Page 2699 - Week 10 - Thursday, 15 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In summary, we need to think differently about ACT requirements and not merely imitate what is going on in larger States. Mr Berry must sort out the current complaints mechanisms, not just establish two new bodies to add to the confusion. The ACT needs an efficient, cost-effective complaints mechanism designed to meet ACT needs, not those of Queensland or Victoria.
MR BERRY (Minister for Health, Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport) (4.01), in reply: One of the things that I think Mrs Carnell overlooked in the course of her contribution to the debate was the most important aspect of the Independent Health Complaints Unit, and that is its independence. She talked about what went on in the public health system; but, of course, she did not talk about what happens in the private sector, because nothing happens there. That is also an important focus of the proposal for the ACT. But again, it is a discussion paper, and I dare say that there will be a lot of comment about the various provisions, some of which will be acceptable to the Government and some which will not be. That is the nature of discussion about these sorts of controversial issues.
There will be people who would prefer not to be under the umbrella of an independent complaints unit. They would prefer to be in a deregulated environment when dealing with complaints. As far as I am concerned, I think we owe it to the people of the ACT to have in place a complaints model which very clearly demonstrates to the community that it is capable of investigating complaints in all areas, not just those that are in the public sector.
It has to be capable of investigating complaints in all of the areas, such as complaints against institutional corporate health providers; complaints against registered health practitioners and professionals, irrespective of whether they are employed in the public or private sectors; complaints against members of non-registered professions such as homoeopaths and acupuncturists; complaints against those providing or purporting to provide health services such as alternative providers, including natural therapists and, as I have mentioned, acupuncturists. So, people who hitherto were not subject to a complaints system which could be described clearly as independent will, with the advent of this model, be covered. I think that will be a positive thing for the people of the ACT.
The provision of a complaints model does not come for nothing. It is true that the ACT does not have the luxury of the same economies of scale as the other States, but at the same time we do have complaints about our public and private health services. Within the public network there will be a necessity to maintain an in-house complaints unit and arrangements whereby complaints are dealt with. Whilst we always look for a complaint free environment, in a big organisation, in an area such as health, I think it would be a wild dream to expect that there would never be any complaints about service. It is the very nature of large health systems that complaints occasionally emerge and there has to be a way of dealing with them in-house. That process within the organisation cannot be abandoned.
I can say to Mrs Carnell here and now that where the burden on the internal unit is decreased as a result of the Independent Complaints Unit there will be a rationalisation of the energy that goes into it within the public system; but we must continue to maintain our internal complaints unit while the proposed unit develops. It is not something that will happen within five minutes; it has to develop and be cranked up, so there will be a period when there is some overlap. I think rational thinkers would understand that.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .