Page 3970 - Week 13 - Thursday, 17 October 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
My strong view is that, with a statutory Board of Health and with a certain distance, as the Health Minister clearly demonstrates from time to time, between the Executive and the Board of Health, you do need a provision in here to drive the board and those involved to bring about reform.
I might say that I was not encouraged greatly in the Estimates Committee last night about the culture of reform in the health area. I believe that any government has a massive challenge in that area. We have inherited something that culturally has not been responsive for many years.
I would ask the Attorney whether he would like to revisit this slightly. If it is a matter of balance, perhaps he would consider those views, although I will not go to the wall on it. In trying to get even cross-departmental discussions under way, I found it necessary to write to my then colleague Mr Humphries to get him - as he properly did - to ask his department to accelerate their interest and attendance and involvement in these issues. I believe that the bureaucracy often survives the vicissitudes of government office, of politicians.
The reason for putting it in - I can enlighten the house - was that I felt very strongly that it was there to flag, as the Attorney seems to know now, to health people the need for reform, and the right of the community advocate, in his or her annual reports, to give some stewardship report, to give an account of where they are going.
This gives a right to make a comment. It does not provide any procedural or formal intervention steps yet, but it allows the community advocate to say, "I want to sit on any future panels like 'Balancing Rights'; I want to be involved; I want to have an active interest; I cannot be excluded from interdepartmental discussions and the like".
I just believe that it should be there. It was something that Mr Humphries and I discussed. I recall Mr Humphries and I agreeing at the time, informally, that I would like to see it in the Bill; but only to flag the need for it and to flag the fact that it will act as an encouragement and as a sign of things for the future.
MR HUMPHRIES (4.54): I have to say that I cannot agree with my colleague Mr Collaery about this amendment. I discussed this with the community groups that have been raising concerns with this package of legislation. It was my view that there was a real problem with making assumptions about the future course of events that might flow from the full consideration of the report "Balancing Rights" handed down late last year.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .