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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 4 Hansard (17 April) . . Page.. 986 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

a wide-ranging basis to the officers within that unit. If we have established a watchdog, so to speak - perhaps an unfortunate expression - why do we not let it bark? The fraud investigation unit is there for this purpose. It is independent. This is its job - to investigate these matters. Why do we not let it get on with the task? Those who claim that there is not an independent inquiry into this matter, frankly, are casting a slur on the status of those officers. Those officers can and will conduct a fully independent inquiry.

Let us put to one side, however, the fraud investigation unit, let us put to one side the Medical Board, let us put to one side the medical ethics committee in the hospital, and so on. Let us put them all to one side. I think Mr Berry may have been in opposition - I forget now - but he established a mechanism for investigating complaints within the health system. That, of course, is the Commissioner for Health Complaints. He established it. He gave it independence in legislation. Why is that not a sufficient mechanism to make an independent inquiry into this matter? Mr Berry does not seem to have an answer to that.

Mr Berry: I will give it to you in a minute.

MR HUMPHRIES: I do not think there is an answer to it. You do not want to give me an answer now, so that I can shoot it to bits, obviously. That can happen right now. (Extension of time granted) I do not think members opposite are serious when they suggest that the Commissioner for Health Complaints ought to have been established in the first place and yet now say that the commissioner is not the appropriate person to conduct an inquiry of this kind. If that is the case, if you are suggesting that this motion is addressing that issue of the Commissioner for Health Complaints doing it, you should say so in the motion; but you do not.

Let me turn to the contents of the motion for a moment. I do not know whether members have read this motion, but it is one of the most confusing and random pieces of drafting I have seen in this place for a long time. I ask members to direct their attention to a few phrases in here, phrases such as this one: The inquiry is to investigate "the inter-relationship between public and private patients, their treatment, costs, access, referral patterns and billing practices". What have billing practices between public and private patients to do - - -

Mr Osborne: Where do the VMOs send them?

MR HUMPHRIES: Maybe so, but this is not an inquiry into VMOs generally. This is an inquiry into a particular incident that abused the privilege of working in the public hospital. That is what it is about. Why are we having an inquiry into the interrelationship between public and private patients? This is an extraordinarily wide-ranging brief being given to someone here, a wide-ranging brief which pushes up the cost of having this inquiry in the first place. Why are we doing this? Do we need this? Can we justify this to the taxpayers of this Territory, when there are already four other inquiries going on, when there is massive cost involved in that process, and any new inquiry costs money? Why are we imposing that on the people of this Territory?

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