Page 5178 - Week 17 - Thursday, 13 December 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Clause 17
MR MOORE (12.15): Mr Speaker, there are a couple of propositions circulated in my name that perhaps ought to be dealt with together to save wasting time. The first is to delete clause 17 and the second is to delete subclause 18(2). The reason for the second proposition is that it is just a logical follow-on from clause 17, and I would encourage members to speak to the two at once, even if we actually deal with the votes afterwards.
The Residents Rally policy, on which I went to an election and by which I still stick, makes it quite clear that it is inappropriate for members elected on that platform to support such a clause. It states categorically, "Membership of the Board will be honorary". In fact, I think the Residents Rally is the only party that went to the electorate with a board of health platform, which I mentioned earlier in my in-principle speech, and I believe that it is appropriate, therefore, to implement this. In respect of providing remuneration in such circumstances, it seems to me that our money ought be spent in the very best possible spot with reference to health, particularly when we are facing a recession. The whole notion of the Board of Health, as Mr Humphries has put it, is to find a better way to spend our money. And I think the best way of spending the money on health is not to spend it on those who are on the health board. It is quite clear that there are enough people in this community who are generous enough to give their time and their expertise to serve on this board.
I now draw attention to subclause 18(1), which would still remain in, which would provide for reimbursement of any expenses actually incurred by a member of the board. Of course, it is most important to make sure that that is the case. I do not think we, as a community, could ask people to actually meet expenses incurred through this sort of situation. However, quite clearly there are enough people who are prepared to go on the board and contribute to the community. Of course, these people are satisfied, and have been for many years on similar boards, to give their time and to make a contribution to the community in this way, and I think it is appropriate that they continue to do so.
This proposition would, of course, also resolve another expense, and that is the time of the Remuneration Tribunal to look at the situation and to come up with an appropriate determination on funding. It also seems to me that there is a risk that there will be some people - and I do not refer to anybody who is currently nominated for the board - who could become more interested in ensuring that the Remuneration Tribunal provides what they consider appropriate, or more funding for them, rather than getting on with the task that needs to be done. It is quite clear to me that it is not necessary to provide remuneration or
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .