Page 912 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 16 March 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
agreement. However, we know from the briefing that was provided by ACT Health that the ACT bill as presented was fought hard for. In any case, it is clear that the jurisdiction-specific provisions cited by the minister were in reference to the administrative arrangements for the complaints handling entity in each state and territory and not in relation to how these entities would interact with the national boards. It is in the national interest that we are not going alone as a jurisdiction which risks causing the ultimate failure of—(Time expired.)
MS BRESNAN (Brindabella) (4.46): The ACT Greens will be supporting the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (ACT) Bill 2009. In doing so we recognise the significance of this bill and that it moves the registration and accreditation of health practitioners from a state and territory-based scheme to a national one.
There are a number of benefits to the establishment of a national scheme, including members of the health workforce being able to move more easily around Australia to places where their skills are needed, and health consumers being provided with greater assurance that the health practitioners they are receiving services from are suitably trained and qualified.
It has been a problem in the past that if a practitioner of some kind had a finding against them or their licence restricted in another state, that practitioner could move to the ACT, for example, and try to secure a full licence again without having all the previous findings against them known by the ACT health board responsible for registering them. This system placed consumers at greater risk than was necessary, and I am pleased to see we will be able to provide a safer service to health consumers.
It has been remarked that the process of establishing a national registration accreditation scheme has been undertaken quickly, with a lot of hard work occurring at a federal level. The manner in which the scheme has been improved with each consultation stage has been substantial. Mid last year a number of local health groups started approaching my office, concerned that the ACT was not going to have a decent level of representation on national health boards. I am very pleased to see that this issue has been addressed and the ACT’s place at the table has been secured. I would like to think that the Greens helped trigger this change by asking the minister questions about this in the chamber and bringing attention to the issue. Quite some time ago I had started having discussions with various groups, including the Pharmacy Guild, the AMA and the Australian Nursing Federation.
The main issue for the Greens and other local bodies in examining the bill before us is that of the complaints process. In the ACT we have a progressive system that makes use of an independent health complaints commissioner. The Greens are pleased to see that this model is being retained. The reason why our commissioner is so important is that it recognises and represents the shift made in health policy in the 1990s towards a consumer-centred model of complaints handling rather than the old style, which was focused on peer review and health practitioners examining each other.
The shift provided a greater level of assurance to the consumer that their complaints would be thoroughly investigated and followed up. If the ACT took the approach that was initially suggested by COAG and left peer review style boards in charge of all complaints matters, we would be taking a step backwards. So I am glad to see the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video