Turner Judy: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — Second Reading 
Turner Judy: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7543] 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 First I want to take the opportunity to thank the 265 submitters for their feedback on the health practitioners competence assurance proposal. I commend those who have been involved in the design and development of this legislation for the open way in which they have responded to the inquiries of United Future and the concerns we have presented. As a consequence we believe that the bill has continued to evolve into a workable proposition and a good piece of legislation. 
The vast majority of submissions presented to the Health Committee were from health practitioners or from persons representing particular health professions. There were a smaller number of submissions from consumer groups and business interests. That created an imbalance that made it imperative for United Future to reflect on the bill as being primarily about public safety not just professional development concerns. It was very clear that consumer groups placed their emphasis on very different issues than the professional groups. Consumer groups were often concerned with restricting the powers given to professional bodies while professional bodies were concerned at the level of consumer representation on professional conduct committees and disciplinary tribunals and about the powers that were to be attributed to the Minister. United Future is satisfied that a balance has been struck between the appointment of regulatory bodies and disciplinary tribunals that reflects consumers’ concerns that health professionals are not judge and jury while acknowledging the intention to maintain high professional standards. 
United Future has met with many and varied health groups and health practitioners in the development of the bill. It has been important for us to have the opportunity to speak with health professions that to date have not been covered by any legislative framework but who are very keen to meet the requirements and be included under the provisions of this bill. We have been equally interested in the feedback from the 11 professions for whom existing regulatory statutes will be repealed so that they can come under this umbrella legislation immediately. 
United Future is satisfied that health practitioners on both sides of the bill are supporting its general intention but we are aware of ongoing concerns and I will address a few of those concerns now. Scopes of practice is one such issue. A scope of practice describes what a practitioner is qualified and competent to do under what conditions and for how long. There was a fear that scopes of practice would be too narrow and prescriptive but that has never been the intention of scopes of practice. United Future has pursued that concern and is satisfied that scopes of practice are determined by the appropriate health regulatory boards and that they will therefore determine what scope of practice is best suited and whether it is sufficiently broad. The regulatory boards will have the discretion to limit a scope of practice. For example an international doctor with specialist skills might be given a scope of practice to specialise in but might not be permitted to practise in a more general sense. 
Quality assurance activities have also concerned submitters. Professional groups are very clear about how essential quality assurance activities are to iron out systemic problems and ensure patient safety and about the importance of protecting a safe and open environment for practitioners to discuss their concerns and practice. On the other hand consumer groups have raised concerns about instances in which vital information might be withheld from an inquiry. As a consequence of these concerns the bill has incorporated recommendations by some submitters that will now allow quality assurance activities to be protected unless there is a current investigation into the same matter. That means that no one will participate in a quality assurance activity without being first warned that the outcomes might be required for an investigation. No one will be caught out. 
The inclusion of the restricted activities list is important for public safety. Issues have been raised about when the list will be enacted with some submitters indicating that they wanted that prescribed at the same time that the bill is enacted. However we believe that would contradict the intention of the bill. Ongoing decisions of this nature should happen after full consultation with all affected health professionals. While the committee expects that practices like anaesthesia invasive surgery and eye examinations might well need to be included we believe that health professionals and not legislators are best suited to make those medical decisions and that it is appropriate for the Minister of Health to oversee that process. We have seriously considered the wish of the Medical Association to be exempt from the new Act and believe that we are continuing to act with the support of the Medical Council and most of the interest groups we have met. 
This bill also proposes to amend several existing Acts. Of particular note is the Medicines Act which will be amended to introduce new regulatory provisions for the operation of pharmacies. There is a proposal in this bill for partial deregulation which has not been popular with submitters from the retail sector who lobbied for full deregulation. United Future has weighed this issue up carefully. Due to the present level of Government involvement in this sector with dispensing fees and other Pharmac price-setting it feels that partial deregulation is the wisest choice at this stage. We support this provision. We do not feel that it is appropriate to make more drastic changes to fully deregulate. We believe that partial deregulation is a common-sense precautionary move to ensure public safety and allow the industry to assimilate the new commercial environments that will be created. 
United Future is continuing its support of this bill believing that members of the public should be at their safest when in the care of health professionals. That has not always been the case and at those times it is unhelpful if the public perception is that health professionals are an old boys’ club that protects its own regardless of the consequences. United Future does not support that perception and therefore welcomes legislation that seeks to protect the public from professional incompetence and unethical behaviour while providing protection for caring practitioners against vexatious claims. This is a hugely complex bill and for that reason we welcome the review clause which means that any adjustments that might need to be considered will not suffer undue delay.