Page 5246 - Week 17 - Thursday, 13 December 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
entirely happy while ever that organisation was happy enough to have those people represent them. But if the terms of the appointment were that they were representing an organisation - - -
Mr Humphries: But what if they were not?
MR BERRY: Well, if the terms of the appointment were that they should be a representative of an organisation, then, of course, I would be unhappy; but the fact of the matter is that it would be up to the organisation. The Minister seems to ignore the fact that anybody appointed to a board such as this is part of the board, not part of the organisation that he represents.
I seem to recall some legal form about the issue. One case that I recall involved a person called Bennetts. It was in relation to involvement on the Board of Fire Commissioners in New South Wales and whether or not a person on a board was a representative of the organisation that nominated him. Well, he was not a representative of an organisation; he was, in fact, part of the board. For the Minister to say, therefore, that his membership of a professional association had anything to do with his appointment to the board was completely wrong. The fact of the matter is that they are appointed to the board to be board members, to be part of the board, and their professional association or membership plays little part in it.
Of course, people would be appointed to the board because of a particular level of expertise and that is why, I suspect, lawyers, pharmacists and business people are appointed to the board. That is why the Minister has chosen a number of the people he has chosen to participate on the board - all, as I have said earlier, from the top end of town. But if a person who was appointed to the board was disbarred, why is it that he could continue to participate in board procedures when a health professional, similarly chucked out of her or his association, could not?
It just does not make sense to me. It is discriminatory. I do not think any amount of argument from the Minister could convince anybody that that sort of discrimination can be accepted. After all, the people who are on the board are not practising their profession; they are part of the board. That is a matter of fact, and I think it is a matter of law as well. They are not professionals when they are on the board; they are part of the board. I cannot, therefore, find anything convincing in the Minister's argument that would change my view about the amendment.
I again say that these amendments were brought to the attention of the Minister's office. For him to squeal about it is most unprofessional, in my view. It would have been courteous of the Minister to let us know which of the amendments he is likely to agree to. It does not trouble me that much, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is quite easy to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .