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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 07 Hansard (Thursday, 1 July 2004) . . Page.. 3254 ..

(1) When might I receive a response to my letter of 12 March and my follow-up letter of 2 April, in support of representations from a constituent seeking an immediate review of the decision to remove her grandchildren from the care of their mother, following recent developments in the United Kingdom in respect of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy (MSbP);

(2) Is it a fact that these developments in the United Kingdom have discredited previous claims about women suffering MSbP to the extent that (a) these women have been freed of murder charges and (b) the principle proponent of MSbP in the United Kingdom is now under professional misconduct charges by the British General Medical Council;

(3) In view of the background of part (2), will the Chief Minister institute an immediate review of the case at part (1); if not, why not.

Mr Stanhope: The answer to Mr Cornwell’s question is:

(1) The then Minister for Education, Youth and Family Services responded to Mr Cornwell on my behalf in a letter dated 5 May 2004.

(2) There appears to be an ongoing debate among health professionals concerning Muchausen Syndrome by Proxy. The only basis on which determinations are made about child protection is the continued safety and welfare of the children.

(3) It would be inappropriate of me to provide Mr Cornwell with details of any individual case, particularly one which is readily identifiable by its circumstances. I understand that all child protection orders are reviewed regularly to ensure that they continue to meet the care and welfare needs of the children.

Community Inclusion Board
(Question No 1528)

Mr Cornwell asked the Chief Minister, upon notice, on 5 May 2004:

(1) Further to your media release dated 3 May 2004 announcing the Community Inclusion Board membership, do any of the members appointed to the Board receive any kind of remuneration or payment of expenses as a result of their appointment;

(2) If so, what amount of remuneration or payment of expenses are they each entitled to.

Mr Stanhope: The answer to the member’s question is as follows:

(1) Yes.

(2) A determination will be sought from the Remuneration Tribunal as to an appropriate level of remuneration for Community Inclusion Board Members. In the interim, non-Government Board members are classified under Group 2 Level 1 of Remuneration Tribunal Determination 133: Part-Time Holders of Public Office: ‘Significant advisory boards and other bodies advising Government on key strategic matters AND/OR operating significant Government programs’, with a per annum rate of $30,000 for the Chair and $10,000 for other members.

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