House debates

Wednesday, 17 August 2011

Bills

National Health Reform Amendment (National Health Performance Authority) Bill 2011; Consideration in Detail

10:47 am

Photo of Robert OakeshottRobert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

And in response to the interjection as to why I am running a commentary on the member for Dickson, it is in response to his running commentary on me. I would not have commented otherwise.

With regard to the amendments before the House: I think they are a watering down of where we could be. In fact, I like the substance of the legislation and the bill that was originally put before the House. That is the bill I want to support, not reject, as the member for Dickson seems confused about. I want to support a National Health Performance Authority that is unfettered in its business in the way it works through the various hospital and health providers and reports accordingly for good or for bad.

I understand administrative principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, particularly in relation to individuals who work within the public sector—in fact, for all Australian citizens. I think that principle does not stand as much for state bodies that may feel aggrieved if there is a poor performance report around a particular hospital. These amendments seem all about what I consider to be the weak argument of procedural unfairness that has been run by the states in an effort to try to get some buy-in with regard to command and control back within the health and hospital reform agenda.

I will quote some examples. Amendment (4) to section 62:

(4) If the report indicates poor performance by:

  (a) a local hospital network in a State, the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory; or

  (b) a public hospital in a State, the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory;

Then there is this process where a copy of the draft of the report has to be given to the state or health minister; there has to be an invitation to the state and to the health minister to give the performance authority written comments about the draft report within 30 days; and there has to be regard to any of these comments.

If we are serious about an unfettered performance authority and genuine independence, and with reliable data—and I accept COAG reform, and McClintock and crew have been talking about poor data within many systems and the timeliness of that data—do not buy the argument that there is procedural unfairness, that the states seem to be treated unfairly if under the performance authority rules of engagement a particular hospital is found with poor performance. Based on the unfettered powers that they may have, I do not accept procedural unfairness to the state. Yes, I think we have to protect individuals—hospital managers and any of the health workforce—but as far as the states are concerned, I think they should cop it and they should do what they can to improve whatever the performance authority publicly releases either to the parliament or to any other body.

Comments

No comments