Page 4295 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 29 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MRS CARNELL (Leader of the Opposition) (11.40): Madam Speaker, the reason I have approached this Bill in this fashion is to get rid of the areas in the Bill that set fees, and also the six months issue. It seemed to me to be chronically unfair to make anybody wait six months before they could take action to get back money that was owed to them. The other two paragraphs involved are the ones that talk about the board having a capacity to set fees. Again, if it were up to me, if it were my Bill, I would not have the fee bit in it. Those are the issues involved in my amendments Nos 3 and 4.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General and Minister for Health) (11.41): Madam Speaker, the Bill is not about setting fees. It is not about establishing a fee setting structure, a common fee structure, a cartel-like structure where you will have uniform fees across the Territory. Indeed, if it proved to be being used in such an anti-competitive way, it may well be something that we ourselves would look at knocking off as part of reviewing the Act in 12 months' time. On the contrary, rather than being a fee setting structure, it is really about giving the person who has been a consumer of the service the ability to get an accounting of what the fees are based on and then to have that reviewed. I think Mrs Carnell is looking at it from the opposite direction. I note Ms Szuty's cautious approach to this. It is the sort of legislation that we probably will have to have a look at in the life of the next Assembly. Certainly, if it were being abused, we would be as concerned as Mrs Carnell would be about cartel-like behaviour. We see it not as a cartel fee setting provision but as a provision to allow the consumer to have the fees reviewed.
MRS CARNELL (Leader of the Opposition) (11.42), by leave: Madam Speaker, it is for that very reason that I have concern about the issues involved, such as the potential for a board to determine that setting fees in a manner that they perceive to be inappropriate would be unprofessional conduct. Remember that all boards can do is determine that a particular action by a professional is unprofessional conduct. They do not have a huge amount of other power. I suppose that they have certain fines and other things at their disposal, but primarily it is unprofessional conduct. If these areas are left in the Bill, potentially they could be used to determine that a particular professional, who was not acting in the same way as all the other professionals - professionals have a very good way of doing this sort of thing, as lawyers have been known to do so well, Mr Connolly - was acting in an unprofessional way. I do not think that is appropriate. I do not think anyone in this house would see that as appropriate. Why should we leave in there areas that could be abused in such a way?
Amendments negatived.
Bill, as a whole, as amended, agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .