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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 4 Hansard (17 April) . . Page.. 991 ..

MR BERRY: So there is no need to do that. In relation to the other paragraphs that Mrs Carnell wants to omit, I am very keen to ensure that they stay in. Paragraph (3) refers to "the responsibility of the hospital in relation to the funding for staff and facilities provided by the Commonwealth Government through grants and Medicare payments".

Mrs Carnell: But what has that to do with the dog?

MR BERRY: It is most important that the issue of funding for capital equipment, some of which is provided by the Commonwealth Government, and Medicare payments is raised in the context of the misuse of that equipment.

Mrs Carnell: But that is what the fraud inquiry does.

MR BERRY: It is most important that that is considered in the context of an independent inquiry because none of the other inquiries can treat this issue adequately, in my view. Paragraph (4), "the inter-relationship between public and private patients, their treatment, costs - - -

Mrs Carnell: What has that to do with dogs?

MR BERRY: You will get your chance. Paragraph (4) says, "the inter-relationship between public and private patients, their treatment, costs, access, referral patterns and billing practices". That is an important issue because it is about the way that those doctors with private practice rights within the hospital use hospital resources in the context of their profession. That must be investigated closely because at least one of the doctors involved in this issue had a private practice which was conducted outside the system. There ought to be a general review of how private practice arrangements are dealt with within the hospital system, so that we can remove any of these suspicions about the use of government provided resources in their private practice. It is a most important issue to be examined in the context of this whole matter because at least one of those doctors ran a private practice outside the system.

Mr Humphries: But what? To treat dogs?

MR BERRY: Do not be silly. He could well have and it would not have been a controversy then.

Mr Humphries: It was his own dog. It was not somebody else's dog.

MR BERRY: Why did he not do it in his own practice? Mr Speaker, the issue here is to look at the - - -

Mr Moore: In the context of the dog. That is what you are talking about - the context of the treatment of animals.

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