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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 9 Hansard (4 September) . . Page.. 3000 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

In 1996-97 $40,000, and recurrent funding of $87,000 per annum, has been allocated from the ACT Home and Community Care program to fund the expansion of the Commissioner's role.

That is what I was pointing to when I was expressing concern about the level of funding for the widening of the commissioner's role. On the face of it, I would say that you have underestimated the extra work that the commissioner will have to undertake.

Mrs Carnell made a point about how well funded the Health Complaints Unit is now compared with when it started. I suppose that when it started it had to start with one person, and, of course, it has grown since then. If it is doing so well, Mrs Carnell, why has it taken so long for the Health Complaints Commissioner to investigate a certain surgeon in the ACT? Why did it take so long, with all of those resources you provide for it, to investigate a certain surgeon in the ACT about whom there is much community concern? So do not get up there and recraft history about what I have said in this place unless you are prepared to state the facts.

I expressed concern about the level of funding you are providing for the additional role that you are asking the commissioner to play. I know that the commissioner performs an important function in the community. I know that it is an expensive role and I know that he is under pressure. I know that there are waiting lists for matters to be considered, and more resources could be used. What I am also concerned about is the level of recurrent funding that you are providing for this much wider role for the commissioner. Do not misquote me, please.

Amendments agreed to.

Bill, as a whole, as amended, agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

[COGNATE BILL:

Debate resumed from 17 June 1997, on motion by Mr Kaine:

That this Bill be agreed to in principle.

MR SPEAKER: Is it the wish of the Assembly to debate this order of the day concurrently with order of the day No. 7, the Motor Traffic (Amendment) Bill (No. 2) 1997? There being no objection, that course will be followed. I remind members that in debating order of the day No. 6 they may also address their remarks - hopefully briefly - to order of the day No. 7.

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