Page 389 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 23 February 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I think that the only other important factor to add is that one of the reasons why I believe that there is a need for some haste with this Bill - not enough haste to declare it an urgent Bill, but some haste - is that it is important for the Department of Health that has already had so many changes and has already been going through many transitions and for the workers at the coalface. I do not think I have heard any member in this Assembly ever lambasting the hard work that is done by the nurses, the doctors and various other health professionals throughout the department, and it is important that their work can continue with as little disruption as possible. It is important for that sort of reason and the concern at that level that the administration have as few changes as possible so that they can concentrate on the support for those people of the coalface.
That is the reason for some urgency about this Bill. Not being able to find any other difficulties with it, I indicate that I am quite happy to support this Bill in principle. There is just one side issue that was raised by Ms Szuty and I think it does need to be commented on. That is the need we have, in our review of standing orders, to look at not only the urgent Bills but also that middle range where we have Bills that we need to do quickly rather than declaring them urgent. I would like to support Ms Szuty in her call for that modification to standing orders. Madam Speaker, I know that that is a matter that we will be looking at within the Administration and Procedures Committee as part of the review of the standing orders that you are conducting.
MR BERRY (Minister for Health, Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport) (8.30), in reply: There are two cases which have been argued from different directions from those in opposition. Mr Moore and Ms Szuty together argue a particular case; the Liberals argue another one - and it would be nice to see them here. Mind you, I like their arguments that they are putting forward right now. They are the ones that make the most sense.
The Liberals put in place - and they clearly understood this - a board which had specific functions set out in legislation. They ought to have understood it; the former Minister who enacted the legislation clearly would have understood it as it was prescribed in legislation. It was set out clearly that the board would operate as an arm's length organisation, free for the most part from control by the Minister, though Ministers would have the right to direct in cases where they so chose. On falling into opposition the Liberals felt that they had the right to continue to interfere in the operations of the board which were those set out specifically in legislation for that board to perform.
Mr Moore: It was to prevent you in opposition, not to prevent them.
MR BERRY: I will get to you in a minute. They continued to interfere in the operations of the board which they well knew were set out clearly in legislation. It was therefore an hypocrisy for them on the one hand to enact legislation and then to try to undermine it by doing or attempting to do what the very board that they had put in place to do was now being prevented from carrying out because of the political hyperbole that was created from time to time by those opposite.
On the other hand, I think Mr Moore probably shared the same view as I had originally - that there was no real need for a board. That was a view that I shared pre-board and one that I was prepared to carry through. Subsequent to its enactment by way of legislation, it was most important to me to ensure that the management of health matters in the Territory was given some stability.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .