Page 4581 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 14 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There is no point in going through this referral process when the board has no power under its relevant piece of law. This is about the professionals in those registration boards being aware of what is going on out there amongst the people who are registered, but not to the extent that they would be able to deal with it. It may well not be something to which the board could refer. If you look at this legislation, there is an obligation on the board to take into account the actual law. Where the commissioner refers a complaint to a board it would be a matter which the relevant registration board could deal with, and that is fair enough. Exactly the reverse occurs as far as the board's relationship with the commissioner is concerned. The board must consider the powers under the Health Complaints Act, particularly who might complain and the grounds for complaint, before making that referral. Mr Humphries is well aware of that because clause 57 points that out, and the reverse occurs in relation to the commissioner.
Mrs Carnell is seeking to impose a requirement that where there is no reason for the matter to go before a board it still must go there. What I have proposed in the amendment that I have put before this chamber is to remove that automatic requirement for every complaint against a provider to be referred to the board, and the big picture, of course, is presented to the board. If the board see a picture developing out there about which they have some professional concern, they ought to approach me with a view to changing the Act to deal with it - that is, if there is a particular matter they think they ought to be dealing with. But if it is not provided for in the legislation there ought not be a requirement under this legislation to automatically refer matters about which the relevant registration board has no concern.
Mr Humphries: They are not being referred.
MR BERRY: They are being referred.
MR MOORE (9.28): Mr Deputy Speaker, when Mrs Carnell put up her amendment to this legislation I thought it was a very sensible improvement on the Bill. Mr Berry then raised the question of privacy and caused me to question that particular part of her amendment. To be fair to the Minister, he has accepted, clearly, the general content of the clause dealing with this specific issue of privacy. However, he has been entirely unconvincing in saying that there really is a privacy issue involved here that warrants the amendment that he is proposing. I think that each of the arguments he put up has been well argued against by Mr Humphries and that this amendment can operate appropriately. I feel satisfied that there is not a grave risk to privacy.
Mr Berry: I think you have missed the point.
MR MOORE: Well, have another go.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .