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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 3 Hansard (26 May) . . Page.. 566 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

... the practitioner shall not obtain, request or accept, `booking fees', `attendance fees', or like payments or any other payments, considerations, benefit or advantage from any patient or on behalf of any patient to ensure that the practitioner is available to provide services to the patient, or to ensure the patient is given priority in the receipt of services for which remuneration is payable to the practitioner under this agreement.

Mr Berry, you will find this very interesting, considering that you answered a question from Ms Ellis on 25 November 1993 and drew attention to the sort of practice that Dr Bates was then involved in. The same Dr Bates was heading the AMA that negotiated the wording of this contract. That irony is not to be missed.

Mr Berry: I do not think he asked me to insert it, though.

MR MOORE: I do not think he asked you to insert that clause. However, as you correctly pointed out, there was an Auditor-General's report and a series of other issues that led to this clause. The clause is in the contract and every VMO is subject to that. As you rightly point out, we have one example of somebody who lets down his colleagues.

The other issue that I think is important is this: You asked about the renewal of a contract. I spoke to Professor Ellwood earlier today. Professor Ellwood is handling the negotiations with gynaecologists and obstetricians. He indicated that he has put out the new contracts, including a contract to Dr Bates. I think that last Friday Dr Bates indicated to Professor Ellwood that he would not be signing that particular contract. Professor Ellwood assures me that he will not be offering any different contract to any gynaecologist or obstetrician. That is the contract that is available for any of them. They will sign it or they will not have a contract. That is the position that we are in.

Additionally, the hospital has advised me today that in the light of the information contained in the Canberra Times today - I presume that is what Dr Bates considered as his justification - the hospital is moving to withdraw its offer of a new contract, or of any contract, to Dr Bates pending further inquiries. That being the case, there are only a few days left for Dr Bates to respond in a positive way to that contract. There will be no other contract offered to him with any other conditions. So, Mr Berry, although we have paid large sums of money to Dr Bates over the last few years, the chances of him being involved in practising at the Canberra Hospital in the future are very slim indeed.

MR SPEAKER: Do you have a supplementary question, Mr Berry?

MR BERRY: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you, Mr Moore, for the comprehensive answer to the question. It is a refreshing change from the Government benches.

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