Page 1660 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 30 April 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The present Minister at least was trying to demonstrate an interest in this area. He too was asking questions over this period, a whole range of them - 30 or so, I suspect, in total - on catering, on management, on budget blow-outs, on cost saving measures, on labour costs - a whole range of issues. Before he became the Minister, Mr Humphries was asking questions. He stood up from that position there and said, "We have a major problem in our health system". The record says that.
But what did he do when he became the Minister? Everything just stopped. He asked no questions. He said, "I am Minister now. Everything will be fine. It automatically follows, because I am Minister, that nothing can go wrong". Or so it seems. He went from a position of questioning, of challenging and of claiming great difficulties in this system to a position where he absolutely ignored anything that was going on. He did not ask the questions of his bureaucrats that he was asking of Mr Berry and the then Government. Was he genuine then? Did he believe his words? Did he think there was a problem there? Assuming that he did, we would have expected a crusading Minister, a Minister who would challenge and explore and reconstruct the health portfolio; but he did not do that. He simply stopped. On his arguments, he has been a passive, acquiescing and obedient Minister. He has been a Minister who is happy in his own ignorance.
He should stand up again some time when he gets an opportunity and tell us why he stopped asking those questions about management, about costs, about budget blow-outs and so on. Why did he not ask those questions directly of the bureaucrats when he was in a position to do so? Well, of course, the answer is obvious. He thought that his mere presence was sufficient and he neglected to carry out the job as a Minister. He decided to go into semi-retirement.
Ms Maher: Oh, Mr Wood!
MR WOOD: Well, he has not demonstrated it. You may stand up also and defend him; I expect that you will. But he has shown neglect. The point I am making clearly here is that he identified what he saw as a problem and then got into the position where he could do something; but now, 17 months later, nothing has happened. That is his neglect. He ran the system and he did nothing to bring about the improvements that he claimed were needed. If that is not neglect, if that is not ignoring the problems that Ministers should attend to, I do not know what is. He obviously should resign. If he does not resign, the Chief Minister should sack him. We wait for that action to happen.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .