Page 924 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 16 March 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
To help defray these costs, the ACT would be forced to follow in New South Wales’s footsteps and ask for a financial return from the scheme by registrants’ fees and this again would not be looked on favourably by other states or territories or by the national board, as it weakens the financial base of the scheme.
In addition, a health services commissioner-centric model would weaken the complaints handling process. The cross-checking and shared information would cease, potentially allowing patterns of behaviour or gaps in the system to go on unnoticed or missed.
The thrust of the second amendment put forward by Ms Bresnan is already covered in the bill. The reporting arrangements proposed in bill C are intended to ensure a free flow of information between the Health Services Commissioner and the boards and, as my office discussed with the Greens, the Health Services Commissioner can, and should under the proposed arrangements, notify the boards that she is not going to continue with any investigation. Consequently, it is our view that the proposed addition of (4B) is not necessary.
MR HANSON (Molonglo) (5.29): I find myself in a rare moment of agreement with the minister. We will not be supporting the amendments as put forward by the Greens. In essence, as the minister says, they deviate too far from the spirit of the national law. I believe that the government’s bill as presented has actually already done that, but this is a step beyond what has already been presented by the government. In line with the philosophy that we have adopted that we should be as nationally consistent as we can be, the Liberal opposition will not be supporting the Greens’ amendments.
Amendments negatived.
Schedule 1, modification 1.3 agreed to.
Remainder of bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
MR HANSON (Molonglo) (5.31), by leave: I move amendments Nos 3 to 11 circulated in my name together [see schedule 2 at page 934].
I think by now I have made my point about the intent of these amendments, so I will not labour the point. I understand the Greens and the government will not be supporting these, which is disappointing, obviously. But, in the interests of brevity—and we have got some other important business to attend to today—I again say that the intent is simply in the interests of national consistency, the spirit of national law, and is not in any way a criticism of the Health Services Commissioner or necessarily advocating on behalf of the boards; it is simply to make sure that our legislation is consistent, and these amendments would do that.
MS GALLAGHER: (Molonglo—Deputy Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Health and Minister for Industrial Relations) (5.32): The government will not be supporting Mr Hanson’s amendments. I think we did go to this at the in-principle stage. Essentially, Mr Hanson’s amendments seek to remove the hierarchy of actions which are in place as the mechanism for resolving an impasse in the joint
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video