HEALTH PRACTITIONER REGULATION NATIONAL LAW (SOUTH AUSTRALIA) (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 17 July 2012.)

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (21:21): I rise to make some second reading remarks relating to the bill, which we will be supporting, and note that it is amending the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010, which we debated a few years ago and which came into effect on 1 July 2010. I would like to thank the minister's office and officers from the Department for Health for providing a briefing to myself a couple of weeks ago.

My understanding of this legislation is that it is a tidy up of some of those provisions that we passed several years ago, firstly in relation to the regulation of pharmacy premises, which introduced the concept of trusts. This has been reviewed and on review has been found to be too prescriptive and has now been simplified.

There has also been a revision of who may own a pharmacy, such that non-pharmacists have been allowed to own them. It will now be that there will be a requirement to be a pharmacist to own a pharmacy. There will be grandfathering provisions. I think the department estimated that there were five to eight non-pharmacists who will be allowed to continue, and that is of some 10 pharmacies in total. They will not be able to add to their holdings but they can retain, and there is no time limit on that provision.

The other significant change is a standardised time frame for appeals to the tribunal, which is 28 days. I am pleased that there has been some consensus reached on these issues because at the time that we passed this initial legislation we had significant concerns about how things would operate and whether they would operate smoothly.

The final provision within the legislation is the repeal of the Occupational Therapy Practice Act 2005, as occupational therapists entered the NRAS on 1 July 2012. They were one of four professions, including: medical radiation practitioners, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health professionals and Chinese medicine practitioners.

I would like to turn to some lobbying that a number of members may have had from the social work association, known as the Australian Association of Social Workers. They have written to a number of members of this parliament, including myself and our shadow spokesperson, the member for Waite, Mr Martin Hamilton-Smith; indeed, we had a meeting with them. I think they put a very good case that they should be included within the provisions of the health practitioner legislation.

They have undertaken their own survey, and I think a lot of people in our community would be surprised to know that they are actually not covered through any sort of board. They have what is often described as a negative licensing system such that if they join as formal members of the AASW, they need to abide by a code of practice and keep their CPD requirements up to date and so forth. If there is any sort of breach of those, then the only remedy is to kick them out of the association.

In their submission to us they have made a number of very good points, firstly that there is only one-third of social workers who are members of that association and therefore are covered anyway. One of their greatest arguments is in relation to the vulnerability of their client group, a number of whom work within the health field and fall under the auspices of the health department in some way or another, whether it be through funding or working directly within the health system itself.

I advised the officers when I met with them that I would be raising these issues and seeking a response to the government as to what the current plans are in relation to social work and their inclusion in the health practitioner regulation. It is not something that we can do at a state level, so I would not be seeking to amend this piece of legislation but I think it is a very important issue that needs to be raised, and I look forward to the government's response.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (21:26): I thank all the members for their contributions to this bill. This bill serves three purposes: first of all, to bring South Australia into line with all other jurisdictions in adopting a time frame of 28 days in which appeals against a decision of the national board can be made to a tribunal; to simplify the regulatory processes for pharmacy premises and depots in this state; and to finalise arrangements for the inclusion of the occupational therapy profession in the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme.

I am advised that all stakeholders concerned with these changes have been consulted in the preparation of the bill and are keen for the commencement of these provisions at the earliest possible opportunity. I thank the Hon. Ms Lensink for her questions regarding social workers. I have been advised that there are some health professional associations including that for social work that have approached government officers and some members of the parliament for inclusion in the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme.

The Intergovernmental Agreement for a National Registration and Accreditation Scheme for the Health Professions envisaged that other health professionals would be added to the scheme from time to time. The first 10 health professions included in the national scheme that commenced on 1 July 2010 were previously regulated in all jurisdictions. On 1 July 2012 a further four professions were incorporated into the national scheme. These professions were regulated in at least one jurisdiction prior to this time.

I am advised that health ministers have agreed that no other health profession, apart from perhaps paramedics, would be incorporated into the national scheme until 2015. This will allow the scheme to properly establish itself and will also be after the scheduled three-year review of the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme.

I understand that whether a health profession should be subject to statutory regulation has traditionally been assessed against criteria established by the Australian Health Ministers' Advisory Council. The criteria included that it must be demonstrated that a professional practice presents serious risks to public health and safety and that these risks can be minimised by regulation. In addition, regulation must be practical and possible to implement, the existing regulatory and other mechanisms must fail to address the health and safety issues identified, and the benefits to the public of regulation must clearly outweigh the potential negative impact of the regulation.

These criteria were developed in 1995 and there has been some debate on whether they are still sufficiently robust to enable a determination on whether a health profession should be subject to statutory regulation. Options on how to better manage those health professions that are not subjected to statutory regulation are currently under consideration by a committee of the Australia Health Ministers' Advisory Council. I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I thank the minister for his response. He was not particularly specific about social workers. I note from what he said that his comments included the words 'serious risk to health and safety' and I would put it to him that social workers can indeed present a very serious risk to the health and safety of their clients, particularly given the context in which they work. They may be people with mental health problems, they might have an intellectual disability, they may have disabilities.

There is a whole range of reasons why this client group, certainly in the child protection area, may be particularly vulnerable. Can the minister comment on that particular issue as to whether he agrees that social work poor practice can be a risk to health and safety; and can he advise when the issue of inclusion of social work was last discussed at the Australian Health Ministers' Advisory Council?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: The issue of social workers has not been discussed at ministerial advisory council level, and the cost of regulation is very high. That is not to say that they will not be discussed in the future, but at the moment they have not been discussed.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Are there any plans to put that on the agenda for discussion?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Yes, there are, and there have been discussions with the association.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 to 19), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (21:33): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.