HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-11-26 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

HEALTH CARE (COUNTRY HEALTH) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 29 October 2008. Page 486.)

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN (00:06): The government is opposed to the bill. It is not consistent with the existing powers of the Minister for Health and it will be difficult to apply. By making decisions relating to the closure of a hospital site or emergency services subject to the approval of parliament, the bill is not consistent with the minister's powers under the Health Care Act 2008. It does not deal with resolving a situation where there may be divergent views as to the closure of a site or make it obligatory to go through unnecessary processes where there is agreement on the closure of a site, including where the closure has the support of the relevant health advisory councils.

The bill would be impractical in its application, particularly in the provisions relating to the reduction in emergency services. The application of this clause would be problematic because of the difficulty in interpreting key terms such as 'emergency services', 'emergency' and 'reduced to a significant degree', and therefore when this clause would apply. The reporting requirements under proposed clause 40(d) creates an unreasonable duplication of effort for the health department given that it must produce its annual report one month after this report is due.

Reliable and meaningful reporting of health outcomes as proposed is not practical on an annual basis and is more properly the function of the Health Performance Council under the Health Care Act. The Legislative Council should note that one of the principles of the Health Care Act is focused on the planning and provision of health services in country regions and is therefore a proper subject of a report from the Health Performance Council.

The government can take steps to ensure that information about health professionals in country regions can be included in the annual report. The government will commit as a matter of policy to requiring reasonable notification of a proposal to close a hospital site and ensuring that it takes proper steps to inform those who are likely to be impacted by any proposed closure. With the advice of the Country Health SA Board, the government will develop a set of guidelines to be followed when considering the closure of a hospital site or a significant reduction in emergency services.

The government opposes the bill. It is not consistent with the current health care governance regime. As the honourable Leader of the Government suggested in relation to the previous bill, most of the private members' bills that come before this place are not well thought out. They are not well considered as potential legislation to go into the law of this state.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: I am simply stating the reality, that private members know that most of the legislation they put forward is very unlikely to make it to the statute book, so they do not exercise the necessary diligence. This bill is about getting a cheap headline. This bill is about trying to make political capital out of a situation where the opposition, and other members, consider that there is some political expediency to be gained. This bill is not consistent with health governance arrangements. It is ill thought out and it is designed simply to make some political gain. The government opposes the bill.

The Hon. S.G. WADE (00:10): I rise to indicate the opposition's support for this bill. This bill follows on from the failed Country Health Care Plan, released and later withdrawn by the Rann government—a plan which sought to slash health services in rural and regional South Australia. The Country Health Care Plan was a colossal demonstration of how out of touch the Rann Labor government is with regional South Australia, and shows the low regard with which it is held by this government.

The Country Health Care Plan was decisively rejected by the community—not only by country communities but also by the wider South Australian public. The plan deserved to be decisively rejected. It was a plan which set out to close down country hospitals without consultation with local communities in an effort to create savings to be invested in more bureaucrats. The centrepiece of the plan was the downgrading of 43 country hospitals to mere bandaid centres and first aid posts—the most dramatic downgrading of country health services in the history of the state.

What is particularly offensive is that the government dared to promote the plan when regional South Australia is struggling to cope with the effects of the drought. The social fabric of many South Australian regional communities is under extreme pressure and this government, with its National Party and so-called Independent members within cabinet, supported the disembowelling of country health services. The Rann Labor government's lack of regard for rural and regional South Australians came as no surprise, but it was callous in its timing and delivery.

For seven years Premier Rann has sat at the top of the State Administration Centre and celebrated the fact that his kingdom stretches as far as the eye can see. It is bad luck if you are over the horizon in the northern or southern suburbs, but heaven help you if you live in regional South Australia. While Messrs Rann and Foley are more than happy to reap the financial benefits of rural industries, such as mining and farming, they are not willing to invest or take any interest in country South Australia or provide any support to one-third of South Australians who live outside metropolitan Adelaide. In fact, Mr Rann and his colleagues hold country South Australians in such contempt that, as I previously mentioned, they did not even consult with affected communities before announcing their intention to cut health services and close hospitals.

Having abolished country health boards—the voice of local communities—and having silenced the health professionals and employees, minister Hill was confident that there was no-one left to criticise his new plan; that he was free to play merry hell with country hospitals. But what a lesson he learnt! Stripped of their voice through the abolition of country health boards, the rural and regional communities, supported by their metropolitan cousins, nevertheless found a voice in community action and public protest. They sent a loud and clear message to minister Hill, the Premier and this government: we will not be silenced and we will not have our hospitals closed.

It was an impressive display of people power. The public reception was so poor that our media-focused Premier was forced to withdraw the plan, and the government is now consulting on a new plan—this time entitled 'the Country Health Care Strategy'. This leads us to this bill. In announcing the development of the Country Health Care Strategy, the Premier and the Minister for Health have said repeatedly that no country hospital would close under this government. It is a laudable commitment, but one about which I must confess I am somewhat sceptical.

The opposition supports the scepticism reflected in the bill introduced by the Hon. Robert Brokenshire. We are sceptical because, unfortunately, South Australians have consistently found that Premier Rann and his government feel no compulsion to uphold any of their commitments. I am reminded of the Treasurer's statement in 2002 when he said, 'You do not have the moral fibre to go back on your promises: I have.' That is a very telling comment, indeed.

It is this record, littered with broken promises, that is the catalyst for this bill today. Having learned the hard way that commitments from this government are not worth the paper on which they are written, the only way in which to hold the Premier and this government to account is to force them to do so through a bill.

This bill provides a series of steps which must be taken before a country hospital can be closed. These steps are reasonable and include giving notice in the press and an obligation to present a report to parliament on the planned closure of a hospital. It is a sensible proposal made necessary by a government that does not keep its word or honour its commitments.

The opposition will support this bill and welcomes the fact that Family First has introduced it. We hope that it might suggest that it has learnt a lesson about this government. I mentioned earlier that the voice of country people and their representation on matters such as the country health plan were silenced by the government's abolition of country health boards. This was a shameful act, which was supported by Family First through its support of the government's abolition of these boards. Some might be surprised to hear that today Family First is arguing for more consultation, after it supported the removal of the most effective means of consultation and communication. I choose to see it as a late but welcome realisation—perhaps a turn on the road to Damascus.

The reality is that rural and regional South Australians have only one reliable friend in this parliament. The National Party has joined the Labor cabinet and supported the country health plan. Family First supported muting the country voice. Labor manages the other parties when it suits them. The Liberal Party stands up for country South Australia consistently and forcefully.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK (00:15): I support this amendment to the Health Care Act introduced by the Hon. Robert Brokenshire, because it will ensure that the Premier's very public guarantee to rural and regional South Australia results in the protection of country hospitals and health services. Happily, the minister's previous plan to close down or downsize most country hospitals was thwarted.

I think we need to ensure that the minister takes into account the elements that promote health and healing. There has been extensive research, for instance, about healing and how psychological stresses impair healing. Studies show that positive social interaction influences hypothalamic pituitary adrenal (HPA) activity, which promotes wound healing. So, if we force country people away from their own communities when they are trying to heal their illnesses and diseases and injuries it is clear that it will have a negative impact on them.

Rural South Australians deserve the right to readily accessible health services similar to their city counterparts. Country people have worked very hard to get the resources they need in their areas. They are fabulous at fundraising, raffles, debutante balls, and all sorts of things, to get money for their local hospitals, and they need to be included in decision making about their local hospitals.

I remind members of the government of the Generational Health Review, which was conducted a few years ago under its auspices. On page 103 it states:

The public has a right to have a say on public health system issues and direction...The right to have a say means the provision of opportunities for involvement across the health care system at all levels. This includes opportunities for community members to be involved in the design, directions and policies of their local health services as well as the right to be involved in decision making processes at the whole-of-health-system level.

So, having mandatory disclosure of a decision to alter country health services to the local community provides for transparency. The ability to make submissions to the minister allows public input.

Further steps will need to be taken to guarantee that country members are involved in the design, directions and policies of their local health services, as these are the people who know best what is required, not city bureaucrats. The Generational Health Review states on page 5:

Differences in household income could also be observed with the proportion of low-income families significantly higher in country South Australia than in Adelaide. NATSEM21 found that, in 1996, around 25 per cent of households in Adelaide had incomes under $15,600, compared to over 30 per cent of households in country South Australia.

This demonstrates that there is a need for more, not fewer, local health services in rural South Australia, due to the proportion of low income earners. I support this bill because, without guaranteed access to regional health care, the foundations of community in country areas will be eroded.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (00:19): The Greens will be supporting this bill, which recognises the importance of country hospitals to country people. When I saw this bill, the first thing that sprang to mind was that governments do need to go through some pain before they see sense in consulting local communities.

Clearly, the government has gone through some pain over the Country Health Care Plan, and it reminded me of the pain the Olsen Liberal government suffered when it closed Croydon Primary School nearly 10 years ago. This prompted me to pull a copy of the Education Act 1972 off the shelf. I note that, not long after that, the Liberal government passed the Education (Government School Closures and Amalgamations) Amendment Act 1998, which contains very similar provisions to those the Hon. Robert Brokenshire is introducing with his legislation.

For example, under part 2A of the Education Act (closure or amalgamation of government schools), a process is set out for public consultation. A review committee must be established that invites submissions from representatives of the local communities likely to be affected by a decision to close or amalgamate a school with another school. Through some pain, the then government saw reason and decided to legislate for consultation over the closure of important public facilities such as schools. Country hospitals are no less important to people than their local school.

I think this measure is sensible. It provides that country hospitals cannot be closed on the sly; they have to go through a proper process of consultation and hear the views of local people. With those brief words, the Greens are happy to support the bill.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (00:21): I rise to indicate my support for the second reading of the bill. Obviously, it has arisen from the government's extremely unpopular health care plan and, with that in mind, I feel compelled to first make some comments about this. Along with the majority of members in this place, I supported the government's bill in February. Although I have since changed my position, I make no apology for my original vote. My office consulted extensively on that bill and, whilst I had reservations, which I expressed very clearly in my second reading contribution, there was simply not enough negative community feedback at the time we debated the bill to convince me to vote against it.

I note that, in the initial stages of consultation after a draft bill was issued in August 2007, community leaders, hospital board members and others treated the bill with a high level of suspicion, and it certainly elicited some passionate reactions. There exists a strong sentiment of distrust in our regions over the centralisation policies of this government, and not just those in relation to health. This sentiment continues to this day and is one of which I am well aware.

However, over time, strong feelings about the government's plan seemed greatly to diminish and, by the start of this year, the vast majority of people I spoke to said pretty much the same thing—that, although they were not exactly thrilled about the bill, they had accepted it and moved on. It was then passed and all hell literally broke loose. Not even the government's $400,000 spin campaign could prevent a landslide of criticism across the state, and we can all speculate about the reasons for that.

First and foremost, I realise that our role in this place is to represent the people, and it is in the light of the public's reaction once the country plan was announced that my position changed. The message from South Australians was loud and clear: they wanted the satisfactory provision of health services in regions, and they wanted legislation that guaranteed that. In his second reading contribution, the Hon. Robert Brokenshire stated that this bill proposes to put into legislation the guarantee the Premier made in a press release to rural and regional people in South Australia, that is, that we do not see hospitals and health services further downsized or closed.

In fact, both the Premier and the health minister have stated in a number of press releases, as well as frequently in the media, that this will be the case. In particular, they have commented on 'no closures of country hospitals' and the provision of emergency services in those hospitals. Incidentally, the government has also publicly committed to proceeding with the improved infrastructure and service commitments that were outlined in its original plan, including capital infrastructure for Ceduna, Port Pirie, Berri and Whyalla.

As the Hon. Robert Brokenshire said, until something is encoded in legislation, regional and rural South Australians will not have the certainty they demand.

I really think that we in this place should listen to their concerns and provide that certainty to them. We cannot focus solely on the economic benefits of a plan: we must give equal consideration to the social costs of leaving things the way they are. Of course, the government is currently having public consultation meetings about its revised Country Health Care Plan, and the first of a series of public meetings on the country health strategy was held in Cleve on 17 November. These meetings are continuing over the next few weeks.

There is no doubt that the government's original plan was highly unpopular and a far cry from what regional South Australians expected from a country health service. The government has said that it has heard this voice, and that it requested that Country Health SA, with the support of the country health task force, develop a strategy to address these issues. However, can we in this place afford to wait and trust this government, given its track record—not to mention its disregarding information that continues to filter down to all of us?

For all the positive press releases put out by the Premier's 'Ministry of Truth' (as I like to call it), reports have emerged that the government is trying to discourage people from attending public consultation meetings on its revised Country Health Care Plan. Last week I heard the member for Flinders say on ABC Radio that the Eyre Peninsula meetings were a farce. The member said that three of the meetings were scheduled for the middle of the day during harvest, meaning that farmers and working people could not attend. The member for Flinders said that many people were not being given the opportunity to give feedback on this critical issue. She said:

I am quite sure the government wants to have a minimum number of people possible because I think they have their agenda and they don't really want to upset it. So instead of getting 200 or more like we did at other consultations, we'll be lucky if we get 10 or 20. It will only be the retired people who can get there to the consultation.

This was hotly disputed by Peter Blacker, chair of the Country Health Plan task force, who said that it had been scheduled in order to meet timelines.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire interjecting:

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Exactly. The Hon. Robert Brokenshire asks whose timelines, and I would like to make that point. Quite often in this place we express concerns about the consultation processes of this government. Consultation means that you actually consult and compromise and make sure that the people you are consulting with are available for input.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: That's exactly right; make sure they can turn up. I am not sure whether or not that is true but, given past comments that have come to this place, it is more than likely. As members in this place will know, I am a strong critic of the way this government consults. It usually means either making no real effort to engage stakeholders or meet up with them or going into those meetings with no real intention of taking the feedback into account. Last Thursday there was also more criticism on ABC Radio that community consultation sessions were not being advertised enough. Several Jamestown residents told the meeting on Wednesday that they found out about it just hours before it began.

There are differences of opinion on this matter but, given the overwhelming public reaction to the original plan and the fact that the government has stated on its own website that hospitals and health services will not be further downsized or closed, why would we not support this bill? In his second reading speech the honourable member spoke about issues facing rural and regional South Australians—issues such as transport and the drought. He also noted that there was widespread support in metropolitan Adelaide to ensure that adequate health services were provided in country areas because many people living in Adelaide have family who live in the country. I think it is also worth noting that a lot of people, South Australians as well as those from other places, holiday in some of these regions, which is another reason we need an adequate level of services.

I will play it straight on this one. I support this bill because it may just give rural and regional South Australians some peace of mind, and it may just reverse some of the damage done. The bill is straightforward, sensible and, as I have said, highly warranted. Given the public's overwhelming negative response to the government's original plan, I think we in this place have a duty to act on their behalf and pass this legislation. It is clearly what people want, and that is who we are meant to represent. Rural and regional people play a vital role in the social and economic vibrancy of our state, and that is why they deserve our support. It is in all our interests, even those of us who live in Adelaide, that rural communities—particularly in the present climate—are given the opportunity to flourish. I congratulate the Hon. Robert Brokenshire for introducing this bill and I have appreciated hearing the contributions of other members.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (00:30): I will be brief but I have some summing-up remarks. First, I would like to thank all colleagues who have spoken in favour of this bill. I sincerely and genuinely appreciate their input and support. I know that country people throughout South Australia will also appreciate it.

I was incredibly disappointed by what could only be described as a pitiful debate from the government on the reasons why this bill should not be supported. The bottom line, or the truth, is that the government is incredibly embarrassed about the mess it has created in trying to work against the best health interests of rural and regional South Australians. The Minister for Health has two lines that he has been given by the spin doctors—not the doctors who are trying to fix the health of rural and regional people, but the spin doctors in the minister's and the Premier's office. I will tell you what the first line is: 'We've got a good health system and we're making it even better.' That is the first thing you hear the Hon. John Hill talk about every time someone criticises the lack of a good health system in this state.

On the weekend we had an example of that, where specialist doctors and professors said they are in crisis when it comes to the health system and the Minister for Health simply dismissed it and made it look as if those professionals did not know what they were talking about. In this case it was said that the Queen Elizabeth Hospital is a great hospital, everything is fine, they are building more, and they are going to build the Marj and so on.

The Hon. Bernie Finnigan tried to defend the government's pathetic position in not supporting this bill. He commented on clause 40D of the Health Care (Country Health) Amendment Bill, which basically provides that the minister must, within two months—that is, 60 days; probably 62 days even—after the end of each financial year, cause a report to be prepared that sets out, in relation to that financial year, a statement about spending on expanding health services to country areas, information about the steps taken to support health professionals who provide services in country areas, and information about the number of health professionals who are estimated to work in country areas at the end of the financial year.

On top of that, it simply says that the minister must cause a copy of the report to be laid before both houses of parliament. The government is objecting to that basic transparency. It is saying that it does not have enough time to do it, for crying out loud. What does the government do? What do the ministers do if they cannot get basic material like this before the parliament? How about some transparency? Thank goodness we have the Legislative Council to put pressure on a government that clearly, from the government's response, not only does not want a Legislative Council—the Premier is going to hold a referendum to get rid of it on the second Saturday of March 2010—but it does not even want a parliament.

How dare a member of parliament from either house put up a bill that looks after people? We are supposed to live in a dictatorship now, where nobody knows anything that is good for anyone other than government. That is basically summing up what this honourable member said. 'We know nothing; the community of South Australia, rural and regional South Australians know nothing. What are they complaining about?' They are complaining because they pay taxes, they get unwell and they are very nervous and worried when they have the threat of losing their health system.

As many honourable members have said, all this bill does, in simple, legal language is ensure that the protection mechanisms that the Premier and the Minister for Health said that they would guarantee in a press release, are put into law. The simple question is: why are we putting it into law? We ask that question because we do not trust a press release. A press release will not guarantee somebody at Keith, Whyalla, Ceduna, Loxton or McLaren Vale that there will be a hospital, because that press release means diddly squat when it comes to delivery of health services. This legislation guarantees that there will be checks, balances and transparency and that a press release issued by the Premier and the Minister for Health for the purpose of spin will be put into legislation. In thanking members for supporting the bill, I ask: why are the government and the Premier not supporting this bill, when all we are doing is putting their press release into legislation?

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. R.P. Wortley): I remind the honourable member that he should be wearing a tie and that it should be done up very tightly.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 and 2 passed.

Clause 3.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: I have a question of the mover. In relation to the insertion of new Division 5A, I refer to new section 40B—Closure of a country hospital site. In new subsection (2) reference is made to giving notice in accordance with the regulations: are they regulations made under some amendment proposed in this bill or regulations under the existing act?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: The regulations always have to come in after the bill has passed, just as the situation applies with the government where we always wait with bated breath for the regulations to come through and there is an opportunity to amend or debate those regulations.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: My question is: under what section of either your proposed amendments here or the existing act are those recommendations to be made?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I understand that the regulations would be made under the particular amendments in this bill in concurrence with any relevant sections of the existing bill.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: Under new section 40B(2), when it says that the minister has to give notice to local community bodies, organisations or groups that the minister assesses as having a reasonable level of connection with the country hospital, given that members have indicated that they do not trust the minister to consult with local communities, and given that it is the minister who makes the assessment as to who should be consulted, how will they ensure that organisations, which may wish to be involved and receive this notice but have not, will have some recourse to ensure that they do receive this notice?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: New section 40B(3)(d) provides:

(d) an invitation for interested persons or bodies to make representations in writing to the Minister in relation to proposed closure within a period (of at least 28 days) specified by the Minister.

It provides that the minister will have to have further consultation. There has been no real consultation at all. If the government wants to assist with fine-tuning regulations that can then go before the Legislative Review Committee, I would support that. But this legislation enshrines protection and ensures that there is proper due process with respect to a possible closure of a country hospital. It will not be a decision made by city-centric bureaucrats sitting in Hindmarsh Square in Adelaide.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The line of questioning that the Hon. Bernard Finnigan is pursuing seems quite extraordinary. As I understand it, and perhaps the mover of the bill might clarify this if I am misunderstanding it, the intent of the member's bill is to give MLCs an opportunity to ensure that the minister's and Premier's press releases are honoured, but now we seem to have the Hon. Mr Finnigan suggesting that not only can the minister not be trusted to implement his press release but also he cannot be trusted to make regulations that are consistent with a bill that might be passed by this council, and then he cannot be trusted to observe the regulations once it is in. It is extraordinary. I think it is almost a reflection that needs a substantive motion.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: I am quite happy to speak for myself rather than have motives impugned to me by honourable members opposite. This is a bill that it is proposed will become part of the statutes of this state, and I have asked under what section of the act these regulations are to be made and I have not received a satisfactory response. Then the member indicated, given that honourable members have said they do not have trust in the government—which I, of course, do—and given that they have said they do not have trust in the government to consult, that this act provides that notice be given to local community bodies, organisations or groups, yet the mover has not been able to indicate what recourse organisations have that might be excluded by that provision. They are saying they do not trust the minister. Who assesses who should be consulted? The minister. Yet the mover has not been able to indicate where that situation would be addressed. Is he saying, despite not being able to point to where the regulations would be made, that the regulations would have to specify each and every individual body, organisation or group that would need to be consulted in every individual case?

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: In my limited time in here (2½ years) I have never heard anyone put up a piece of legislation and be questioned about the regulations. That is the minister's job. That is what the Legislative Review Committee is for. That is why we have disallowance motions, if we do not agree with the regulations. The honourable member says that bills put up by crossbenchers are substandard, and now he wants the honourable member to take responsibility for regulations and where they are placed as well. Give me a break!

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: I am not sure where I indicated that. What I am saying is that, given that I and other honourable members are being asked to vote this bill into the law of this state, I am clarifying how the clauses would apply. The point I was making in my second reading contribution is that, if you are going to put forward bills that you expect to be made law, those bills ought to be pretty thoroughly considered and able to operate properly. Here I am unable to find out what section of the act regulations are to be made in accordance with. It is a fairly simple matter.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Can I assist the Hon. Bernard Finnigan by indicating that the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's bill indicates that it is an amendment to the Health Care Act 2008 and under that act in section 100 regulations can be made. It is an amendment bill. It is not supposed to have its own regulation-making power.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: I am indebted to the honourable member. That is simply what I was asking. New section 40B(8) states:

If it is still proposed that the country hospital be closed, the closure cannot occur without the approval of both houses of parliament.

At what juncture does this provision take effect? The wording is, 'If it is still proposed that the country hospital is to be closed,' but how is that to be determined?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: First, I put on the public record that I am surprised that the Hon. Mr Bernard Finnigan is being so pedantic when it comes to this issue, given that he is one of the few members who has a rural and regional background. I thought the honourable member would be supporting the intent of this bill because he is a South-East lad, and he knows the importance of hospitals. The bill provides:

If it is still proposed that the country hospital will be closed, the closure cannot occur without the approval of both houses of parliament.

So, there are quite a lot of steps to work through the procedures and processes. I might add, far more steps than was the case with the old proposal put forward by this government. The government spent $400,000 or $500,000 trying to hoodwink and manipulate country people when it came to trying to get through what was bad public policy for country people. I do not apologise for the fact that the minister will have to do some of the work on the processes. That is what ministers get paid for. That is why ministers are paid a lot more money than backbenchers, together with all the lurks and perks that go with it.

The bill then provides that, when the minister has done the work required, the minister has to then report to the parliament. Because the Westminster system is a democratic system and not an Eastern Bloc system, the bill then gives both houses of parliament the opportunity to consider and sign off on the closure, which provides an absolute check and balance. So, if something breaks down in the other steps and processes, constituents can contact both me and my colleagues in this chamber to say that there is a problem and it can then be raised. If we did more of that, there would be less heartache and problems out there in the community.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: I appreciate that members are passionate about this issue. What I am simply trying to do is to clarify the meaning of some of the clauses of the proposed bill, which I have been unable to do. I have twice attempted to do so, and there has been no satisfactory answer about how any of these things are to be defined.

With every government bill that is introduced, the most extraordinary questions are asked. We have our advisers here to answer questions. Amendments are pored over and argued over in the most excruciating detail on occasion. Because I am being asked to vote on a bill to make it law, I am asking questions such as 'What does this mean? What does that mean? How do you define that? At what point does that clause apply?' The reply has been, 'Oh, look, this is just outrageous.'

I find it extraordinary that we are being asked to vote this into law without being able to get very simple answers about what certain things mean, which takes me to proposed new section 40C—Reduction in emergency services. Can the honourable member explain how 'emergency services' is defined, also 'discontinued and reduced to a significant degree' and then 'reduced' as used later on?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: First of all, I have to say that I find this quite interesting. When the government puts up a bill—

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Well, I am answering the question. What you are doing is questioning the legal terminology used by parliamentary counsel, which has put your Premier and your Minister for Health's press release into legal terminology. As a former minister, I can tell you that ministers utilise parliamentary counsel, as well as crown law, when they are developing bills—and probably with less input than I have in the case of parliamentary counsel. They get this material coming through, and they do not come up with this sort of questioning. In relation to reduction in emergency services, the bill provides:

Emergency services provided at a country hospital cannot be discontinued or—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I remind the Hon. Ms Bressington and the Hon. Mr Brokenshire that private members should be under the same scrutiny as the government when presenting a bill. If a bill is being presented by a private member, it is their responsibility to answer any queries, whether they come from government or opposition members.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I am happy to have parliamentary counsel alongside me so that I can get some specific technical or legal advice to assist the member if that is what the member and the chamber would like. I suggest that we adjourn the council for 10 minutes while I bring parliamentary counsel back in and I will then ask for some specifics. I will only need the parliamentary counsel, not five other advisers.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: I am happy to assure the committee that that will not be necessary, but I certainly ask our honourable ministers to make note of the fact that, where the definitions in clauses and the application of clauses are to be questioned, if they have been drafted by parliamentary counsel, those questions are not legitimate. I think that is something you should make a note of for future committee stages. Here are three very simple examples where I have said: what does this clause mean and how is it going to work? I have not received satisfactory answers. That is the point I am making.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I would like to comment briefly on the smoke screen that the Hon. Bernard Finnigan has tried to put up. Let us look at the government's bill, not the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's bill. In fact, let us look at the act which it is proposing to amend and which reflects directly on the issue that is being raised. I refer you to the definitions in the Health Care Act. There is a definition there of a non-emergency ambulance service. There is no attempt to define an emergency ambulance service, so presumably when the government brought its bill forward it felt that 'emergency service' was sufficiently legally defined not to require any further definition. So why should the government be able to put forward an act that reflects legally defined words when the Hon. Mr Brokenshire cannot? This is pure petulance by the government. I would like to respond—

The CHAIRMAN: Nobody said that the Hon. Mr Brokenshire cannot do what you are indicating that he is not allowed to do. The Hon. Mr Brokenshire probably does not require your assistance, although you have indicated in the previous answers to some questions that perhaps you know more about the bill than the Hon. Mr Brokenshire knows.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I want to take the opportunity while I have the call to respond to the comments by the Hon. Mr Finnigan and the Leader of the Government in this debate tonight that it is inappropriate for this committee not to debate every clause. I remind—

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I rise on a point of order, Mr Chairman. I suggest that the honourable member's comments are totally irrelevant to the debate on this clause, and I ask him to sit down. My point of order is one of relevance.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I will repeat it: the honourable member's comments are totally irrelevant to the matter that is now before the committee.

The Hon. S.G. Wade interjecting:

The CHAIRMAN: Order! There has been a point of order and the Chairman will make a ruling on it. You are like a jack in the box. I do not consider your response to be relevant either to the bill or to clause 3 of the bill. If you have something relevant to tell the committee, tell us.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I accept your ruling, Mr Chairman, but I note that other members have been able to engage in the same debate.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I thank honourable members for their input but there is a step-by-step process in terms of how the reduction in emergency services would occur. I do not quite understand. I certainly understand the bill and the intent of the measure but I do not quite understand the honourable member's questioning, because the steps are laid out there. Is the honourable member not happy with the steps and, if that is a problem that stops the government from supporting this bill as we go through committee tonight, I ask the honourable member to move amendments to that clause and to be constructive and not destructive. The steps are there but I do not understand the line of questioning.

Clause passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT