Page 3019 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 14 September 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This is extremely sensitive legislation. It is complex in the sense that it governs the delivery of services in a very difficult area of health service and it has to be dealt with very sensitively. It is also an area where there has to be comprehensive consultation because of those sensitivities. The Government is therefore of the view that that consultation, in keeping with the Government's general philosophy on consultation, is better extended by referring this matter to the Standing Committee on Social Policy.
In relation to the reporting date, I have taken the opportunity to consult with the chair of that committee, Ms Ellis, and I am informed that that would be an appropriate date for the Social Policy Committee to report on this very sensitive matter. I commend the motion to the Assembly.
MR MOORE (4.14): I welcome this motion, Mr Deputy Speaker. I discussed this matter with Mr Connolly the other day, and I have also spoken about it with Mrs Carnell and Ms Szuty. We are all of the opinion that this matter ought follow the process Mr Berry is suggesting.
It was in November 1990 that the Balancing Rights report came down. The then chairman, Mr Nick Seddon, presented a series of recommendations that he saw as urgent for reform in the mental health area. In fact, we will be talking about a little over three years by the time this Assembly committee reports. The committee will be working very fast compared to the time the Government has taken to get this far.
Mr Connolly: Yes, but that last step to the summit is easy when you have climbed all the way.
MR MOORE: The statements Mr Connolly made after presenting the draft exposure Bill were very interesting. I must say that I commend him for that process; it is appropriate. But, when some people presented their opinions on the draft exposure Bill, he was rather scathing in his comments, and I have upstairs a press release to that effect.
Mr Connolly: I think they described the Bill as Stalinist, which I described as hysterical.
Mr Humphries: The Minister's response matched it, I think.
MR MOORE: The Minister's response was certainly hysterical.
Mr Lamont: Don't be provocative.
MR MOORE: When have I ever been provocative, Mr Lamont? I think that, finally, the Minister has come around to seeing good sense, and that we now have the opportunity for not only the Bill, but the Bill in its context, that is, the context of Balancing Rights, to be discussed and appropriately considered by the standing committee. The committee discussed the issue of the Adoption Bill and managed to deal with it in a very brief timeframe. It made some very positive recommendations that assisted in improving that Bill.
We are trying here to take the work of the Minister and to see how we can improve on it to achieve the best possible mental health system for the community as a whole. Any of us who have read the Bill would realise that a great deal of work has been done already in attempting to implement some of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .