Page 952 - Week 03 - Thursday, 10 April 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR BARR: I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name [see schedule 2 at page 1010] and table a supplementary explanatory statement to the amendments and also the revised explanatory statement for the bill overall.
My first amendment inserts a new section that provides information on what should be taken into consideration when deciding whether treatment and care needs are reasonable and necessary. When assessing the treatment and care needs of a participant, the commissioner must determine that those treatment and care needs are reasonable and necessary in the circumstances. The bill does not currently define what is reasonable and necessary. The intention was to define this in the guidelines. However, to address the concerns of both the scrutiny committee and the Law Society that this term be more clearly articulated in the primary act, this amendment inserts the principles of what is reasonable and necessary into the act. The principles reflect the considerations required under the agreed minimum benchmarks for the NIIS. The guidelines will contain further detail on what is reasonable and necessary, based upon these principles.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (12.11): The amendment seems a reasonable response to the concerns raised by the scrutiny of bills committee, and we will support it. Again, it highlights the importance of the guidelines: as with much legislation these days, the devil is in the detail. We will read the guidelines with great interest when they are promulgated and make sure that the minister has attended to all that he should.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (12.12): I will also be supporting this amendment. It gives us some detail on the important question of what is reasonable and necessary care and treatment for a person entering the lifetime care and support scheme. The detail is useful, no doubt, for the commissioner, as well as for us in the Assembly and people in the community who are seeking to understand how decisions are made in this scheme. The issues for consideration set out in this amendment are sensible and reasonable, and I understand that they mirror those in the New South Wales guidelines, which again makes this appropriate in our endeavour to mirror that New South Wales scheme as closely as possible.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (12.13): I will be opposing this clause. The clause states that the commissioner’s assessment of a participant’s treatment and care needs is final and binding for this act and any court proceedings under the act. It excludes the situation of people disagreeing and then trying to find some other path to resolution.
The 2006 act in New South Wales has a clause that has an annual review. The last one that I can find is recommendation 5 from a review by a committee of the New South Wales parliament:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video