Page 4567 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 14 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr De Domenico: No, no. Ask Mr Wood how to do it.
Mrs Carnell: Ask Mr Wood how to do it.
MR BERRY: What input could you give? You could not give any input. After all, you are dealing with a very sensitive, caring Labor Government. What could Tony De Domenico offer the process? He could not offer anything to the process. Mr Deputy Speaker, that deals with that proposed amendment by Mrs Carnell.
Mrs Carnell: I have not spoken on it yet or even foreshadowed it.
MR BERRY: I will give you an idea where we are coming from. It was mentioned and it has been distributed. I have not had as long as I would like to have had to talk to Mrs Carnell about it, because I have been busy throughout the dinner break dealing with other very important matters. I have told Mr Moore. Mr Moore is aware that there is a privacy issue. The proposed amendment would have the effect of identifying individual providers, and that is very clear. This is, in my view, of great public concern and it is also, as I have said, an issue of privacy. I have been advised that the proposed amendment goes well beyond the legal jurisdiction of the health registration boards. There will be no denial of that because that is a matter of fact. The boards already have sufficient powers with which to discipline their own registrants. Breaching provisions and principles of the Privacy Act is something that no government or Assembly member should even contemplate.
Specifically, Mrs Carnell's amendment is in breach of privacy principle No. 11, which prevents the disclosure of personal information outside the agency. The issue concerns the protection of an individual's right to privacy. The Opposition's amendment makes a mockery of those principles and of the Privacy Act. There is no point in providing information to boards - I think this is a very important point too - if they have no legal jurisdiction to take action. For example, complaints alleging poor communication cannot legally be dealt with by boards but would be dealt with confidentially by the Commissioner for Health Complaints. The commissioner is required to refer a complaint to a relevant board if the complaint relates to a matter that falls within the functions conferred on a board. So why would you then pursue an extra course? For example, a complaint which alleges unprofessional or unethical conduct of a doctor must be referred by the commissioner to the Medical Board. Paragraph 9(c) of the Bill requires the commissioner to provide to boards non-identifying information about trends in health complaints about the boards' registrants. I, therefore, will strongly oppose that which has been foreshadowed by Mrs Carnell.
One other matter which also needs to be discussed in this context is that there is a whole range of health professionals who are not registered with boards, and the amendment proposed by Mrs Carnell is therefore meaningless.
Mrs Carnell: Which whole host of health professionals who are not registered with boards?
MR BERRY: Some that I have in front of me now are naturopaths and so on. There are a number of people who are not registered here in the ACT.
Mr De Domenico: So far we have naturopaths and so on.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .