Health
Legislation Amendment (Unregistered Health Practitioners) Bill 2006, NSW
Parliament
HypnosisAustralia,
November 2006
By
Dr Tracie O'Keefe DCH, Clinical Hypnotherapist, Psychotherapist &
Counsellor
Editorial Director of HypnosisAustralia Online.
The Bill was introduced in the Lower House by Mr Sartor on 21 September
2006 and passed on 28 September 2006. It was introduced in the Upper House
by Mr Hatzistergos on 28 September 2006 and has progressed through to
the Minister's second reading speech on 18 October 2006, before debate
was adjourned.
This is an Act to amend various Acts to provide for the regulation of
health practitioners who are not registered under a health registration
Act or whose registration under such an Act has been cancelled or suspended;
and for other purposes.
The objects of this Bill are to regulate, by an indirect method, the practices
of persons setting themselves up as healthcare professionals without them
needing to be registered on a government register. Government registers
are very costly to keep and the NSW government does not really want to
get involved in monitoring presently unregistered healthcare practitioners.
The government, however, wants greater powers to be able to sanction or
ban (blacklist) practitioners it deems to be unsuitable to practice.
It is proposed that the Health Care Complaints Commission will have the
power to investigate complaints made by the public or other professionals
against unregistered healthcare professionals. If the practitioners are
found to be in breach of a code of practice, that the government will
determine, the Commission with have the power to refer the complaint to
their professional registers or blacklist those practitioners and legally
prohibit them from practising or finding a negotiated satisfactory resolution
between the two parties.
This Bill also seeks to prohibit practitioners who may have been struck
off in one healthcare profession from practising in another - for example
psychiatrists or psychologists who were struck off for inappropriate behaviour
practising as counsellors. Those that transgress a ban, once it has been
imposed, may be subject to fine and/or imprisonment. Whilst the Bill permits
Roman law in that practitioners may set up and practise what they like,
it also endorses Napoleonic law in that the state ultimately determines
fitness to practice by power of threat of prohibition. The law change
will come in line with the NSW government's policy of scrutinising the
complementary health industry more carefully without getting too involved
and incurring the cost of being a monitor.
Many healthcare professional bodies welcome this Bill because it will
help clean up some of the professions like hypnotherapy, counselling,
psychotherapy, naturopathy, massage and so on, prohibiting felonious practitioners.
Many practitioners presently practising have inadequate training and often
make outlandish claims of cures that are not only unsubstantiated but
also not delivered.
One of the ugly parts of this Bill is the danger of a policy known as
"Name and Shame". This is where the name of someone prohibited
from practising is made public. That is well and good when a practitioner
has seriously contravened a code of ethics. It is dangerous, however,
if an investigation into a practitioner is taking place and the practitioner
is found not guilty of the complaint made against them as the adverse
publicity can lead to ruin on the part of the practitioners. In these
circumstances some rules of sub-judicy need to be observed.
A simular problem can occur when practitioners transgress small infringements
of procedure while involved in therapy where supervision and further training
would be an appropriate remedy. Turning the system into a litigator's
heaven will never benefit the patients, practitioners or the public at
large. Bogus complaints and lawsuits have always been a problem throughout
the health professions.
Some professional bodies think the law change does not go far enough.
They would rather see all professionals setting themselves up as heathcare
providers being registered with the government. Not only is the government
against such a move because of the cost involved but also because of the
potential loss of revenue from GST which still remains changed on many
non-government registered heathcare services.
The progress of the paper can be viewed at:
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parliament/NSWBills.nsf/0/48E5510F9FAFFA25CA2571EE001C7D0F
©HypnosisAustralia,
November 2006
|