Page 3538 - Week 12 - Thursday, 19 September 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CONNOLLY: No, this is very relevant. I am taking the interjection. This is the man who had that extraordinary list, which he is now hawking around the community, of "What we would have done if Bernard was still in government", and it is a $6m new policy proposal list in the Housing and Community Services Bureau - - -
Mr Jensen: I take a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker: Standing order 118.
MR ACTING SPEAKER: It is all right, Mr Jensen. Mr Connolly, I must stop you. Mr Connolly, just answer Mr Duby's questions; not Mr Collaery's interjections.
MR CONNOLLY: No, I am asked a question about new policy proposals in relation to the bureau, and this man here, who was interjecting, is totally discredited. But, as I say, we will, as we always do, take opposition questions sensibly and seriously. We will look into the matter and I will give a full detailed answer later on.
Guardianship Legislation
MR HUMPHRIES: My question is to the Chief Minister. I refer to a report on ABC radio at 6 o'clock last night quoting the Chief Minister as saying that she had heeded the call of the community for further consultation on the guardianship Bills which were before the Assembly earlier this week. She was quoted as saying that she welcomed the opportunity. Can she explain how she reconciles this statement with the fact that she and her party on Tuesday night voted against a motion to adjourn those Bills for that very thing - further consultation? How would she have consulted if she had been successful in debating the Bills on Tuesday night?
MS FOLLETT: Very easily, Mr Acting Speaker. The people who have called for further consultation also called for the Bill to be concluded to the in-principle stage when it was introduced for discussion this week. You have only to ask them that. It is a fact that in making that view known they also made known some issues which they wished to have further explored in relation to the guardianship Bills. I did not hear myself on the ABC last night; but, if I said it I am pleased that I did, because I am very glad to have an opportunity for further consultation on such an important matter.
Nevertheless, Mr Humphries ought to acknowledge that the groups involved were happy and were, in fact, looking forward to that debate being taken through the in-principle stage. I think that answers Mr Humphries' question. He is, of course, totally unfamiliar with the process of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .