Page 4577 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 14 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There is an issue that has been around for some time now where some of the professional boards want the police to provide them with information about some of their registrants who may have been charged with some offence or other. That suggests to me a breach of privacy too. Why should the police give it to the boards? The boards have not been able to convince police forces that they should provide that sort of information before people are charged. They do not want to breach the privacy of individuals, and they do not want to expose them to the old double jeopardy. That, of course, could occur as a result of what is being proposed.
The proposed amendment goes well beyond the legal jurisdiction of health registration boards. It requires that a complaint not made in relation to a matter which the board is concerned about still must become the property of the board. It is an issue of privacy. One of the very important features of this Bill is to ensure that, as far as is possible, secrecy and privilege are preserved for all people who participate in it.
What Mrs Carnell seems to be agitated about is that there is an area of complaints which will be dealt with by conciliation within this process, in the normal course of events provided for in this legislation, without the knowledge of the board, and it might well be appropriate for that to happen. Why would it be appropriate for everything, even those things that are not matters of concern for the board, to be referred to it? It is a nonsense. It is a breach of privacy, and it should not be allowed to occur. This amendment should be opposed, Mr Deputy Speaker. What I propose is an alternative which removes the words "in relation to each relevant provider registered by the Board".
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you formally moving that now, Mr Minister?
MR BERRY: Yes. It has been circulated. I move:
Subclause (1), omit "in relation to each relevant provider registered by the Board".
This takes that unnecessary imposition out of this particular amendment and removes, to one degree or another, that breach of privacy.
MR HUMPHRIES (9.14): Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not see the logic of the case that has been put to the Assembly by Mr Berry tonight. Mrs Carnell is proposing an arrangement for the various health professional boards and the Health Complaints Unit, between them, to provide a cooperative and coordinated system to monitor the performance of health professionals. That is what it is designed to do. What we certainly do not want, Mr Deputy Speaker, is an arrangement to arise whereby there is conflict between these two arms of our policy for making sure that we have a higher standard of accountability on the part of professionals who work in our health system. That should be avoided at all costs. It would seem to me, with respect, that the proposal put forward by Mr Berry will have the effect of doing just that. It will provide that one arm of this process of dealing with the conduct of health professionals will not know what the other arm is doing.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .