Page 4576 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 14 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Lamont: Was that when you persecuted a particular pharmacist?
MRS CARNELL: This actually is reasonably important, Mr Lamont. We had a number of complaints about a particular pharmacist who was not giving any information; who was, in fact, sealing prescriptions in brown paper bags and giving them to employees to give out to clients. This obviously is unprofessional conduct; but it is not illegal, and even in a one-off instance probably is not all that much of a problem if the particular medication does not require a lot of information. But, when you put that together with a number of complaints against that particular practitioner and the way they conducted their professional activities, it became a real issue, and an issue that it was important for the board to follow up. The point I am making is that it is very important for boards to have an overview of what is actually happening in the profession. For a peer group review mechanism to work, all that information must be forthcoming. My amendment does not require the name of the complainant to be given to the board.
Mr Berry: It does.
MRS CARNELL: No, it does not; not the complainant, only the provider. Not the person who actually makes the complaint; only the person against whom the complaint is made. Currently all of those complaints go to the board, so they have all of that information. It is not new information, or information that they would not have in the current situation. In fact, currently they would also have the name of the person who was making the complaint. The issue is that, unless boards know what practitioners for whom they have an overall responsibility in professional conduct terms are actually doing, or what sorts of complaints are in the marketplace, they really cannot do their job. There is not a privacy issue, again, because the boards already have that information. It is not new information. I stress that again. I believe very strongly that for the Health Complaints Unit to do its job properly we must have a flow of this sort of information; otherwise no-one will be able to do their job appropriately. I urge support for this amendment.
MR BERRY (Minister for Health, Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport) (9.09): As I said earlier, Mr Deputy Speaker, this is clearly a breach of privacy. What will be required as a result of Mrs Carnell's amendment is that information in relation to complaints be referred to the board in relation to each relevant provider registered by the board. On the face of it, people might say, "Well, that is fine"; but what if the board has no power to deal with the matter? What on earth would you want to refer it to them for? It is a silly notion. It would be a breach of privilege if there was a complaint about a particular practitioner that was not a complaint that could be dealt with by the board. Why would you refer that complaint to the relevant board? It would be nonsense because it very clearly would be a breach of privacy. It is just nonsense. It is the height of arrogance to suggest that a board should have open access to this sort of information. It is information that would, without this amendment, be privileged, and therefore it should stay that way. It is unnecessary to refer these sorts of complaints to the board if they are, in fact, not matters which the board can deal with.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .