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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 4 Hansard (17 April) . . Page.. 988 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

That is emphasised even more, obviously, by the fact that the professional body did not jump in right from the word go and say, "This is an unacceptable concept. We will investigate it". The royal colleges of whatever that these doctors have set up are supposedly to protect the ethics, supposedly to protect the standards, of such specialists; but where are they when these standards need to be protected? We hear of them when the standards of their salaries need to be protected. We hear of them when they are going to limit the number of people who can do the job, to ensure that they make enough money. They are probably the same people who otherwise would advocate free enterprise. But where now is the royal college that should be investigating its own members? There is a great big silence. That is not the issue Mr Berry has raised; but it is an issue we should consider, and we should consider it in conjunction with our Federal counterparts. Have these royal colleges that protect specialists had their day? It is my opinion that they certainly have had their day and it is time we got rid of them, and I take this opportunity to call on Mrs Carnell to approach her colleague Dr Wooldridge to deal with this issue.

Mrs Carnell: It is already done.

MR MOORE: Mrs Carnell says that she has already done it, and I think that is a great step forward. I think they are outdated, outmoded and entirely inappropriate for our health care. They undermine our health care. It is part of this whole VMO culture, which has more emphasis on looking after them than it has on general health care. That is not to take away the specific issue of their looking after individual patients and the health care of individual patients. It is not to confuse that issue, because I am not aware of anybody challenging that, when it comes to an individual patient, they are going to do their best. Maybe there is, but I am not aware of it. What we have in Mr Berry's motion is a call for re-establishment of the confidence of our community in our hospital and in our medical profession.

The other two investigations I have not yet mentioned - the internal investigation and the fraud prevention investigation - are specific investigations of a particular way of doing things, but certainly they are not set up to look at the general cultural issue. Mr Berry's motion really does have an appropriate place here to ensure that that is dealt with, and I hope that that would be part of what will come out of this inquiry.

Mr Humphries: It is not in the motion.

MR MOORE: Mr Humphries waves around the motion and says "It is not in here". Having carried on this debate, Mr Humphries, on the issue being raised by Mr Osborne, have a look at that motion. It says "any other related matter". I am quite happy to modify this motion and specifically talk about culture, if that would be an appropriate way to go. I am also prepared to consider the possibility that such an investigation, in attempting to avoid extra costs on our community - the issue Mr Humphries raised - could be carried out by the Commissioner for Health Complaints. Mrs Carnell mentioned in her speech the Commissioner for Health Complaints. That would be an appropriate body to carry out this investigation, and I think that would be a very sensible way of

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