Page 3272 - Week 10 - Thursday, 19 October 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
standards are not lost when the remaining health professions are transferred to the Health Professionals Act 2004 later this year. Examples of these type of amendments would include the relocation of inspectors’ powers regarding the supply, storage and recording of medicines; restriction on prescribing and prescriptions and the use of vending machines to dispense medicines, which are currently located in the Pharmacy Act 1931. Again, I emphasise that the relocation of these provisions are consequential amendments and do not involve any substantive change in the intended scope or application of these powers.
However, included in these amendments is an amendment to extend by two years the expiry provision of part 15 of the Health Professionals Act 2004. Part 15 includes all the transitional provisions that are important for the smooth transfer of health professional regulation in the ACT. For example, these transitional provisions are necessary to ensure that health professionals registered under the current registration acts continue to be registered under new profession-specific schedules.
These transitional provisions are particularly important in the situation where disciplinary proceedings have already commenced against a health professional but have not been completed by the time of transfer of the profession to the new regime. The transitional provisions safeguard any action taken under the current registration act and avoid the unnecessary duplication of having to convene new proceedings.
It is therefore very important for the protection of the public that the transitional provisions contained in part 15 do not expire on 18 November 2006. It is anticipated that this bill will be debated in the first sitting week of November and, if passed in that week, would commence before 18 November. However, in the event that this bill is not passed by the required date, I put on notice that the government will move amendments to this bill to include a retrospective commencement date for the two-year extension of part 15 transitional provisions in order to overcome the timing issue.
While this is not the preferred course of action, I am advised that a retrospective commencement date in these circumstances is available to the government under section 76 of the Legislation Act, provided that the retrospective commencement of the extension of the transitional provisions is non-prejudicial. To be non-prejudicial the retrospective commencement must not operate to the disadvantage of a person by adversely affecting the person’s rights or imposing new liabilities on the person. As the retrospective commencement would, if we used it or needed to use it, be reinstating the previously existing situation regarding the transitional provisions, it could not be construed as adversely affecting a person’s rights or creating new liabilities.
I move to the second category of amendments addressed in this bill, which are amendments to the health legislation for the purposes of consistency with the Human Rights Act 2004. The Monash University Castan Centre for Human Rights Law was contracted by ACT Health in January 2005 to conduct an audit of legislation for which ACT Health has administrative responsibility for consistency with the Human Rights Act. While the majority of inconsistencies were considered justifiable in terms of human rights, the audit identified some pieces of legislation where inconsistencies were unjustified in terms of human rights and therefore required amendment for the purposes of consistency.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .