Page 1960 - Week 06 - Thursday, 2 May 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The issue that Mr Berry is raising with me is whether people who are dying - for whatever reason - but are well enough to continue to work while they are in that position, deserve some sort of government concession. You might as well ask Mr Duby whether people who are dying of cancer should be able to travel on the buses for free. Ask Mr Kaine whether people who are dying of cancer should be able to get free applications for building permits. Ask Mr Collaery whether services offered by the Public Trustee should be free to people who are dying of cancer.
The issue is not whether Mr Sieler would have had oxygen. Mr Sieler could afford oxygen because he was working; he had the income to buy his oxygen. There was no question that Mr Sieler could not afford to obtain oxygen. If there was any question about that, obviously the Government would have been in a position of reconsidering his application. What I was asked to do was to give Mr Sieler the concession of free oxygen on the basis that he was dying of cancer.
Mr Moore: "We are managing financially but only just".
MR SPEAKER: Order!
MR HUMPHRIES: I sympathise deeply with his position. I understand how painful it must be to be in that position. But it does not justify having free oxygen on that basis, because there are so many other people in this Territory who are in similar positions to Mr Sieler's, or worse, who ought to come first - if there is a revision of the circumstances whereby people are offered free oxygen in this Territory. For example, we have seen situations where there are people who have to stay at home and who cannot work. Those people should get access to oxygen before Mr Sieler does, because Mr Sieler is out working; he is in the work force.
I am sorry, Mr Speaker; I see no reason at all to change my response on that basis. Mr Berry can raise all the emotive issues he wants to. He will not get any change of heart on that basis, simply because he raises it in this place. The reason it took 2 months to respond to that issue is that I was trying desperately throughout that time to find some basis of distinguishing Mr Sieler's position from that of the other 60 to 70 people who would also be eligible for free oxygen and who happen to be in the work force at the present time.
If I were to agree to the principle that people in the work force who can afford to pay for oxygen themselves should get it free, I would be up for a blow-out of anything up to $100,000 in the budget for domiciliary oxygen. Do not shake your head, Ms Follett; it is true.
Ms Follett: It says $72,000 in your letter.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .