Page 1990 - Week 06 - Thursday, 9 June 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The bill establishes the ACT Ambulance Service Quality Assurance Committee, as recommended by reviews of the ACTAS in 2010 and 2014. The committee allows open and honest participation of clinical personnel in the scrutiny of clinical incidents, adverse events and deaths and has legal protections so that members can speak freely. I believe this is a good development that will improve systems and help prevent reoccurrences.
As recommended by the review, the bill allows the Chief Officer of ACTAS the power to establish, amend, suspend or withdraw an ambulance officer’s scope of clinical practice. This can be necessary when, for example, an adverse clinical incident has occurred and the ambulance service needs to review a case. The power is also consistent with that available in other jurisdictions.
To summarise, this suite of amendments is sensible and was recommended by the review into the act. I believe it will improve the operation of our important emergency services and allow them to perform an even better job in serving and protecting the community during emergencies.
Sitting suspended from 6.02 to 7.30 pm.
Emergencies Amendment Bill 2106
Debate resumed.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Deputy Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Capital Metro, Minister for Health, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for the Environment and Climate Change) (7.30), in reply: I would like to thank members for their comments earlier this evening on the Emergencies Amendment Bill. I would like to take the opportunity now to address some of the issues that members have raised in the debate.
The first matter I would like to address is some of the commentary from the opposition, particularly in relation to the issue of simplifying responsibility for fire control. Mr Smyth, I would have to say, has presented a very misleading picture of what the review has concluded and what this bill is attempting to do. We heard Mr Smyth speak about the commissioner’s concept of operations. In particular, we heard him cite the provisions that currently exist in relation to where there is not agreement on the scene about who is the officer in charge between the respective services. We heard Mr Smyth cite the provision that provides for the relevant officer in charge from each of the services to escalate the matter to their chief officer.
Mr Smyth commented on the undesirability of this arrangement. But what he failed to say is what is actually outlined next in the explanatory statement to the bill. I would like to quote from what the ES says:
The Review found that these procedures—
the ones that Mr Smyth referred to—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video