Page 3747 - Week 12 - Thursday, 21 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The Mental Health Service is developing a new strategic plan to cover service requirements for the next three to five years. Part of this plan is to undertake an examination of all accommodation needs for people with psychiatric illnesses. As you would appreciate, it would be inappropriate to pre-empt the outcome by committing resources one way or the other. From our point of view, Mr Deputy Speaker, providing supported accommodation for people with mental illness is important, as is the need for this accommodation to be appropriate to their needs and wishes. Often they do not want to live in these sorts of institutions, and that is why a lot of people are no longer appropriately housed in institutions.
PRECEDENCE TO EXECUTIVE BUSINESS
MR BERRY (Deputy Chief Minister) (3.52): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move:
That so much of the standing and temporary orders be suspended as would prevent precedence being given to orders of the day Nos 1 and 2, executive business, over the discussion of the matter of public importance.
I will speak to that briefly.
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are moving suspension in accordance with standing order 272; is that right, Mr Berry?
MR BERRY: Whichever ones are required to be suspended. I understand that there has been some discussion about this issue and that it is agreed.
Question resolved in the affirmative, with the concurrence of an absolute majority.
BUSINESS FRANCHISE (TOBACCO AND PETROLEUM PRODUCTS) (AMENDMENT) BILL 1993
Debate resumed from 19 October 1993, on motion by Ms Follett:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MS SZUTY (3.53): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is appropriate for me to commence my comments on this Bill by referring to the process by which I have considered it and its contents over the last couple of weeks. My usual procedure regarding the perusal of legislation is, firstly, to read the presentation speech to understand the background and context of what is being proposed; secondly, to read the Bill in conjunction with the explanatory memorandum and compare its contents with what already exists in the principal Act, and on occasions also the regulations. I also note comments made by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee regarding the legislation, consult with people likely to be affected by the legislation and, if questions remain, organise a briefing for myself on the contents of the Bill. During consideration of this Bill the usual process was followed. However, it has become clear to me over the last two weeks that the degree of understanding that I had gained about the Bill and the proposed changes and their implications was fairly limited. In fact, the contextual background for the rationale of this amendment Bill has become extremely confusing.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .