HEALTH AND COMMUNITY SERVICE RIGHTS

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (12:11): I move:

That the charter made under the Health and Community Services Complaints Act 2004, entitled Health and Community Service Rights, and laid on the table on 8 March 2011, be disallowed.

I move this motion, which is pursuant to section 23 of the Health and Community Services Complaints Act 2004. I think some explanation needs to be given to members as to why I am seeking to disallow this and why it needs to be dealt with today. Essentially, that act provides for the minister, after a certain process, to develop and approve a charter of rights for complainants in this area. Over the last few years that process has been underway.

A charter was tabled in this house. The rules require, pursuant to section 23, that any amendment to that is via a process of motion, which must be moved within the 14 days, and a notice of motion, as we use for our regulatory disallowance process, is not able to achieve that. Hence, I thank the house for its approval to have this matter dealt with today, because this is the 14^th day. Notwithstanding the press release issued today by the complaints commissioner, Ms Sudano, welcoming this charter, someone somewhere I hope will give her advice that this motion is now before the house.

In essence, this process has been undertaken belatedly. This was an act that came into effect in 2005, and things like the appointment of the council under it and this charter have had a very long gestation period—indeed, contrary to the provisions of the act. Nevertheless, it is with us. As of mid-last year a consultation process was undertaken. The Health Consumers Alliance, which I think I can describe as a peak body that at least was established for the advocacy of the consumers seeking complaints processes, firstly put in a submission in the consultation period last year, amongst some 140-odd others.

In addition to that, they sent a letter that was circulated to all MPs indicating that they supported the charter that had been tabled in parliament and obviously sought our endorsement of it. That is a very persuasive piece of information to rely on, but what I have since read—and the member for Morphett has also had it brought to his attention—is that there are a number of other factors which we do need to look at, investigate and consider.

A number of parties have now presented to myself and the member for Morphett. I should explain. I cover community services for the opposition and the member for Morphett covers health issues. You will recall that complaints in this arena are now for consumers against any service in those two jurisdictions whether or not the service provider is public or private; so, it is quite an expanded role.

The complaints really fall into a number of categories. One complaint came from more than one, but I will put it aside for the purposes of today. There are a number of complaints which related to the consultation process itself, the independence of various parties involved in putting submissions, the time frame taken, the extension of consultation times and the like. They are machinery matters—important ones, I accept—but, as to the administration of the consultation, I do not take specific carriage of that in this debate today and I probably will not in the future, although others may.

The areas of concern fall into two other main categories; one is that the charter that we have as a state charter actually contradicts the submission that HCA had previously put in to the commission, to the extent that this charter diminishes the rights of consumers from the standard of the Australian charter. Without going into a lot of detail on it today, members are probably aware that since 2008 there has been an Australian charter in respect of health which has been adopted in a number of other jurisdictions, some of which has been brought into state-based charters or codes in other jurisdictions.

However, there is a national charter out there in relation to health complaints. It has been ticked off by all the ministers around the country and it is actually operational. There is that first head of complaint. The second is that the charter that has been published contradicts the request of the HCA that it adopt the same guiding principles in the Australian charter. Deviation from this may or may not be perilous or fatal towards what ultimate decision is made, but I do note a further aspect from a submission that has come to me; that is, the terms of the health agreement between the states and the commonwealth have certain requirements in respect of an independent complaints body.

I do not propose to traverse all the requirements of that, but under B30 and B32 of the agreement, as I am advised—and I am reading from what purports to be part of the agreement—there are inconsistencies between this state-based charter and what is required under that health agreement. If that is the case, then we do not want South Australia to be in breach of the agreement, particularly if it has any financial consequences for the health moneys that are required to be paid by minister Roxon to the South Australian minister for the purpose of our public health. That is another area that we really feel must be investigated.

Even if the Minister for Health has not got organised for the state publicly-owned services, including our hospitals, to provide consumers or clients or patients with advice about the Australian charter, then he should do so in the meantime. I say that particularly because I have in front of me one of the pamphlets that are being distributed already through the private sector, which has not waited to see whether or not the states ever do the state-specific one, and they have actually already got this material out there.

I have one in front of me, distributed as 'Rights and Responsibilities' by Calvary (which of course provides a number of independent health services to South Australians), in which they confirm their support of the Australian Charter of Healthcare Rights as developed by the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care and sets out that material for the purposes of their patients or consumers or clients. Therefore, there is a remedy or a backup to this in the meantime.

I have read a report by Mr Richard Bingham, who is our state Ombudsman. He undertook a preliminary investigation of a complaint by Ms Pam Moore in which she complains about a number of processes, and the consultation, and also about the substance of the charter that was ultimately published. She has also raised the question of inconsistency/incompatibility with the federal arrangement.

I just want to make it clear that whilst he was dismissive of a number of procedural aspects, he made a finding that the developing of the state-specific charter—which is the one tabled before our parliament—is not unlawful, unreasonable or wrong. He was very clear about that; but declined to make a determination or any decision on whether this state-based charter reduces the rights of consumers. He made it very clear in his determination that it is a policy matter, a matter for the minister—and therefore this parliament, of course—by virtue of the act's obligations to protect against that. So this issue is still at large, and it is a matter that we need to get right.

We have the backup, at the very least, of the federal one which covers health. There has been some argument put to me about whether we should have just adopted that and added a clause in ours to make it applicable to community services as well; apparently that is something that has been done in other jurisdictions. It may be the way to go, but I do not have a particular view either way as to whether we amend the commonwealth one and fix it to our requirements or whether we do our own from scratch.

However, it does need to be compliant with rules that we have signed up to, to ensure that we do not breach other obligations or—and most importantly to me, and I am sure also to the member for Morphett—that we do not prejudice, exclude or act in any manner that reduces access by potential claimants to services, not just of a particular service but also to any that might identify conduct or negligence that indicates a systemic failure of any health or community service to this state.

I hope I have made it clear to members that this matter needs to be open to discussion; hence moving this motion. I regret that it has been at relatively short notice, but I am sure that the member for Morphett, as well perhaps as other members of the house, will come back with more details of the issues that have been raised by concerned citizens on this matter, so that we end up with a charter that will serve South Australians, not sever their rights.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.