Page 857 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 16 March 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
which is the largest and most complex of the boards, and the midwifery and the nurses. So this is not a simple matter of doctors. This is all of the boards, and I emphasise that point. It includes the nurses and midwifery boards.
Let me take a look at some of the very valid comments and concerns raised by the boards. I turn first to the ACT Pharmacy Board. This is a point that they have raised:
The National Scheme aims to facilitate mobility for health practitioners wishing to move between participating jurisdictions, or to practise in more than one participating jurisdiction. It would create confusion and potentially cause delay for health practitioners to have varying models and processes in relation to complaints processes.
The ACT Optometrists Board states:
I—
that is, the chair—
would like to see the Health Services Commissioner investigating administrative and systemic matters but not scope and standards.
The ACT Podiatrists Board said:
It is of concern that consumers of health services in the ACT would have differing processes and procedures and different organisations to negotiate with. The Board feels that this will reduce timeliness, accessibility and clarity for consumers around the process and which organisation is responsible and who to communicate with.
The ACT Medical Board said:
Whilst the Board is strongly supportive of the national approach to health professions regulation, it is most concerned about the trend of this bill which appears to set out to make the ACT “different” to the other States and Territories. The Board is most concerned that these differences will dilute the long-awaited national approach to health professions regulation and simply continue the current inefficient and costly state-based health professions regulation.
The Nursing and Midwifery Board said:
The ACT Nursing and Midwifery Board recommends that the ACT adopt a bill which reflects cooperation with other jurisdictions to produce nationally consistent legislation.
They are excerpts from what the boards have said. They are unanimous in their desire to see the bill that has been tabled by the government be amended based on the amendments that have been tabled by the opposition to reflect the nationally consistent model. That is all of the boards, Mr Speaker.
I do note that the public interest assessor model was discarded, as the minister outlined in her presentation speech. The PIA model was initially included in the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video