Page 5252 - Week 17 - Thursday, 13 December 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It seems to me to be unfair, when compared to the rest of the community, that members of these committees would not have the information that they are provided with in relation to those committees admissible as evidence in civil or criminal proceedings. It seems to me that it would be quite obvious to those present that the ALP does not support the closed shop arrangements of those engaged as health professionals. The interests of health consumers are not protected by these clauses. The fact is that there should not be that sort of protection. Only the medical profession has such absolute protection as is proposed in this Bill. Indeed, it may be argued that due to the nature of their work the medical profession should be the last to be afforded such protection.
It needs to be made clear that this is not meant to be a criticism of the medical profession; it is just a criticism of the Government's legislation. The fact of the matter, Mr Speaker, is that, if good doctors and others in the health professions have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear. It strikes me that it is long overdue that the operations of the professions be open to the light of public scrutiny. That has not been always the case in the past, but the amendment moved by the Labor Party in Opposition in this matter seeks to open the issue up and I do not see anything wrong with it. Most other people are required to attend courts and provide evidence in matters which might be related to their profession and I cannot see any reason why doctors should not be in the same position. I think doctors ought to be accountable. It is the community who, in some way, pays them and they are - - -
Mr Humphries: It is not the doctors we are talking about. It is the people who testify against them.
MR BERRY: Indeed, so should doctors be afforded the protection from people who have given evidence in committee?
Mr Humphries: Defamation proceedings.
MR BERRY: People are not permitted under the law to defame people, otherwise they face a penalty. You either provide evidence which is correct or you pay the penalty. It has been put to me that in every other Labor State they have such clauses, and I am not surprised. The health profession is very strong. They are to be congratulated, I suppose, because they have one of the strongest trade unions in the country, or the strongest trade union in the country. There is nothing wrong with strength and unity, but it has to be tempered against the public interest and I think this would be in the public interest. I would encourage the Minister and the Government to stand up for the people's interests and remove this secrecy and protection.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .