Page 3423 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 14 November 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS GALLAGHER: I will go to the points that the opposition are crowing about. Their inconsistency on human rights and their capacity to pick it up and run with it when they want to and then drop it like a hot potato at another time always amuse me.
This is serious legislation. I have to say that, when I introduced this bill, there was the capacity to pull out the amendments that were required to be passed in November and that we needed and to separate the bill if we had to. I waited to hear back from people, through their briefings from my office, about how they felt about supporting the legislation. We were never given an indication that this bill is so complex that it requires more time to consider it. We certainly made ourselves available. People took up the opportunities for those briefings. I know Dr Foskey did. I know Mr Smyth’s office had some discussion with my office.
If there were people who, as you listen to the arguments today, wanted more time for this, I would have been more than happy to separate out of this bill the amendments that needed to be passed by November, pass them today and leave the rest. But it is very difficult when you come into the chamber and start running these arguments and not raise them with me prior to that, when I could have acted on them.
The arguments about majority government, not listening to people and ignoring input are stupid arguments to run. I have read the scrutiny of bills report. I have listened to what the pharmacy guild is saying and responded to that. Majority government reads the scrutiny report, weighs it up and says, “Okay, this is based on the report of the scrutiny of bills committee, which has the responsibility to look at these bills and provide their advice. The government looks at it and responds to it.” I am now getting vilified for doing what the scrutiny report wants me to do. How ridiculous! Accusing us of using majority government to get there—how ridiculous!
We could pass proposed new section 59A today. It has existed verbatim since 1994 in ACT legislation. Mr Seselja, as chair of the scrutiny of bills committee, failed to pick that up. It has existed for 12 years in the Mental Health (Treatment and Care) Act. Your outrage today over this clause is ridiculous. It has been there for 12 years. It has been through the Castan review; it has been through the human rights process. All of them, based on their advice to me, have allowed that section to continue. There is a new paragraph (d), which says that the person must be brought before the tribunal as soon as possible. It has been improved from the clause that was there and it has been given note.
Based on that advice, I was happy for 59A to proceed. It had been given the tick through the human rights audit. It had been given the tick through our own human rights process, through JACS, with an amendment, which we agreed to. However, the scrutiny report raised the argument with me. I had another look at it yesterday and thought, “All right. I will accept the scrutiny of bills committee’s argument on this. I will listen to what the Assembly is saying to me.” That is a minister’s job. It is to take pieces of advice. We have taken advice from Monash University; we have taken advice from JACS. I have taken advice from health. Now I have taken advice from the scrutiny of bills committee.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .