Page 4580 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 14 December 1993

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

MS SZUTY (9.22): Mr Deputy Speaker, this has been an interesting debate. When I received the amendment to be moved by Mr Berry I had to look at it very carefully to ascertain exactly what was different about it. In the end we established that only the words "in relation to each relevant provider registered by the Board" were to be deleted. I must admit, on first looking at this amendment, that I thought, "Yes, perhaps Mrs Carnell does identify, to the disadvantage of particular providers, the number of complaints received, et cetera". However, I do take Mr Humphries's point that we have a whole part in the Health Complaints Bill, Part VII, which deals with the relationship between the commissioner and the boards. Mr Humphries articulated quite well the two-way process that is intended to exist between the referral of complaints to the commissioner and the referral of complaints the other way, from the commissioner to the relevant boards. I think Mrs Carnell's amendment is a very positive contribution to this Bill and I support it.

MR BERRY (Minister for Health, Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport) (9.23): I really need to deal with the web of deception that Mr Humphries has attempted to weave. He talked about clause 57 of the Bill, which relates to the referral of complaints to the commissioner. That clause says:

(1) A Board that receives a complaint that appears to have been made by a person referred to in section 21 and to disclose a ground referred to in section 22 shall -

(a) notify the Commissioner;

(b) provide the Commissioner with a copy of the complaint and of all documents in its possession that relate to the complaint; and

The difference here is that the board has to refer to the provisions of this Act and to comply with it. Clause 21 refers to who may complain and it says:

A complaint to the Commissioner about a health service sought, used or received by, or administered to, a user may be made by the user or, where it is difficult or impossible for the user to make a complaint, or to make a complaint that complies with subsection 26(1) ...

It goes on to list all of the people who can make a complaint. It also talks about the grounds of complaint. Those are very specific provisions under which referrals by the commissioner must be made. If the reverse were to occur in relation to boards, then the commissioner would look at the board's legislation and identify where there had been an infringement or where there had been a matter which the relevant professional registration board might deal with. The commissioner has to identify that and then forward it on to the board. What Mrs Carnell's amendment sets out to do is to say that, whether it has any relevance at all or not, it must be referred. Therefore people who have no business being before the particular professional registration board are being referred there.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .