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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 8 Hansard (27 June) . . Page.. 2367 ..

MR SPEAKER: I understand that it is the wish of the Assembly to suspend the sitting at this point.

MR BERRY (8.00): Mr Speaker, there has been some fairly severe criticism by the Government of the amendment. Let me deal with the amendment one bit at a time. The first part requires a Minister to take into account consultation with the community and community health organisations. The end result is that the Assembly has to be confident that the Minister has properly consulted with the community before making an appointment, which will improve the value of management, so far as the Board of Health is concerned. The second part of the amendment relates to the Trades and Labour Council. Mr Moore set out to make the point that the Minister might not take into account the recommendations of the Trades and Labour Council, following that consultation. I am not sure whether he made the point; but it is a fact of life that the Minister would have to justify that position, otherwise the appointment might not survive the Assembly.

One of the problems which have emerged in dealing with these issues is the inconsistency of the Chief Minister's argument, which was given light by Mr Moore. The Chief Minister argued, "We do not want a representative board. Therefore, this amendment ought not to be supported". In the first place, this amendment would not give us representatives; it would give us ministerial appointees with a certain background, which would add to the social justice value of the board. But, in the case of the Health Minister's own board, there is a representative of the University of Sydney. I, for one, oppose representative boards. There is a mile of case law, as Mr Humphries may well confirm, which clearly indicates that, once a member of the board, one's allegiance is to the board, not to any organisation that one might have represented before becoming a member of the board. I drafted the amendment in this way so that people, whilst having the confidence of a certain sector of the community, would not be drafted into service with any expectation that they were actually representing an organisation. That same approach applies in relation to community health organisations and the Trades and Labour Council of the ACT.

The resistance from the Government is a little puzzling. Nominees properly chosen from these two avenues would strengthen its board. It limits the ability of the Minister to just pluck out people whom he or she likes and appoint them to these positions, because it requires that element of consultation. Subsequently, that element of consultation, because of the processes here, would have to be proven. That is a quite appropriate course. It is a special set of arrangements for these two categories of members; nevertheless, it would result in a stronger social justice outcome from board deliberations. The Trades and Labour Council, which is the organised labour movement in the ACT - not a mob that Mrs Carnell has been getting on with very well lately - is the biggest community organisation in the ACT. As an umbrella group, it represents more people than any other community group in the ACT. There is no question about that.

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