Page 3021 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 14 September 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
a document and inviting members of the public to comment on it, and when they did comment on the document they were roundly attacked by the Minister, who seems to have a "defend the Alamo" approach towards government policy - at all costs prevent any breach of the walls. Anybody caring to criticise the Government must get the bullet between the eyes.
The policy on consultation that the Minister referred to is more a policy, in this case, of running for cover. I think the Social Policy Committee is a good body to which to refer such an issue, but it indicates very clearly that the Government does not feel competent any longer to handle the consultation process which is necessary for this Bill to come forward and desires instead to have the protection of other members of the Assembly taking part in the process of developing the legislation.
Mr Connolly: What? We agree, and now we are being criticised for agreeing to the referral to the committee. Run that one past me again, Gary. I missed that argument.
MR HUMPHRIES: I think Mr Connolly has been working too hard on the budget. The budget process has imposed a strain on Mr Connolly's sense of composure over the last few months.
Mr Cornwell: Having heard the budget, I am not surprised.
MR HUMPHRIES: I quite agree. This motion must result in a much better Bill. Goodness knows, we are capable of producing a much better Bill than the one that has been presented already to the community of Canberra. I look forward, Madam Speaker, to the result of this process and to the fulfilment of the process that was begun with the tabling of the Balancing Rights report back in 1990. That is an important part of the process of making sure that we stay in tune with the expectations of our community.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (4.25): Madam Speaker, I must respond to the criticisms that have been made in this debate by both Mr Humphries and Mr Moore about my comments in relation to a group which was formed for the purpose of opposing this Bill. The group, which had not been formed more than a week or so prior to its release of some fairly inflammatory press releases, described the mental health package as a Stalinist piece of legislation, and I was happily quoted as saying that that was a somewhat hysterical reaction from a group in the community.
What is most disappointing in this exercise is the cheap political gamesmanship that has been engaged in by members of the Opposition. I think Mr Humphries claimed that, because the Government is now agreeing to refer a matter to an Assembly committee, that demonstrates that we are incapable of conducting a process of consultation and therefore we are to be condemned for agreeing to a process which arose as a result of discussions with Mr Moore, who suggested that. It was an extremely clever little political piece of having two bob each way. Very well done, Mr Humphries, but you are really stretching credulity somewhat.
The person whose credibility is most at stake in this process is Mrs Carnell. Mrs Carnell, in the 18 months or so since she has been a member of this place, has been constantly calling on the Government to implement Balancing Rights - a bit like the budgie: "Implement Balancing Rights; implement Balancing Rights".
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .