Page 2429 - Week 08 - Thursday, 6 August 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
comments to the committee. One of the themes of the committee’s comments is the role of the Human Rights Commission. I believe that it is worth reiterating my comments in this place to ensure there is a common understanding of the relationship between the board and the commission.
The role of the Human Rights Commission is carried out by the Health Services Commissioner. This role is well established and is a role that, under the Health Professionals Act, operated in relation to all health professional boards. The Health Services Commissioner continues to have a role in the regulation of health practitioners under the national laws.
Chapter 7 and division 5.3 of the bill provide clarification regarding the interaction between the Veterinary Surgeons Board and the commission. In effect, the commission and the board must consult with each other on any complaints received by either entity in relation to veterinary surgeons. The entities must agree to a way forward consistent with any legislation; if they cannot agree, the most serious action chosen by the board or commission prevails.
This is no different from the regime that has operated under the Health Professionals Act 2004 and that the Veterinary Surgeons Board came into in 2007. It is well understood by both the commission and the board and it recognises the different skills and considerations that are brought to bear in assessing complaints and determining further action. Because of this interaction, the system has inbuilt checks and balances, enhancing, rather than detracting from, the management of the profession and complaints.
The other matter that I want to touch on is the committee’s question as to whether the granting of complaint rights was too broad. It is a fair question to consider. Under the bill, complaint rights are provided to people beyond the user of the service. It is clear that while a user should be able to complain about a health service, it is often others who are better placed to identify the malpractice. The bill provides that despite any other professional or legislative restraints, a person can make a complaint about a veterinary surgeon where there is a question of professional competence or breaching of standards.
A veterinary surgeon is a person who, due to their professional standing and qualifications, is held to a high level of accountability. As I stated in my response to the committee, limitations placed on a veterinary surgeon’s personal rights and liberties in their professional capacity are justifiable, being outweighed by the overarching need to protect public health and safety. As health professionals, they are accountable, through the board, to the community, particularly where there is a reasonable question of malpractice. This bill reflects this position.
I now table a revised explanatory statement to include clarification on a number of issues raised by the committee. This does not change the substantive consideration of the bill contained in the explanatory statement.
Lastly, the bill contains transitional provisions which will ensure smooth running and the transition of the existing board to the new act. This includes carrying over
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video