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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 8 Hansard (27 June) . . Page.. 2343 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

That is important. We have changed the parameters of the legislation. We are putting in place a purchaser-provider model. We are changing some of the expectations through the work done under the Booz Allen report. Now we are changing the structure whereby services in the health system are delivered. I would ask members of the Assembly to give us the tools, in Mr Moore's words, to do that job, because without those tools clearly the task will be more difficult.

MR MOORE (5.20): Madam Deputy Speaker, it has been very interesting to listen to the to-and-fro of the debate here. The nub of it was summarised, I think, at the end of Mr Humphries's speech, when he said, "Give us the tools to be able to do the job". One of those tools is a new name. I can see that that is going to be particularly helpful! Then there is the tool for doing the job. That is to have an authority. I believe that that is going to be about as helpful as the new name.

Earlier today I approached the Chief Minister and asked her a number of questions. In fact, I was fortunate enough to receive a reply in writing to some of the questions I had asked. I will go through some of those, because I think they make some interesting points. I certainly appreciate - and I think it is important to make a note of this - how rapidly the response was made and how helpful members of the bureaucracy have been in getting back to us, as is often the case. I do not think there is any particular need to mention the specific bureaucrat. But one wonders what will happen when - indeed, if - we do have the Health and Community Care Service Board. Will we get the same sort of response? I am sure that the Chief Minister's reply will be, "Of course you will".

I asked a question about how much this was going to cost. It has been very interesting to listen to people talk about the costs. The reply that came back was that the payment will be based on sitting fees - $155 a day for the chair and $129 a day for other members. That is one possible rate. Another possible rate is $271 a day for the chair and $219 a day for other members. If there were 12 meetings a year, one a month - double what is actually required by the legislation - then, on the first option, the cost would be $6,504 a year and, on the second option, the cost would be some $11,000 a year. Taking it at face value, we would say, "If, in fact, it helps the new structure, that level of financing, especially as it is going to be found within the budget, is really not something to be concerned about". I must say that, as far as I am concerned, that is quite right; although, as an aside, it does raise the issue of the people who serve on all those other boards throughout the community who do not receive any remuneration. I think there is an issue here in the way we deal with people throughout the Territory. Some who are on boards we remunerate particularly well. Others, who put in a huge amount of work, particularly in community service work, we do not remunerate at all. There is a question of equity involved here.

There is another question that becomes important to us. There are not just the actual on-the-face costs that we have in terms of a board like this; there is also a range of other costs associated with the fact that a board exists. For example, I wonder how much of the time of SES officers will be used for briefing the board, preparing the work for the board and ensuring that the board has the decision-making processes in front of it.

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