Page 467 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 23 February 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
community. I was told this was necessary as the committee heard from practitioners in relation to the ageing of practitioners and their general low morale. However, recommendation 1 does not actually say it wants the government to do anything specific in raising their profile. If the committee wants to address the morale of general practitioners, I would suggest that this is probably a noble aim, but morale is a complex thing, and very individual in some cases. I am not sure what raising their profile will do in this regard other than making more work for them. It certainly cannot prevent them from ageing, may I suggest. On the face of it, it is a reasonable recommendation, but what does it mean?
I have had it recorded in the minutes and in the report itself, and Mr Doszpot has made reference to it, that I do not support recommendation 3 and its subsequent reference to the moral dilemma mentioned in paragraph 2.34. I find the implications one could draw from both the recommendations and the phrase indicate a form of paternalistic behaviour, a throwback to our bad old colonial days. It also smacks of a deeper problem that contains in it shades of racism and prejudice. I wonder whether that would be a breach of the Discrimination Act, and I cannot be sure that this information could not be abused. What about the privacy of those individuals? This is why I strongly object to these two items as they stand.
Further, on the same page, referring to overseas trained doctors, the report quotes from the Canberra Times regarding the experience of an overseas doctor. This selective quoting of the media is not helpful, as it gives the wrong impression while leaving out other relevant factors at play in this situation. Firstly, it is clear that it is more complex than what the reader of this report will gather. Secondly, of course, this is another matter which involves the federal government’s requirements and is not something the ACT has jurisdiction over.
The person’s immigration status changed. Would we have people whose immigration status has changed continue to work in the same capacity nonetheless without checks and balances? I think not. I believe it is a requirement for doctors who wish to practise as general practitioners here in Australia and who come here as overseas trained to apply for a fellowship from the Australian College of General Practitioners. I cannot see that it is unreasonable, and I know that the doctor currently employed at the West Belconnen Health Cooperative has come from Britain and has fulfilled this requirement by undertaking this step before coming here. I noted with interest in an ABC news item on Tuesday, 13 February on ABC Online that a spokeswoman for the federal minister, Nicola Roxon, said that her department had repeatedly attempted to contact Dr Douglas to discuss options which would allow her to practise.
Recommendation 4 suggests a feasibility study, and a full feasibility study of this nature would have resource implications at a time when the government is being called on to provide more and more resources to meet the health needs of our community.
In recommendation 8, I asked that the word “continue” be inserted, because I saw that the text read as though the ACT health minister has not in any way lobbied her federal colleagues in regard to this matter. Obviously she has done so, and I wanted it just made clear in that recommendation. I was unsuccessful in that. It gives the impression that the minister has been sitting on her hands doing nothing.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .