Page 991 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 29 March 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MS BRESNAN (Brindabella) (5.05): Obviously, I did say that I was going to move amendments around this but, given the will of the Assembly is to support the amendments put forward by the government, we will be voting for them and I will not be moving my amendments. I do think it is good that these amendments actually have something about the skill set which the council should have and which was not part of it before. So I do think that is good.
I reiterate that I think that the skill set in what was put forward in the New South Wales legislation is preferable to what we are putting in here. I reiterate that it would be highly unlikely that there would not be a medical practitioner on this council if it was formed and likely a nurse as well.
I think the intention behind what we were going to put forward—and again I will restate it—was that it was not specifying particular professions. Our worry is that, once you specify one, then you get other people saying, “Why have you not included me in that council?” And that may still happen with what has been specified here. Hopefully, it will not because we have something in here about the skill set.
So that was the intention behind what I had originally proposed. It was to avoid that situation entirely so that you have not essentially got professions competing against each other to be on this council and that it is actually about what is going to be best in terms of expertise for the council and for the people of the ACT.
Nevertheless, the government’s amendments are being supported. I do think what we had proposed would have been better but again, as I said, given it is the will of the Assembly to support the government’s amendments, we will accept that.
Amendments agreed to.
MS GALLAGHER (Molonglo—Deputy Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Health and Minister for Industrial Relations) (5.07), by leave: I move amendments Nos 4 and 5 circulated in my name together [see schedule 1 at page 1003].
The fourth and fifth amendments relate to the business of the local hospital network council and serve to clarify the quorum requirements of the local hospital network council. This was an issue the Greens raised in their consultations with the government. The amendments will require at least six council members to be present before business can be carried out at a meeting of the local hospital network council.
These amendments serve to ensure all council members are involved in the business of the council. It does worry me a little that, in the council of 10, we are going to require six to be there before they can do anything but I think it sends the right message about the importance of turning up to meetings as well.
MS BRESNAN (Brindabella) (5.08): I reiterate that I do appreciate the government taking on this suggestion. I take Ms Gallagher’s point that you may need six people there to get work done but I think, as Ms Gallagher said, it reinforces the importance of this council. I think also it creates the situation where you do have a balance of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video