Page 379 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 23 February 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MRS CARNELL: Thank you. The point I am making is that the legislation that is before us today will achieve two things. It will enshrine Medicare principles in legislation. It then goes on in clause 6 to say, "Nothing in this Part is to be taken to create any legal rights" that were not already in existence, and really it does not mean anything anyway. So that means that the enshrining of the Medicare principles means nothing; it has no legal right - all of that sort of stuff. So we do not have to do it today. Your senior executives themselves say that there is absolutely no reason to put this legislation into place today - no reason at all. There are no financial implications; there is no drama. So why are we doing it? It is not urgent.
MR STEVENSON (5.02): Without information, there can be no democracy.
Mr Connolly: I have heard you say this before.
MR STEVENSON: It is a very simple situation. Mr Connolly says that I have said it before. I have said it before and I will continue to say it until the wave of public concern makes sure that the people have an opportunity to find out about legislation that is proposed in this house before it is passed. Someone told me a story a couple of days ago about a Minister in this house. I will not indicate who or when. The particular Minister was suggesting that the public should not be too involved with legislation because they do not have the capability of making the decision on it; they do not have the information. The gentleman said, "I asked. Give us the information. Will you make available to me the documents that you have concerning this particular area?". The Minister said, "No, I cannot do that; it is confidential". I think it is a very common - - -
Mr Connolly: This is a slur on the four of us. Are you prepared to say who this is so that someone can defend themselves?
MR STEVENSON: It is not necessarily a slur on any one of the four of you. I said, "A Minister in this house". I made a point of not saying when. Who would disagree with the principle? Who would disagree that so many members in this house think that the public are not up to making decisions, otherwise they would move to give them rights under citizens' referenda? Who would disagree that many members in this house will not make information available? I wanted to get some information on health matters. We applied for the data and we were told that we would have to apply under freedom of information. Why? Why not just give me the information? Under freedom of information I was told that it would cost me $700 to get some information on health matters so that I could check some of the decisions that are of grave concern to many people in this community.
Ms Follett: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker, about the relevance of the remarks. We do have a motion before us that I think is pretty specific.
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Stevenson, the motion before us is, "That the Assembly notes with concern the indecent haste with which the Government is bringing forward legislation for premature debate after its introduction". Would you keep your remarks to that motion, please.
MR STEVENSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I thought they were rather pertinent. Indeed, I was answering a suggestion that was made.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .