if he were not so desperately sad. He used the words “awkward” and “misjudged” in his speech. Well, I would use those words to describe Mr Corbell’s approach to all legislation that does not have his name on it—“awkward” and “misjudged”. I believe that is the crux of this minister’s problems. His pathetic attempt to undermine this bill and any amendment proposed to improve this bill, which aims to achieve positive outcomes for the community, for the pharmacy industry, for small business and, above all, for the weak and the vulnerable in our community, is appalling.

This minister went to the last election promising to consult this community; to be transparent, open and accountable with this community; to listen to this community’s input; he would take that back to the Assembly if he were elected to government; and, if he became a minister, those sentiments would be reflected in his work. Well, you all saw the efforts that this minister made this morning to stop me tabling that petition. Tell me how that is open, accountable, transparent and even democratic. It is not.

Mr Corbell continues to not only show his immaturity and sneakiness with the legislative process—

Mr Corbell: On a point of order: Mr Speaker, I have just sat here and listened to—

MRS CROSS: I withdraw, Mr Speaker.

Mr Corbell: No. On the point of the order, Mr Speaker: I would ask you to give some direction in relation to when a speech simply becomes a diatribe, with many, not just one, personal reflections against me as a member of this place. I have no difficulty debating the substance of this legislation and the relative merits of it, but I have some difficulty with sitting here and listening to the diatribe I am hearing from Mrs Cross, with constant personal reflection on my personal attributes and my personal approaches to the issues. And I think that is far from the spirit of debate that the community would expect of this place.

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