Page 4575 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 14 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Deputy Speaker, I now find that Mr Berry is circulating another amendment which I have not had time to read; but, anyway, I will continue. This provides for information to flow to the appropriate professional board on complaints handed to the Complaints Commissioner, that is, complaints that actually refer to practitioners covered by that particular board. This amendment will provide for a two-way flow of information between the commissioner and the boards. Currently the Bill provides for information to flow from the boards to the commissioner on complaints that refer to practitioners covered by the board, but not from the commissioner or the Complaints Unit back to the board.
The Bill as presently proposed may leave boards largely unaware of a pattern of complaints against a practitioner, of both a minor nature and a more serious nature. This knowledge, which is designed not to compromise privacy, should encourage preventative action by boards and alert them to minor transgressions, to persistent but minor complaints which may be indicative of more severe problems. The amendment does not impede in any way the operation of the Complaints Unit or the commissioner and will lead to the provision of essentially statistical information to the boards. Without this measure the commissioner would have the discretion to provide the information that I provide for in my amendment, but this amendment ensures that that information will be provided to the board as a matter of course. The information, in its most basic form, would involve advice on the number of complaints, a summary of the nature of those complaints, the number of complaints disposed of during the period and the number of outstanding complaints to the end of that period against any particular practitioner.
I think it is really important here to talk about what the boards actually do, what professional boards look at. Currently they look at all sorts of complaints against practitioners, and that is right from a practitioner being rude to a client or to a patient through to inappropriate professional techniques. That means surgeons who do not do their job properly, and real problems in terms of professional ethics. All professions have a code of conduct, right from how a patient is treated in the surgery through to the actual level of professional competency of the particular practitioner.
Currently the Bill provides that if a board receives a complaint against a particular practitioner it is required to notify the Complaints Unit, to notify the commissioner. That seems rather unusual. In Mr Berry's comments upon my amendment - I had not moved it at that time and I had not had an opportunity to speak on it - he suggested that there was a problem with privacy. If there is a problem with privacy there is a problem with the Bill already because currently it requires boards which are set up to look at complaints against practitioners to give the commissioner exactly the same information that I am requiring the commissioner to give to the boards. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, Mr Berry. If there is a problem with privacy one way, then there must be a problem the other way as well.
It is important to understand that for professional boards to do their job they must have an overall understanding of what is happening in the particular profession. Sometimes things can seem to be very minor problems. I will refer to some personal experiences. When I was on the Pharmacy Board, a long time ago now, we had a particular problem with a practitioner who was not giving adequate information about medication that that practitioner was dispensing.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .