Page 4319 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 30 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The term "Health Complaints Unit" can suggest a part of the health bureaucracy that looks at complaints. The proper title in the legislation is "Commissioner for Health Complaints". It is not just a question of terminology. The term "Commissioner for Health Complaints" does imply, correctly, a commissioner independent of the day-to-day running of the bureaucracy, standing apart from the health infrastructure, with the ability to go in; whereas "unit" is a wrong title, but it also suggests an agency that is subordinate to and part of the health bureaucracy.
The other minor amendment that we have suggested and have circulated to members adds a paragraph to what is required in the signage, to indicate that, if a person is dissatisfied about a matter, where one could go to the commissioner, it would be appreciated if in the first instance the matter were to be discussed with the appropriate provider. One of the cornerstones of the health complaints legislation that we have developed is that we have tried to make it non-adversarial, where possible, while we have provided the commissioner with quite extraordinary powers - ombudsman-style powers - to demand papers, gather evidence and summons people to give evidence. The Health Complaints Commissioner does have very extensive powers to force a complaint to resolution and to force a provider to give information. We would prefer a model where mediation and conciliation were used first.
Under our structure, the Health Complaints Commissioner urges people in the first instance, if they are dissatisfied, to try to resolve the matter with the health provider. Hopefully, the health providers are well aware of this. We know that the various health professional organisations have advised all their membership of the vast powers that the commissioner has. The commissioner himself, since his substantive appointment, has, very properly, been making it his business to go around the Territory to meet with the peak councils of the various health professional organisations. So he is becoming known. He is encouraging them, and they are encouraging their members, to try to resolve complaints in the first instance. So, our proposed amendment to clause 4 again really locks into the signage the fact that we do have a "mediate first" approach with the Health Complaints Commissioner.
In short, Madam Speaker, the Government is not opposing Mr Moore's amendment Bill. It is a sensible suggestion. With this very important legislation, so that people are aware of their rights, we should display the signage, as Mr Moore suggested. We have made some minor suggestions - that it is better to call it the Commissioner for Health Complaints rather than the Health Complaints Unit, and that it is important to have the emphasis on mediation first. I understand from discussions with Mr Moore that he is comfortable with the Government's amendments to his amendments, and I hope that this package will go through the Assembly with very broad support.
MRS CARNELL (Leader of the Opposition) (10.49): The Opposition will be supporting this Bill and all of the amendments. I think the points that Mr Connolly made are very true. This is not an adversarial approach. It must be about mediation. It must be about making sure that the community know what their rights are but, at the same time, do not see it as an attack on any health provider whatsoever or, for that matter, as a concern for the consumer. In other words, the consumers must know that they do have a right to go either to their own health provider or, alternatively, to the Health Complaints Unit, if they have a problem. We believe that that is an appropriate
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .