Page 850 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 20 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR HARGREAVES (Brindabella) (10.25): I wish to address my remarks to the 246A statement, to indicate to the chamber why it is that I am happy for an extension of the reporting time.
I would like to do some more cogitation on some of the information which has been put forward to the committee, particularly around the use of the AMA guidelines as the definitive statement about what should be what is essentially a log of claims. I am not convinced that that is the best way to go but I do need to do some more thinking about that. I want also to give some thought to—
Opposition members interjecting—
MR HARGREAVES: It is very hard, Mr Speaker, when I hear the grumblings across the chamber.
What we are talking about in this instance is a quantum change in the way in which we do things. We need to take this particularly carefully. I hear that there is disquiet in the community in some sectors and there is encouragement in other parts of the community. I for one would like to digest that before actually committing to these things. In the context of the evidence given thus far, I do not think that the evidence thus far is complete enough for us to be able to make a decision when we come to this chamber.
My position is that maybe delay is a good thing. I think hastening slowly might be the go. I am not really convinced that all of the arguments put are actually sustainable but we will have to wait and see. The timetable, of course, for delivering the report needs to be considered in the context of how many sitting weeks we have left in this Assembly. I need to flag with the chamber, of course, that when the report is delayed, that means the government’s response will also be correspondingly delayed. So the opportunity for legislation to be put into this place, debated and enacted shrinks as every week goes by. We need to understand that, as at today, we have only seven weeks of sittings left in this Assembly. We need to take that into account.
This is a complex exercise when it is dealing with the rights of people, whether those rights affect only two people, 200 people, 1,200 people or 350,000 people. When we are talking about the taking away of the right of one or two people—and that is where the conversation is; whether it is true or false, that is where the conversation is—we do need to consider whether or not that is in the interests of the common good. If it is not in the interests of the common good, we are making a very bad mistake. If it is in the interests of the common good, we need to understand that, accept that, and then we need to sell that to those people who will feel aggrieved.
I have been on the scrutiny of bills committee for most of my parliamentary career and I have to say that whenever I hear a question regarding somebody’s rights I immediately go into twitching mode. I want to be absolutely certain, when this committee recommends to the chamber a course of action, that that is covered off in my heart. I need to be able to sleep, when I am talking about that.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video