HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-06-23 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

HEALTH AND COMMUNITY SERVICE RIGHTS

Adjourned debate on motion of Ms Chapman:

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.

(Continued from 19 May 2011.)

Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (11:30): Recent government amendments to the Health and Community Services Complaints Act 2004 required the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner to develop a charter of health and community services rights, which was laid before the House of Assembly on 27 October 2010 and the Legislative Council on 22 February 2011. The charter must be laid before both houses of parliament and comes into operation 14 days after it is tabled.

If a motion of disallowance or amendment is moved, the charter does not become operational until the motion is withdrawn, defeated or lapsed. On 19 May 2011, the last sitting day of the charter being before both houses of parliament, the member for Bragg moved a motion of disallowance. It is the government's position that the arguments used to justify this disallowance motion lacked substance and, in some instances, are based on incorrect information. The member for Bragg has argued that:

the charter contradicts a submission that the Health Consumers Alliance made during the consultation process, because the final version of the charter diminishes the rights of consumers from the standards of the Australian charter;

the charter breaches the health agreement between the states and the commonwealth governments; and

the Ombudsman investigated a number of procedural and other aspects of the development of the charter, which were dismissed, but declined to make a determination as to whether or not the charter reduces the rights of consumers. The Ombudsman made it clear in his determination that this is a policy matter—a matter for the minister and, therefore, the parliament.

Members will recall receiving a letter from the Health Consumers Alliance stating that the organisation, the peak body for health consumers in South Australia, is completely supportive of the charter. It should be pointed out that the project reference group, which oversaw the development of the charter, comprised Ms Leena Sudano, Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner; Ms Stephanie Miller, Executive Director, Health Consumers Alliance SA; Ms Michele McKinnon, Director, Safety and Quality, SA Health; and Mr Ross Womersley, Executive Director, South Australian Council of Social Service.

This group comprised the peak bodies for both health consumers and community services, expertise in safety and quality issues, and the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner. It is a group with substantial credibility and gives the charter a high degree of legitimacy.

I am told the charter in no way diminishes the rights that health consumers have in South Australia, compared with those enshrined in the Australian Charter of Healthcare Rights developed by the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. A recent letter from the Acting Chief Executive of the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care to the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner stated:

The Australian Charter of Healthcare Rights and the Health and Community Services Complaints Charter has a different purpose and a different scope, the HCSCC applying to both health and community services. Nonetheless, the alignment between these instruments is strong, with the HCSCC Charter based on the seven rights included in the Australian Charter of Healthcare Rights. These rights have been adapted and added to in a way that meets the needs of the Health and Community Services Complaints Act 2004. The commission commends the HCSCC for its work in developing the new Charter of Health and Community Services Rights.

We can conclude from this letter that the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care is supportive of the charter and does not believe it diminishes the rights in the Australian Charter.

The argument that the charter does not conform to the requirements of the National Healthcare Agreement and may result in financial consequences for South Australia is incorrect. The National Healthcare Agreement contains no provisions that enable the commonwealth government to financially penalise the states and territories for non-compliance.

The member for Bragg's concerns that the Ombudsman did not make a determination as to whether or not the charter reduces the rights of consumers on the grounds that it is a policy matter for the minister is answered by the letter from the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. The commission is not concerned that rights of South Australian consumers have been diminished. In fact, the Acting Chief Executive of the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Healthcare commended the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner for her work in developing the charter.

The Charter of Health and Community Services Rights, which is before this house of parliament, has been carefully developed. A comprehensive and inclusive consultation process was used and all major stakeholder groups are happy with the result. The government urges members to defeat the motion to disallow the charter so that the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner can proceed to implement it.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (11:37): I rise to conclude the debate on this matter as I am the mover of this motion of disallowance. I indicate to the house that, since the introduction of this matter, the opposition has met with both the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner, Ms Sudano, and representatives from the Health Consumers Alliance, which has been a principal stakeholder in this matter and an advocate for the consumer population.

I indicate that the opposition has received that information and, although there are still some residual aspects as to how effective this charter is going to be—largely in relation to drafting an addition of words, which may prove to be unduly restrictive and may result in a diminution of access to this charter and what it is designed to protect for consumers and may involve a considerable expense to exercise their rights—we have, on balance, decided that we will support the charter. In doing so—I understand procedurally I cannot simply withdraw this motion—we would present it to a vote. I indicate to the government that we will consent to the disallowance vote being rejected, that is, being negatived.

I place on the record one aspect which remains of concern, and that is what has happened. We are here because the law requires us—not under the regulation power but under the principal act—to, within 14 days, raise any objection in this parliament of the charter that is tabled. The minister had duly tabled this charter, which would have come into effect if there was no objection from the parliament. Preceding that, an act was passed six years ago which required that a charter be presented for approval, if I recollect correctly, within 12 months. One of the concerns in this matter that I raised with Ms Sudano was why it took until October last year before a draft charter had been prepared and went out for consultation.

She explained—certainly to my satisfaction, and I think to the satisfaction of the member for Morphett as well—that, although she was aware of the responsibility to undertake the preparation of a charter as part of her duties some years ago, first, she had been without funds and there had not been provision for an officer in her funding to prepare the draft. I am not talking about a huge document here—I think it is one page—but, nevertheless, it is a very important document and considerable research needed to be done. The second reason there was a significant delay was that at the federal level they were preparing the health charter at the national level and she did not want any confusion, to use her word, amongst the stakeholders about the development of this one.

Firstly, given that this is under a different power and it relates to consumer complaints as well, frankly, I do not think the latter is really a good explanation. I accept it and I do not cast any reflection on Ms Sudano for that. This is a matter that is driven by the minister and I say that the minister should have made funds available for this charter to be developed and ensured that it went through its proper process, because this parliament had directed that within a year, by law, this charter should have come into operation and been presented for approval by this parliament; and that simply has not happened.

I do not blame the people who have the job of doing that, unless the minister came to me and said they had given instructions for it to be done and it has not happened. In this case they had not given the money and the process has stalled because there is a national inquiry going on on a much narrower issue.

I think it was incumbent upon the minister to do two things in this process. One thing was to come into the parliament and explain when the 12 months anniversary was up why it had not happened and advise us all of that and give some explanation, if there was a legitimate explanation; and, secondly, if there was any further delay, when he tabled it, that he make a ministerial statement, to do just that.

With those few words, I thank the house for its indulgence. It is an unusual process but we are going to conclude it.

Motion negatived.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT