Page 917 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 16 March 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
sets out any powers the board might exercise and any procedural rights the person has under law.
Lastly, the national law engages the right to privacy. Everyone has the right to not have arbitrary or unlawful interference with their privacy. The terms of the national law are not arbitrary. The precise circumstances in which persons are required to disclose their criminal history, for example, are specified in detail. These requirements also apply to all applicants for registration.
Furthermore, the interferences with the privacy that these provisions allow are proportionate to the national law’s objective to provide for the protection of the public by ensuring that only health practitioners that are suitably trained and qualified to practise in a competent and ethical manner are registered.
On the basis of these modifications to the national law, bill C has been granted a compatibility certificate under the Human Rights Act 2004, and in my discussions with the boards, none of those amendments are contentious. I believe Mr Hanson’s amendments might seek to wipe some of those out. I will listen to that in the detail stage.
The implementation of the national scheme in the ACT for registration and accreditation of health practitioners is expected to provide improved safeguards for the public, reduce red tape and deliver improved administrative efficiency and consistency by moving from the current, fragmented jurisdictional system to one national scheme which promotes a more flexible, responsive and sustainable health workforce. I commend the bill to the Assembly to provide for that more streamlined system.
I would say also that I intend—I am sorry, colleagues, I have not had a chance to speak with you about this—in the detail stage to move an amendment. The purpose of that amendment really was generated after listening to Mr Hanson’s gloom-and-doom, “the sky will fall in” speech earlier around how devastating it will be to have joint consideration of the complaints. One way of addressing that concern and maybe easing some of those concerns is to have a review. I checked whether a capacity for a review of the complaints handling processes after 12 months was included in the bill, and it is not in there. So my amendment, when I move it later, is simply to build that into the legislation and to allow that to occur.
I also say that I have looked closely at the intergovernmental agreement. Indeed, when I prosecuted my case at the health ministers meeting around the amendments that we have moved to our bill C, it is fair to say that there were some ministers, particularly those in a one-house majority parliament, that did raise concerns about the fact that we were seeking to amend what was a national law. I understand—and I have not seen them yet—that WA may be considering moving amendments as well. So there was concern about moving any type of amendment rather than the amendments we talked about per se.
I explained the situation we were in; the fact that it was the disappearance of the role of the public interest assessor—it was in the exposure draft and was actually in all the discussions up to August 2009 when it mysteriously disappeared in one of the drafting
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video