Page 4004 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 16 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I would have thought that the Minister would have attempted to explain why he took the position he has. If he had done it on the basis of saying, "We are seeking to amend the law and the processes are in place", I might have been more convinced; but he did not say that. He said, "I do not care about the law. The law is wrong, and everybody that takes a contrary view to me, Wayne Berry, is wrong on this issue". The remedy for the Minister, if he believes that the law is wrong - the debate has been going on for a long time - is to seek to amend it. Had he done so, there would have been a debate on the floor of the house about whether the law ought to be changed. If he had been able to convince us of the rectitude and the quality of his argument, we would have amended the law, and what he did from there on would have been in accordance with the law. But he has told us that he does not care about that.
It is a matter of some concern to me that a Minister does not care what the law says. He has a different view and he is going to set the law aside. In so doing, Madam Speaker, he has encouraged his senior public servants to do the same. So, they are acting outside the law as well, presumably in the belief that they are being supported and protected by their Minister. I submit that they cannot be. Mr Stevenson says that the legal advice that has been given to him in connection with this matter suggests that people who have been adversely affected by this disregard of the law ought to seek legal counsel. That sounds an ominous note to me, not only for the Minister but also for his public servants. I think that a few people, if they were not concerned up until today, ought to be well and truly concerned after this matter has been spelled out in so much detail by Mr Stevenson this afternoon. If the Minister has a counterargument and wants to refute the validity of what is said, he has had his opportunity; but he failed to do so, Madam Speaker, and that is a matter of major concern, I think.
There is still the bottom line question in my mind which the Minister still has not explained. There is a recent legal opinion which affects medical practitioners out there in terms of whether they are complying with the law or not. Why is it that the Minister refuses to tell them what the legal advice is? How do they know where they stand vis-a-vis the law if they continue to comply with what directives they have been given by the health organisation and the Minister? If somebody brings litigation against them, where do they stand? That legal opinion is important to medical practitioners, pathologists and the like, and to our own health professionals; but the Minister suppressed it and he has not explained why. What is there in that legal opinion that requires that it be held secret? This is a legal opinion about the law of the Territory. I can see no justification for keeping it secret. In fact, you have to ask: Why has the Minister done that? He did not answer the question.
I have to accept the evidence that Mr Stevenson has put before us. It has been tabled. It all seems to be properly documented. They all seem to be legitimate documents. The dates seem to coincide with the dates that he mentions; the facts seem to coincide with the assertions that he has made. The Minister has not attempted in any way to refute it. So, I think it puts me and all the other members of this Assembly in a very difficult position. Either we set this allegation aside as being totally irrelevant or we pay due regard to it, in which case the consequences for the Minister must be serious.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .