Page 5247 - Week 17 - Thursday, 13 December 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
ridicule the Minister on this one because of the pettiness over the issue. I just look forward to the surprise when we arrive at that amendment to which the Minister agrees. It will be like receiving a Christmas present or Mickey Mouse getting a Bernard Collaery watch.
The fact is that this does discriminate. For the Minister to persist with it is indicative of his lack of understanding of discrimination on these sorts of grounds. People are not on the board to practise their profession; they are there to be board members. To discriminate against members of the medical profession in this way just seems to me to be over the top.
MR MOORE (5.29): I have heard Mr Berry's arguments and Mr Humphries' response. It seems to me that the deletion of this particular subclause is a very sensible way to handle this situation. I would urge the Minister to consider it seriously. At least one lawyer has been nominated for the health board already. Whilst I have a great deal of admiration for that person as a practising lawyer, should he be unable to practise in the ACT, through a similar reason to that for somebody being unable to practise here, then it would be appropriate that that person be removed from the board as well.
It seems to me that, in fact, they are probably covered for misbehaviour under subclause (1) anyway. To point specifically to health professionals and to nominate them in this way appears to be totally inappropriate. There is a wide range of people on the health board, as there ought to be, and in due time I am sure that health board will have a much broader range as people come and go on it.
Mr Berry: In 1992.
MR MOORE: In 1992 there will be a much broader range if it continues to exist, and I imagine that to a certain extent that will depend on its performance. But, that being the case, it seems to me that the logical thing to do now is to accept that deleting this paragraph is the most appropriate stance to take on this particular issue.
MR HUMPHRIES (Minister for Health, Education and the Arts) (5.31): I will have to make it clear that Mr Berry does have the wrong end of the stick on this one. I turn first of all to Mr Moore's point. If Mr Moore is concerned about other people changing in some way while on the board and not fulfilling their qualification, I will be happy to consider an amendment from him. But that is not the point of this particular provision. The point is to prevent people who no longer hold the essential qualification for being on the board remaining on the board.
To give an example of what Mr Berry has said which is so fallacious, take his example of a union representative who was appointed to the board. Suppose Mr Berry becomes Minister and he inherits this legislation and decides to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .