Page 4569 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 14 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The significance of this has to do with the appointment of a commissioner for the Health Complaints Act. Subclause (1) states:
The Executive may, by instrument, appoint a person to be Commissioner for Health Complaints.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we heard the Deputy Chief Minister, who is responsible for this Bill, arguing that this is going to make their job particularly difficult. I would say that if he follows the process that has been followed by Mr Wood he will not find it that difficult at all. Mr Wood followed an appropriate process when a similar amendment was added to his legislation establishing an appeals board in terms of planning. I think he would have to agree that a very smooth process was followed. Ironically, the opposite to what Mr Berry was saying appears to me to be true. Where there has been no process like this we have seen an example of a quite strong campaign and a quite interesting campaign about what to me appeared to be the inappropriate appointment of Mr Charles Wright. That did cause some debate in this Assembly, and I do not mean to raise the issue, other than to say that that situation could well have been avoided had this process been followed.
I accept that the process is a little more cumbersome because it involves the Assembly; but, rather than getting to a situation where the fears that Mr Berry has become true after the fact, it is far better that any concerns be raised by members of the Assembly at the time of the appointment. I think that this is a very sensible and appropriate way for the parliament to wear its responsibilities and to watch carefully what the Government is doing in making such appointments.
MR BERRY (Minister for Health, Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport) (8.43): Mr Deputy Speaker, traditionally, appointments to statutory office positions are not reviewable by the Assembly, but it seems to be becoming a more recent trend. At first glance it might be argued that Mr Moore's amendment would seem to ensure that the appointment of a commissioner is impartial and that an appropriate person is appointed; but, for the reasons I explained earlier, there is an issue of quality which is not taken into account. This is an issue of empowerment for Mr Moore and those in opposition, rather than any consideration about the issue of appointing quality people. The amendment is almost a slight on the due process of selection on principles of merit under the public service legislation currently in use.
The position of Commissioner for Health Complaints is to be a full-time statutory office and the Assembly is entitled to trust the processes of the public service legislation which the Assembly is both enacting and reviewing. An applicant who is currently a public servant may apply and would then be chosen by a process of fair competition, following public service procedures and requirements. The selection process follows well-established and proven methods of staff selection based on merit, whether or not the applicant comes from within or outside the public service. If the appointment of the commissioner is to be a disallowable instrument, the Assembly may, for whatever reason, ignore the processes which have been followed to select the best applicant for the position. The issue is about - - -
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .