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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 07 Hansard (Thursday, 1 July 2004) . . Page.. 3193 ..

will not be brought forward until consultation has taken place with those groups representing the relevant health professionals that we are setting up under this bill.

The second amendment is also worth supporting as the majority of practical specifications needed to regulate the health professions will come in the form of regulations and schedules and it is vital that the Assembly retain oversight of these changes and, if any ongoing issues are brought to us by health professionals, we can address them at that stage.

MRS CROSS (6.11): I will be supporting all of Ms Tucker’s amendments. The first of these amendments ensures that the executive must consult with an entity that is generally accepted to represent the health profession when making regulations in relation to that health profession, which makes sense. Consulting the relevant entities will only improve the regulations that are put in place.

Ms Tucker’s second amendment to make regulations allowable instruments will also have my support. That will ensure that no regulation will come into effect until either six sitting days have passed or a motion to disallow a regulation is moved and negatived, which will ensure that there is proper scrutiny of any regulation relating to the health professions before it is implemented.

Ms Tucker’s third amendment combines her first two amendments and inserts them into section 37. Whilst I do not believe this amendment is necessary as the regulation-making powers of the executive are spelt out in part 4 of the bill, I will be supporting it because it provides an added safeguard by ensuring that regulations made under the act are placed under the scrutiny of the Assembly.

I shall also be supporting Ms Tucker’s fourth amendment, which increases the protection levels of those making reports against health professionals. That is very important as it further reduces the chance that somebody will not report against a health professional because they fear that they are breaching some professional ethics or they fear that they may be held civilly or criminally liable. Ms Tucker’s amendment exclusively protects those reporting against a health professional, which should have the subsequent effect of seeing increased reporting of health professionals who have contravened or are contravening their required standard of practice.

Ms Tucker’s amendments significantly improve the Health Professionals Bill and thus have my support. I note for the record that I will be supporting the government’s amendments to the Health Professionals Bill, whilst I shall also be supporting the Democrats’ amendment to the Acting Minister for Health’s eighth amendment.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 23 agreed to.

Clause 24.

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