Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 8 Hansard (27 June) . . Page.. 2366 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

I simply do not see a board with representatives of the Trades and Labour Council, the VMOs, the pathologists, the obstetricians and everybody else who might think they have a good cause to have a post on this board, working. I believe that if you set up such a board, as I said before, it will spend more time arguing amongst its constituent members as to whose rights are going to be put into effect, who represents whom and who is going to get the benefit of decisions that are made and the like. I think that even Mr Berry must be able to see that. With his experience of trying to run the health organisation and the problems that he had with it, it must be obvious, even to him, that to set up a board of the kind that he is suggesting in this amendment is self-destructive. From its very inception it will not do the job that this Bill is seeking to have done.

I have read the Bill carefully. I much prefer to head this organisation up with experts whose job it is to run the organisation in the interests of the patients and the people who use the health service rather than have a bunch of people who are going to continually sit around the board table and represent the viewpoint of the people who put them there. That, in itself, Mr Speaker, is not going to achieve the objective. I hope that people can see the sense of what the Bill is proposing and the nonsense of what Mr Berry is proposing, and that they vote his amendment out, and quickly.

MS TUCKER (6.52): I think Mr Kaine has raised some important points. It really has to be understood that if people go on these boards they are not there as advocates at all. This is about expertise in a certain area. You say it is impossible - - -

Mr Kaine: Human nature is human nature, Ms Tucker.

MS TUCKER: Okay, but I have a more positive view of human nature. I think the way that Mr Berry's amendment is put, selection is fairly broad; but I do support your concerns in that I believe that what this is about is expertise, not advocacy. If people are on those boards and are on those boards as advocates, I agree, obviously, that the result will not be a good one. I do not understand why it is so difficult to have that understanding shared by everyone because it seems commonsense; if you are on a board of management as a member of that board of management you have responsibilities to see that that board does its job well. You are there because you have expertise in a certain area which will make sure that the discussion is broad within those terms of efficient management.

Mr Humphries has said, "Yes, but we always have those sorts of interests on our boards". That may well be the case, and that is a good thing that this Government is doing; but you are setting up two statutory authorities and a board which may well be in place for some time into the future. This sort of model may continue and there is no guarantee what future governments might choose to do in terms of whom they put on the boards. That is why I support Mr Berry's amendment. I think it needs to be enshrined in this Bill that there has to be a recognition that a board has to comprise more than just financial managers. You have to have expertise in the areas that are obviously very critical and crucial to quality delivery of service in whatever area that board is operating. I hope that it will be a successful initiative, and I do believe that it is possible to have these representational people there without them acting as advocates on that board.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .