Page 390 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 23 February 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There were going to be no moves from me to undo that board because of the requirement, particularly during the redevelopment of our hospital system, for there to be stable top level management and to create a placid arrangement for people to work in within the health system.
Mr Moore talks about public accountability. I do not have any difficulty with what he says in principle, but what happened in practice is quite another matter. Leaving aside a position one way or the other about whether the board should be there, it strikes me as odd that a responsible politician in this place would take a different position in relation to a high profile portfolio such as Health from that which was taken in relation to other high profile portfolios of at least equal significance in the Territory context. I say that the board was treated unfairly by the Independents. They have a different view and I accept that, but I say that it was treated unfairly and it ought to have been allowed to carry out its legislative functions in much the same way as other departments were allowed to carry out theirs and were subjected to the usual scrutiny of Estimates Committee procedures and so on. The Liberals are in an inexcusable position because they in fact put the board there and then undermined it, so I think there are two different positions.
In response to what Mr Moore said in relation to the chief executive: The chief executive is a person set up by the legislation and was involved in the Estimates Committee process in that position and also as the secretary of the Department of Health - wearing two hats. The chief executive therefore strode the highwire to deliver to the Estimates Committee the information that they required. I think that in the circumstances there was no real reason why the Board of Health-Department of Health ought to have been treated any differently from other departments. Indeed, prior to this term of government there were directions from this Assembly for the Board of Health to provide financial figures and it was not news that the board was opposed to that. They expressed the view that they should not be treated any differently from any other department at that time - and bear in mind that they were a young board. I think they had a legitimate beef about that extra scrutiny.
A whole range of people were appointed to that board by the Liberals. From my observation, they intended to get on with the job of the redevelopment of the health system as a whole and they put all of their efforts into it. I particularly applaud Mr Jim Service for his skill, care and attention to the affairs of that board. Mr Service, in the company of all those board members whose names I will not read onto the record but all of whom played an important part in the process, was committed to continuing with the legislative requirements as set out in the legislation. The difficulty for those members of the board was that they all, in one way or another, held professional business positions - in Mr Service's case, in particular - which would be undermined were they to be continually harassed, on issues where they thought they were being treated unfairly.
I think Mr Service and those other board members who resigned should receive some sympathy for being put into the position where they felt that it was necessary for them to resign, both in their professional interests as board members and to protect themselves from notoriety because of some political actions which we might take in the Assembly. These actions might not be able to be taken by people out there because of fear of other actions which could have been taken by those individual members. So I have the greatest sympathy for the board members; I think they have done a good job. But now we are past it. It is a bygone era.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .