Page 2788 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 20 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Madam Speaker, as far as the fee is concerned, there does not appear to me to be a need at this stage to have a fee. Mr Berry has not been able to provide convincing evidence of extra cost to the community. However, on that issue, should he be able to demonstrate it and want to bring this back to this Assembly, I would consider it. I do not think it is going to be necessary to give control over a fee in terms of the pharmacies. I like to work under the old concept that if it is not broken, do not fix it. I feel that that is exactly what Mr Berry is looking at.
Madam Speaker, I move further along the back of this envelope to look at some of the control mechanisms attempted to be put into place by Mr Berry in his amendment No. 2 relating to omitting a word from paragraph (1)(c). I think it is important to point out what paragraph (1)(c) in section 150 of the principal Act says. It states:
(c) the treatment to be conducted at the proposed treatment centre is suitable for persons such as those likely to be referred to the centre under this Ordinance, or those likely to be voluntary participants in the treatment;
Further back in section 150 it says that an applicant has to be a fit and proper person to conduct a treatment centre. It also says:
... the service shall grant an approval to the applicant to conduct a treatment centre of the type specified in the application at the premises specified in the application.
It is provided that a whole series of conditions must be met. What has happened, Madam Speaker, is that Mr Berry has decided suddenly that things might not go exactly the way he wants them to go and therefore he wants to quickly add these extra controls. There is no evidence at all that these extra controls are going to be required.
What we have here is Mr Berry reaching an ideological low in dealing with this Bill. He constantly comments, Madam Speaker, on the inadequacy of the report, and accuses us of not having done this and not having done that, and, of course, the evidence simply is not there. I wonder whether Mr Berry has been to a private treatment centre, as this committee has. Each member of the committee, particularly Mrs Grassby, commented in very positive terms about the private treatment centres that we visited in Sydney. So, Mr Berry, wherever you are coming from as far as this goes, and I do not understand it, the issues you raise in terms of these amendments and the issues you raise in terms of inadequacy, as you see it, of the committee's report simply are not there.
We chose, as I have chosen on a number of occasions, not to fill a committee report with peripheral knowledge, because we do not see it as being necessary. We prefer to get down to basics and to deal with the real issues. It may be difficult for you, but that does not mean to say that we have not considered all the other issues. We certainly did consider a number of the things that you and Mr Connolly claimed earlier in speeches that we did not consider. As far as those things go, you are wrong. As far as your approach to methadone goes, since changing your mind during the course of the last year, you are simply wrong. That is why it is, Madam Speaker, that these amendments will add nothing. I do not see the need for them. If the need arises, bring them back to the Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .