The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (18:16): I would like to make a very brief contribution on this motion. Initially I was very sympathetic to the motion and was inclined to support the disallowance. I had had discussion with the family of the late Gayle Woodford, who indicated they supported the disallowance motion and urged me to do the same. They spoke of the dangers of remote workers and explained why the burden of making these decisions should not fall to the workers. I gave them an undertaking to support the disallowance motion.
However, earlier this week the Minister for Health wrote to me, advising me that, should the disallowance motion succeed, it would have several consequences, including some practitioners not being covered by the regulations, and the requirement for second responders to have working with children safety checks removed. The minister outlined that they would be working with stakeholders and the Woodford family on new regulations, and this would be undertaken within a month.
Upon receipt of this letter, I contacted the Woodford family, who indicated they were comfortable with what the minister was suggesting in his letter. As such, I will not be supporting the motion on the basis of the undertaking the minister has made and, most importantly, on the basis that the family of Ms Woodford are satisfied with this outcome.