Page 920 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 16 March 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR HANSON: Yes, we will. It is just that in my speech on the amendments I will cover off on them, because they are very similar, rather than repeating the same speech each time with the same intent.
The point of the amendments that I am making is to essentially revert from what is being put forward by the government, which is a unique ACT model, and make it a consistent model with the other state and territory jurisdictions. That involves removing new section 150, which resembles the public interest assessor model which the minister outlined in her speech and which I outlined in mine, and modification of the other elements, outlined in the amendment I have put forward, in terms of the schedules that would be omitted from this bill.
MS BRESNAN (Brindabella) (5.14): The Greens will not be supporting Mr Hanson’s amendments, as I indicated earlier. These amendments would effectively take us back to having only a peer review process and we would lose the very strong independent health complaints system that has been established over a number of years in the ACT. This system is essential to maintaining integrity and consumer confidence in the system we have and will be implementing through this bill we are debating today.
I have to say that there seems to have been a great deal of misunderstanding about what is being proposed through this bill. While the health complaints commissioner will essentially be at the top of the hierarchy when it comes to investigations, boards can at any time or at any stage initiate an investigation. For example, concerns were raised with me about boards being able to investigate more practice or individual related issues with medical professionals and that this would not be able to happen if the health complaints commissioner was investigating a matter. This is not the case, as a board can initiate such an investigation while the commissioner is investigating a related matter.
This bill retains the independent complaints process we currently have in the ACT but it also brings us into line with the national registration and accreditation processes. The ACT is therefore able to have the benefits of both processes, which provides the most robust process for consumers, which is what should be the key outcome.
The Greens, as I will speak to, have proposed an amendment which makes the role of the health complaints commissioner explicit in the legislation.
As I have already said, I have corresponded and met with the ACT boards, including the midwives and medical board. When we met with them, the midwives did actually say that they were essentially happy with the status quo, so again I think there has been some misunderstanding about how the process is going to operate.
I think we will still have the national process, as the other states will, but we will retain the involvement of the health complaints commissioner. As I have already said, it is extremely important. It is also incorrect to state that our legislation will be vastly different from that of other states. We have already seen that New South Wales has retained its health complaints process, as I discussed earlier. And, as the minister said, Western Australia is considering amendments and I believe some other states may do the same.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video