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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (19 November) . . Page.. 3711 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

The Health Minister appears to be in a position where the management of her portfolio will continually be subject to a conflict of interest on the issue. Mr Speaker, the methadone program is clearly a case where significant government funding is involved in the management of a program which will involve 200 clients and a direct government subsidy of $156,000 to pharmacies, including the Red Hill Pharmacy. While the approval of Mrs Carnell's pharmacy as part of the program will be sought through the Attorney-General, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that a government health subsidy will go directly to a business owned by the Treasurer and Health Minister.

Furthermore, Mr Speaker, Mrs Carnell's ACT registration as a pharmacist is regulated under the Pharmacy Act, for which she has ministerial responsibility. The management of the Red Hill Pharmacy by Mrs Carnell is also regulated under the Pharmacy Act and the Pharmacy Board, three members and the chair of which are appointed by the Health Minister, for heaven's sake, and they are responsible for regulating the professional standards to be observed by her in her pharmacy. Both the Pharmacy Act and the Drugs of Dependence Act are within Mrs Carnell's portfolio responsibilities. She will not give them up. It is a matter of considerable concern that these pieces of legislation effectively make the Health Minister the watchdog on her very own professional and business interests. How can you tolerate a situation which has developed along those lines?

The most recent blunder perpetrated by this Health Minister is in the sensitive area of mental health - an area where the ACT has had a lot of catching up to do, both in services and more generally in the amount of money we allocate to the mental health budget. What has been the Minister's response in this sensitive area? Knee-jerk reactions one after the other, blundering into clinical areas. Mr Speaker, there was the unfortunate incident when Mr I'Anson was shot. The Minister leapt in and promised a house, with no money, of course, to run it, and to provide services from that - - -

Mr Humphries: There is money there.

MR BERRY: It came later. (Further extension of time granted) There was another knee-jerk reaction after Mental Health Services were in the spotlight when the windows of the Assembly were smashed. Then, instead of appointing the long-awaited director of mental health, the Minister sacked the acting director. But she could not sack him, because he had not misbehaved and, of course, he was not ill. There were no grounds to sack him. He had to be allowed to run out his time as the acting director, but then he was not replaced, as is required by the Act. The Act requires that Mrs Carnell appoint a director of mental health, and she did not do so. She ignored the wishes of this Assembly. This Assembly set out a piece of legislation which required the appointment of a director of mental health, and Mrs Carnell refuses to take note of that legislation. For that reason she should be sacked.

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