Page 807 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 16 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Kaine: Have you never heard of the hospital reconstruction program?
MR CONNOLLY: Yes, and Mr $17m sitting next to you. Nothing was done to achieve reform in this area. In 12 short months, Madam Speaker, in the 12 short months that this Government has been in office, we have reduced the ACTION subsidy by $2m. We have achieved $2m savings. They will be delivered on 30 June. So that is $2m out of $7.5m. Our new network, which starts on 6 July, is worth another million dollars. So that is $3m in savings already achieved. Mr Fischer should not be looking at the global figure. If he wants to criticise ACTION and criticise this community for its level of subsidy, he should look at the level of what the Grants Commission says is oversubsidy and he should be congratulating this administration as the first administration to get stuck into it - compared to you lot - and actually turn the subsidy around, which is what we are doing. We are delivering a benefit to the people of Canberra.
Guardianship Legislation
MR MOORE: My question is directed to Mr Connolly as Attorney-General. In fact, I gave Mr Connolly forewarning of this question. I believe that you received a letter from the organisation Focus, expressing concerns regarding implementation of guardianship legislation. In asking this question I wish to make clear my own confidence in the members of the tribunal who donate their own time for the benefit of the community. I have been informed that current implementation practice is being conducted contrary to your stated intentions, in particular when the Bill was debated. Has your office replied to the letter from Focus? How many full guardianships have been ordered over the past six months and on what basis?
MR CONNOLLY: When that comment from Focus was received there was a response immediately from the head of my department, saying that we noted their comments and we would refer them to the chair of the Guardianship Tribunal, which is, of course, the Chief Magistrate, Ron Cahill. I have responded to Focus since then. It is my intention that we have a process of review of how the Guardianship Tribunal is operating. We are now at about six months of operation and that is an appropriate time to start talking to community groups. We will be announcing this week the permanent appointment of the Community Advocate, which is a key position in making this regime work, and I think the substantive appointee to that position should play a key role in going around talking to community groups.
I noted with concern some of Focus's disappointments with the way that they saw things operating. I think it is fair to say that it has been in place for only six months; everyone is feeling their way into it. It is our intention that there be a full process of review after 12 months. But I would expect the Community Advocate, when that position is filled, to take up a process of consultation.
I cannot give Mr Moore now the statistical breakdown - I was not aware that he sought that, although I knew that he was interested in the general area - but I can undertake to provide that statistical breakdown. He can also note that we have appointed some other persons who are not magistrates to act as chair. It is not intended that the Chief Magistrate will always be the chair. As the body was being set up it was thought that in some of those test cases Mr Cahill's expertise
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .