Page 3169 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 11 September 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
this Bill. In the Bill I have provided the services from that schedule but have not identified the levels of service because I feel that it is appropriate that there be some flexibility for administrators to determine the appropriate level of service.
I must emphasise that I am working specifically from that option and, therefore, think that the levels of service identified in appendix J should be approximately what we are aiming at; but it is difficult. If somebody tries to change one of those levels of service, almost invariably there is a repercussion in other areas about the necessary levels of service. Therefore, it is inappropriate for us, as a legislature, I think, to fiddle with those levels. For that reason I have left the schedule open as to the actual levels of service, as, indeed, was done with the similar Bill to this that was tabled in June 1990.
Mr Speaker, it was very interesting that in the debate on the suspension of standing order 200 Mr Collaery said that he would be supporting the concept of this Bill but would ensure that it was a valid Bill. I think that was what he said. What we see here is an attempt, I presume, by the Residents Rally to gain some credibility. I wonder whether Mr Collaery will try to show that this Bill is inadequate and therefore put up another, or whether they will proceed in the most appropriate way and suggest amendments. I now say quite clearly that I am open to suggested amendments.
I suppose that, if you take section 65 of the self-government Act into account, they could possibly take the form of identifying where the money is coming from out of the health budget so that an equivalent $13m could be found elsewhere in the budget. In that way the effect of the Bill might not be so much to dispose of money but to rearrange money. Whilst there may be some legal argument that one could run there, it really sounds to me much more like semantics.
It is far better to deal with the issue as an Assembly and see whether the Assembly is prepared to stand up and be counted for supporting the retention of a hospital on the Acton Peninsula. The majority of members of this Assembly went to an election telling people that that was what they were on about and that was what they would do. They were understood to be supportive of ensuring that there would be a hospital on that peninsula. That is something that the Labor Party has emphasised again and again. So, Mr Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to table this Bill and commend it to the house.
Debate (on motion by Mr Berry) adjourned.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .