Page 4320 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 30 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
way to go. We have always believed that consumers must be aware of their rights under legislation, whatever it is. This goes a long way towards doing that. I think the Government's amendments make the Bill somewhat less adversarial. They certainly should make sure that health providers do not feel that they are in some way being attacked by this sort of legislation. I think that is important if we are to maintain the mediation approach that is so important to any sort of health complaints mechanism.
MR HUMPHRIES (10.50): I wish to speak briefly in support of the Bill and the amendments. I want to make another point about the Health Complaints Unit which, possibly, I will not have another opportunity to make. Members might recall having read in the report of the ACT Ombudsman, which was tabled yesterday, a concern about the operation of the health complaints process as one that stands aside from other mechanisms for complaint that are administered by her office and possibly other procedures which are set out in other pieces of legislation. As the Ombudsman points out, there is an ongoing problem with the multiplication of these sorts of avenues for people to make complaints. The Commissioner for the Environment is another one where there is an avenue for a person to make a complaint about such things as the conduct of parks and wildlife officers and procedures dealing with environmental matters. In all these cases, inevitably the question is asked by a person who wants to make a complaint: Which of these many avenues do I go down? In a sense, Mr Moore's legislation helps to clarify slightly the question that one must face when one has a complaint about a doctor; but there are still other broader issues that have to be addressed. I think that we need to be sure, when we do set up these mechanisms, that we do not actually make it harder to have a complaint dealt with because we have provided so many avenues that people either are confused or explore one avenue, reach a dead end, realise that they have gone down the wrong track and give up. Those, obviously, would be highly undesirable results of these measures.
MR MOORE (10.51), in reply: I would like to thank members for their support. I would particularly like to thank the Minister for Health for the amendments that he has proposed, which, I think, enhance the intention. In fact, the Bill actually came out of a discussion that I had in my office with members of the Church of Scientology, who said, "How do people know that the commissioner is available?". I replied, "How do you think they should know?". They said, "A simple way would to be to have a notice on the medical practitioner's wall". Indeed, the discussion then continued as to who should be included. Madam Speaker, I think that it was a good idea. It has proved to be a good idea by the acceptance that it has received so broadly in the Assembly. It just goes to show that sometimes ideas come from where we least expect them to come from. Madam Speaker, I am delighted with the support. I am delighted with the amendment. I think it will mean that ordinary people will understand the appropriate process to go through. Particularly with the amendments put up by the Minister for Health, they will understand that the first step is to approach the provider, and then go through another process, if that is necessary. I think experience has shown us that, where a provider is approached, often the problem is resolved then and there. Of course, that is the most effective way.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .