Page 2223 - Week 07 - Thursday, 23 June 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
changes to our health professionals legislation here in the ACT. In particular, it ensures the continuation of a range of pieces of legislation that will be repealed subsequent to the passage of changes to the Health Professionals Act 2004 and Health Professionals Regulation 2004.
In particular, as members have outlined, the amendments provide for the establishment of midwifery as a separate health profession to nursing. They extend the commencement date of the act from 8 July 2005 to 8 July 2006; they remove section 22 (4) and section 37 (7) to facilitate better access to the profession specific schedules made under the act; they make permanent in legalisation changes already made by the Health Professionals Amendment Regulation 2004; and they allow veterinary surgeons to be included under the Health Professionals Act.
It is worth noting, Mr Speaker, that the relocation of the abortion provisions from the Medical Practitioners Act 1930 to the Health Act 1993 is a straightforward matter. It is important that these abortion provisions are relocated as the Medical Practitioners Act 1930, which currently houses these provisions, will be repealed shortly as a result of the medical profession making the transition to the new health professionals legislation. If the abortion provisions are not relocated, obviously they will be lost and this would not be a desirable outcome. The provisions themselves, of course, remain unchanged, with the exception of a change in the terminology of “registered medical practitioner” to “doctor” for purposes of definition consistency with the health professionals legislation.
Mr Speaker, the only other point worth highlighting is that the bill we are debating today also repeals the Medical Services (Fees) Act 1984. This act is an outdated piece of legislation which comprises two provisions relating to the charging of prescribed fees equivalent to Medicare benefits scheduled fees in respect of private patients in ACT hospitals. The act is inconsistent with arrangements elsewhere in Australia, is inconsistent with the billing practices in the ACT, and should it ever be applied would create a major disincentive for medial specialists to stay or come to practise in the ACT.
Mr Smyth wanted some reassurance about the practice of pharmacy in the ACT. I can assure Mr Smyth and members that this bill makes no change to the existing process of regulation of pharmacy and the establishment of pharmacy here in the ACT. The other matters that Mr Smyth raises are policy matters of a broader context, which are not the subject of this bill and on which the government has not reached any conclusion.
Finally, members have raised concerns about the subsequent amendments to this bill, which I have tabled. These further amendments have been identified to further improve the operation of the act and they are straightforward in nature. I will briefly foreshadow them now and thereby save some time during the detail stage.
The first proposed amendment relates to the inclusion of a new provision to allow for the appointment of deputy presidents to the Health Professionals Tribunal. This amendment is necessary to ensure that there will be magistrates available to hear matters coming before the Health Professionals Tribunal in situations where the president of the tribunal is otherwise engaged. The inclusion of the provisions for deputy presidents is current standard practice for a range of other tribunals and will assist to accommodate the often busy schedules of magistrates who are appointed to these positions.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .