HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-02-04 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

MOUNT GAMBIER HOSPITAL HYDROTHERAPY POOL FUND BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 3 February 2009. Page 1145.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (17:15): I rise to indicate that the opposition supports the principle of the bill but believes that some amendments are required. The bill seeks to establish a process by which funds collected in the year 2000 for the now-abandoned purpose of building a hydrotherapy pool at Mount Gambier Hospital should be returned or otherwise spent. The funds to which this bill relates total approximately $270,000 and are currently held by the Commissioners of Charitable Funds.

This $270,000 worth of donations came from the community. They are not government funds to be used by the government according to its arbitrary will. We are thus faced with the question of what should be done with the money and the interest that it has earned over the past nine years. Following 5½ years of debate, an agreement has been reached that, where possible, the funds should be returned to the donors with interest and that any remaining funds should then be spent on another project.

The opposition supports this principle and welcomes this bill as a resolution to this issue. However, there are two continuing points of divergence in relation to the bill. The first relates to the means by which the funds should be returned, and the second relates to who should decide how any unreturned funds should be spent. The first point of divergence, that of the means by which the funds should be returned, is an issue that was raised by the Hon. Mr Darley in his second reading contribution.

The opposition had indicated in another place that it was satisfied with Country Health SA having responsibility for the return of the funds to donors as it was of the view that the Commissioners of Charitable Funds were not well placed to do so. However, we do defer to the Hon. Mr Darley's experience as a former commissioner of charitable funds, and we accept his advice that the commissioners are well placed to manage the return of funds to donors. It is preferable that these independent commissioners be responsible for this task given that they already have control of the funds and are experienced in matters relating to the management of charitable funds. Accordingly, I indicate the opposition's support for the amendments that achieve this aim.

Another issue of concern to the opposition is who should have the final decision as to how any unreturned funds are spent. Under the government's bill, Country Health SA, the central bureaucracy, has the decision ultimately on the expenditure of these unreturned funds. The opposition is not comfortable with this approach. Given the Rann government's predilection for ignoring the concerns of rural and regional South Australia, opposition members are not comfortable passing control of these community funds to a government bureaucracy. In our consultation with the local community and local stakeholders, a recurring message has been that the community should have the decision as to how these funds are spent.

In agreement with this sentiment, the Liberal opposition considers that the Mount Gambier Health Advisory Council, as a community representative body and the body closest to the community, should be given the final decision after consultation with the community. We do not accept the government's proposal that Country Health SA consult with HAC is a sufficient assurance that Country Health SA will spend the unreturned funds on the project in accordance with community wishes. While Country Health SA is required to consult with HAC, there is no requirement to do so.

We know from experience that, where the Rann government bureaucracy has the final decision, the interests of country South Australia are regularly disregarded. The government argues that HAC should not receive the funds as it does not have tax exemption status but, as the Hon. Mr Darley pointed out, this is the responsibility of Country Health SA. If it has not occurred, it is the fault and responsibility of Country Health SA. This issue of the final decision being the power of a central bureaucracy is of concern to the opposition, and accordingly we will be supporting the Hon. Mr Darley's amendments to rectify that fault in the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT