Page 3033 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 14 September 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In this case both Mr Humphries and I commented that we had not had an opportunity to run these pieces of legislation past all of the people that they affected. I am sure that, if we had, the dental therapists would have worked out that they no longer really existed under this Act. Of course, the ramifications of that were alluded to in Mr Berry's tabling speech. The ramifications had the potential to be very dangerous. In fact, it really meant that dental therapists employed by ACT Health, if sued for acts done after 1 March 1993, would not be covered by the Act. In other words, if they did work for a patient between 1 March and now and that patient wanted to sue, that dental therapist or assistant or hygienist would not be covered by any professional indemnity, which would mean that the patient would not be in a position to get their just desserts, I suspect. That is particularly dangerous.
Mr De Domenico: Could they have sued the Government?
MRS CARNELL: I assume that they could have sued the Government. Equally, that would be difficult. Because subsection 34(1B) had been inadvertently deleted from the Act by that Bill that was rushed through by Mr Berry for no good reason, these people really did not exist. Who knows what would have happened. That is the reason that now we are faced with a piece of legislation that has a retrospectivity provision. This Bill is retrospective to the time when Mr Berry raced the Health (Consequential Provisions) Bill through this house.
Mr Kaine: You mean when he stuffed it up.
MRS CARNELL: That is when he stuffed it up. Thank you, Trevor; I need to be a little bit more lucid, obviously. Mr Berry stuffed it up.
Mr Cornwell: He has done that before.
MRS CARNELL: Quite regularly. The Opposition will be supporting this Bill today.
Mr Berry: I am glad that you do not oppose it. We would be here for hours.
MRS CARNELL: This Bill is a good Bill only because it overcomes your stuff-up.
Mrs Grassby: Is that why you are laughing so much? Because you do not really mean a word you are saying?
MRS CARNELL: I do mean every word. The Opposition will be supporting this Bill today, but it never should have been before this house. We would not be wasting this time, money and legislative drafting time if we had not, in the first place, rushed through that legislation.
MR HUMPHRIES (8.23): Madam Speaker, Mrs Carnell has drawn attention to the problem and it has caused some mirth across the other side of the chamber, but the fact of life is that this could have quite serious consequences in other circumstances where legislation has been, as Mr Kaine so eloquently put it, stuffed up. Let me remind members of the Assembly of what occurred on 23 February. This Opposition was extremely concerned about the pace of legislation being forced through the Assembly. Indeed, at one stage in the course of that debate, I said, referring to those opposite:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .