Page 4294 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 29 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
psychologists deal with regularly will be vulnerable. That is generally the case in the health areas. Unfortunately, as we have debated many times in this place, the relationship between health professionals and patients often is not an equal one. It is part of the process and is the reason why we have registration boards. It is the reason why we have a Health Complaints Unit. It is not a good reason for legislation that attempts to set fees.
I do not believe that psychologists boards - peer groups - should be in the business of setting fees for other peer groups. They certainly should be in the business of setting professional standards and determining what conduct is all right within their profession, but should we be looking at peer group price setting? Mr Connolly, and certainly Mr Berry, I suggest, would not share that view with regard to some other health professionals.
Mr Berry: Name them.
MRS CARNELL: Doctors. I would be quite willing to say that. I do not believe that peer groups are the right bodies to attempt to set prices.
Mr Berry: Poke out your tongue. What about the pharmacists?
MRS CARNELL: In the Pharmacy Act there is no provision for price setting; nor is there in the medical Act, the nurses Act, the dental Act, or any of those other Acts, mainly because it is simply inappropriate. Madam Speaker, I do not believe that we could rely on this to give any equity at all to the patient. Remember that these Bills are about protecting the consumer, not about protecting the profession. It is a really important issue. It seems that those on the opposite side do not realise this. If we were looking at protecting the profession, certainly, let the profession set its own fees; but, if it is the consumer we are after, it has to be market forces with the backup of proper complaints processes. It is the only sensible approach.
MS SZUTY (11.39): I do not have strong views on this subject either way. I note Mrs Carnell's point that these provisions are somewhat unusual, certainly in mutual recognition legislation that this Assembly has considered up to date. I note that Mrs Carnell proposes to delete only part of the clauses to do with recovery of fees. She is proposing to delete paragraph 45(1)(b), which says "a period of six months has elapsed since that service of the account and the account is unpaid at the end of that period", and then part of subclause 45(2). Obviously, consequential amendments relate to the review of the accounts for fees for psychology service and the review and appeal procedures that come up further on in the legislation. Madam Speaker, I will not support the amendments at this time. I have indicated to the Minister that I would like to see the Bill reviewed after a period of six to 12 months, and I think it would be appropriate to pay particular attention to a review of the provisions that Mrs Carnell has identified.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .