Page 2810 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 14 August 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR JENSEN (9.03): I notice that Mr Wayne Berry has cut and run again. He has given his comments and left the chamber once more. I seem to recall, in Mr Berry's speech this evening, a reference to some problems with the terms of reference. Maybe I missed something but I was not quite sure which terms of reference he was talking about. I can only assume that he was talking about the terms of reference that are located in this report. I presume that, because it was not clear from his comments.
A quick check of the terms of reference on page 8 of the report indicates that these terms of reference were set out in a letter dated 16 August by the Chief Executive of the Hospital Services Division of the Royal Canberra and Woden Valley Hospital Interim Board of Directors. That letter invited Professor Fraenkel to conduct a small study. We have specific terms of reference which I will quote just so that people are aware of what we are talking about:
. to review the state of research in the Woden Valley and Royal Canberra Hospitals
. to develop proposals for strengthening the research infrastructure and
. to develop proposals for a university hospital concept.
They were the terms of reference. I seem to recall that it was during this period that Mr Berry was in fact the Minister responsible and that the Chief Executive of the Hospital Services Division was, in fact, responsible to Mr Berry as the Minister. So, I am not quite sure whether Mr Berry is in fact having a shot at himself for ensuring that the terms of reference were not up to the mark. That is all I can assume. I guess Mr Berry got carried away, if you like, in trying to bring other matters into the debate, and forgot that when this report was commissioned he was the responsible Minister. If Mr Berry had these concerns, why did he not change them during the time? He had plenty of time from August until December to change those terms of reference. Once again one can only assume that we find Mr Berry seeking to make cheap political points really forgetting, in fact, that he was the one responsible.
This brings me on to another issue that Mr Berry raised - concern about the lack of consultation. Once again he must not have been talking about the report and its processes when he referred to that apparent lack because, once again, it was his administration that commissioned this report, established the terms of reference and appointed the members of the review.
Once again we return to page 8 of the report and we see considerable reference to a list of submissions received. Mr Connolly may like to have a look at the report just to prove that I am not telling any pork pies; it is actually the truth. Maybe Mr Berry did not read the list at appendix B of the report, and I refer members to that appendix B. We find a list of submissions from 27 people,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .