Page 1746 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 6 June 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
into these events started more quickly and action taken more quickly to avoid a recurrence or to set in place procedures to ensure such events do not occur again.
I note that there were extensive consultations at the early stage of the development of these proposals. Interested organisations appreciated being involved in the early discussion. However, I was surprised when I consulted the ACT division of the Australian Medical Association and the ACT Division of General Practice that they were not aware that the bill had been tabled or had not seen the bill until I phoned them immediately after the briefing that I received. While they were actively involved in earlier consultations, I understand late last year, there has been apparently no contact on this legislation since it was drafted and tabled. These organisations should have been involved, right up to the point of the bill being tabled. They are now aware of the bill. They tell me that they support the bill, and the opposition will support this bill.
It is interesting, when you look at some of the sections, particularly those which ensure that people speak frankly and freely—and I draw members’ attention to clause 47 “Quality assurance committees—admissibility of evidence”—that evidence given to the committees is not admissible in a proceeding before a court where it has been given to or prepared specifically for the committee. Hopefully, this ensures that people will come forward.
Where some action, perhaps a criminal action, may be started, that is covered in other parts of the law. First and foremost, people need to be aware that there is no immunity given by clause 43 of this bill. It enables people to come forward openly and quickly so that we learn from mistakes and not compound them by the secrecy that perhaps exists at this time.
Under clause 34, there is protection of members of the quality assurance committee itself, so that under this clause no civil liability would attach to a relevant person for a quality assurance committee. It makes sure that all those involved in the process understand where they stand with the law. It outlines quite a good process now in that we bring together the public and private parts, particularly of the hospital system, so that we get quality assurance. When privileges are granted to doctors, it is not because they are leaving one part of town in a hurry and moving to another part of town.
From the way the bill is drafted, Canberrans can have great deal of comfort, I believe, that, in the unfortunate case of an adverse event occurring, we can get to the bottom of it very, very quickly so that we can put in place remedies, procedures and practices that would stop it happening again. There is also the ability therefore to whittle out practitioners who are not carrying out, with due regard to the health and safety of their patients, the services that they provide to the standard that we expect.
With all that said, the opposition will be supporting the bill.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (12.04): This bill has an imperative. It has to be passed this week because it includes a clause which necessarily delays the implementation of some of the elements that were recently passed in the Health Professionals Act. The bill was introduced on the last sitting day in May, so there has been very little time here for Assembly processes, although I have had a few weeks to ask others more involved in the hospital business for their views. Perhaps my office did not move quickly enough on this
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .