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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 11 Hansard (19 October) . . Page.. 3313 ..

MR WOOD (5.15): I am very happy to see always at least one member of the council who represents interested carers. I am happy to see that sort of person on the council. But I have argued many times, with Ms Tucker sometimes, that I am not in favour of representative councils in general. There are specific circumstances where that may be necessary. But, in general, I am not in favour of specifying what sort of person goes onto councils, boards or whatever bodies we nominate. In this case, as in others, it is up to the Minister to develop a good board, a good council, by appointing the right sort of people to it.

Mr Rugendyke indicated what this is about quite fairly when he said that "we" want someone on the council. We want someone. I do not see a problem. Mr Stefaniak, when he nominates to council, will have right at the top of the list someone representing the interests of carers - right at the head of the list, Mr Rugendyke. They would be right up there and I do not think we need this in the Bill in order to secure that. We have been consistent before that we should not specify.

Again, there are reservations. There are some circumstances where you might want that. The previous Bill had that list of specifications of who should be on it. That was removed. It is an anomaly, good though the intentions might be, to have just one person now specified as the only person. So the Opposition regretfully will not be supporting this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 36 to 40, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

Ordered that clauses 41 to 228 be postponed.

Clauses 229 to 241, by leave, taken together

MS TUCKER (5.18): I effectively oppose the whole of Division 5 which concerns therapeutic protection orders. I really have spoken to this already in the in-principle stage. However, I would like to respond at this point, as it is on the same subject as some of the comments made. I was amused to see Mr Stefaniak so pleased with the letter the committee wrote, that he even sought to have it tabled. The Chief Minister seemed equally pleased with the point they thought they were scoring.

I thought I explained in the in-principle stage what I am concerned about. I have acknowledged the initial consultation. I have done that in the in-principle stage and publicly as well. What I am very concerned about is the fact that when we saw the legislation there was no statement about the financial implications or considerations from the Government. Mrs Carnell and Mr Moore are apparently not aware that that is

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