Page 855 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 16 March 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
very supportive of this national scheme, it is unfortunate that the ACT bill fails to be truly nationally consistent, as was intended. After considerable consultation, the Canberra Liberals have been left with no choice but to make some necessary amendments which we believe will improve this legislation.
The fundamental intent of this major reform initiative was to do away with duplication and differing registration criteria between states and territories for health professionals, as well as to ensure public safety by having a single, uniform complaint handling process. But when we look at what the government is proposing here, we see that the ACT bill most definitely fails the test on national consistency and will potentially hinder the workings of the national boards as well as delay the processing and ultimate resolution of complaints. In the worst case scenario, such delays could put public safety at risk.
Where the ACT bill deviates substantially from the national model is in relation to the complaints handling process. I do note that the minister briefly addressed this issue in her presentation speech. However, I do not think she did so in a very satisfactory manner, and I will address that in a moment.
Effectively, what is being proposed by the government is to give the health complaints entity in the ACT—that being the ACT Health Services Commissioner—additional powers, more than what the commissioner’s counterparts in the other states will be given. The bill, as presented, provides for instances where the ACT Health Services Commissioner will be permitted to participate in various stages of an investigation by a panel of a national board into the conduct of a health practitioner and will be given the power to be involved in the deliberations stage of an investigation.
This is at odds with what the other jurisdictions will be implementing or, in the case of Queensland and Victoria, already have implemented. Even New South Wales, which has completely departed from the national agenda on this issue, at least have made a clear and unambiguous distinction between the role of their Health Complaints Commission and the national boards.
Importantly, however, the New South Wales model will not have any impact on the workings of a national board, because the national boards will not have to deal at all with complaints made against New South Wales based practitioners, as this will remain the responsibility of the New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission.
As a result, registration fees for health professionals will be lower in New South Wales to reflect that a large portion of the national board’s work in New South Wales will be actually carried out by the New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission. It does beg the question: will the ACT government commit to also subsidising registration fees for ACT health practitioners if it is shown that the ACT government is funding a significant portion of the complaint handling?
What the government is proposing here, however, is a hybrid complaints handling system for the ACT which differs vastly from every other jurisdiction and which severely undermines the nationally consistent model that was negotiated and agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video