Page 5253 - Week 17 - Thursday, 13 December 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HUMPHRIES (Minister for Health, Education and the Arts) (5.46): Mr Speaker, I am really appalled by Mr Berry's ignorance in this matter. I wish he had taken the trouble to discuss this matter with Mr Connolly perhaps, who is on his own side, before he came down to this place and spouted those quite ridiculous words. If he looked carefully and took some advice on the matter, he would realise that clauses 27 and 28 are fundamental to any decent quality assurance program. You cannot have a decent quality assurance program unless you protect the people who take part in those quality assurance programs.
He also does not understand what this is all about. The whole point about the need for the Minister to establish approved committees under clause 26 of the Bill is to provide those committees and the people who appear before them with legal protection for participating in such things as quality assurance. Let me give you an example. A particular patient goes in for an operation and there is some question of that particular person not having been properly dealt with while under anaesthetic. Now, obviously one needs to explore such issues in questions that arise during quality assurance reviews. It is not possible to do that comprehensively, frankly and openly unless the people who testify in such matters before quality assurance reviews can do so in confidence.
Those quality assurance committees are not courts. They do not have the power to compel witnesses and they do not have the power to protect witnesses against what might be said in those proceedings. If a person is injured by a doctor in the course of the operation, that person is entitled to go to the quality assurance committee and say so. What is more, other doctors are entitled to go to those committees and say, "I do not think that Dr X did a good job."; "I think that Dr Y's standards are below par."; "I think Dr Z has insufficient capacity in a particular area to properly provide services in that area."; "Dr Z is not up to scratch any more.", or whatever. Unless you have protection for people making such statements, you cannot have an open and full quality assurance program.
Mr Berry also asked about what is done elsewhere. Certainly these provisions exist in one form or another in New South Wales and Victoria. To my knowledge, they probably exist in most other places, if not everywhere else in this country as well. They are essential to providing high quality assurance programs. I remind Mr Berry that the previous loss of accreditation for our public hospital system arose from the fact that we did not have decent quality assurance programs in place.
I think, Mr Speaker, that if people believe that they have suffered some injury or other professionals in the health system believe that someone is not delivering a high quality of service they should be able to say so and they should have protection when they say so. That is appropriate. It is appropriate in, to my knowledge, every
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .