Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 13 Hansard (9 December) . . Page.. 4273 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

provision really have to ask themselves what is so wrong with asking people to access those services where they are appropriate.

MS TUCKER (2.55 am): I do not think anyone is suggesting that if someone has broken their back they are going to ask for physiotherapy or some other physical treatment. That example is clearly ludicrous. I explained that there are great complexities in individual cases that are the subject of this legislation, and the experts are saying that there is a case for not compelling people to take treatment in certain situations. It is probably the case that most people, if they have a physical injury, will want to get it fixed up. The point is that you would not have to force someone to do that. Why is there a need to force people to seek rehabilitation? That is exactly the point that is being raised here. It can be counterproductive for the rehabilitation of people in certain circumstances.

What the research is saying - and I said it a couple of times in my speech - is that it is a very individual thing. The healing of people who have been traumatised by crime is a very individual thing. That is why we have to accommodate and respect that in legislation. That is why Mr Rugendyke's amendment is so offensive. He is creating classes of persons here, when all the researchers keep referring to the individual nature of healing.

Question put:

The Assembly voted -

AYES, 8  	NOES, 9

Mr Berry 	Ms Carnell
Mr Corbell 	Mr Cornwell
Mr Hargreaves 	Mr Hird
Mr Kaine 	Mr Humphries
Mr Quinlan 	Mr Moore
Mr Stanhope 	Mr Osborne
Ms Tucker 	Mr Rugendyke
Mr Wood 	Mr Smyth
		Mr Stefaniak

Question so resolved in the negative.

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (3.00 am): I move:

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .