Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 3 Hansard (9 April) . . Page.. 776 ..
MR HUMPHRIES: I do not know how much my word is worth to those community groups. I can tell them that, if they had been listening on a telephone to the conversations between my office and Planning and Land Management, they would have heard me say to my officers a number of times that I want the process drawn to a conclusion as quickly as possible. I say to those community groups that, if there are those concerns and they can present an argument to me that says that someone will be advantaged by having a proposal dealt with under the old guidelines rather than the new guidelines, then I will personally take steps to ensure that those processes do not result in someone profiting from any delay which might be perceived to have occurred in respect of the implementation of the B1 guidelines. If any community group has that concern, they should come forward to me, and I will address those issues; but I am satisfied that the community will be not necessarily totally happy with the new B1 guidelines but happy that they have gone in the right direction. I am determined that no-one should profit from any delay in making sure that those guidelines are right.
MS TUCKER: My question is to Mrs Carnell as Minister for Health. Yesterday I asked a question about the changes to the dental program and the consultation process. Mrs Carnell thought my question was a waste of space because a discussion paper was released in December, but I would like to remind Mrs Carnell that the report on the consultation process, was in fact, was distributed to members only on 1 April. In response to my question yesterday about the consultation process, Mrs Carnell stated that she thought that the community consultation period and the approach were very well done. Similar comments were also expressed in a media release put out on 26 March, saying that there was strong support for the changes to the school-based dental examinations and the user-pay principle. We heard also yesterday about 18 submissions and two public meetings - one attended by no-one, one by two people only - but that there was strong support. It is interesting that Mrs Carnell said that, because in 1992, in a question to Mr Berry about his changes to the school dental services, Mrs Carnell was very concerned that changes might lead to - - -
Mr Humphries: I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that some questions may need a little bit of a preamble, but this question has run on for some time without any sign of the question itself. I would ask that the question be put on the table.
MR SPEAKER: I presume you are going to ask your question now, Ms Tucker.
MS TUCKER: I need to explain this for the question to make sense. I understand that under standing orders that is appropriate, Mr Speaker. The point I am trying to make is that when Mr Berry attempted to make changes to the dental service Mrs Carnell was extremely concerned that consultation was not adequate and she thought that one reminder letter to all parents was not enough and that parents of children who would not get any other dental service should be targeted with a further follow-up letter. She said:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .