Dr. Chandrika Barman vs Martin Fletcher AHPRA CEO Exposed

//Dr. Chandrika Barman vs Martin Fletcher AHPRA CEO Exposed

Dr. Chandrika Barman vs Martin Fletcher AHPRA CEO Exposed

EXPOSED!

To affected submitters to 10 May 2017 Senate Inquiry into Medical complaints process administered by AHPRA,

Dear Submitters,

Kindly take note.

CEO Martin Fletcher provided evidence in public hearing on 22 November 2016, regarding an inquiry into medical complaints process of his agency. CEO Fletcher makes a point, ‘They found fewer than six that they believed potentially met the criteria for a vexatious notification. The point I am also making is that, even though the numbers are small we recognise that the impact on the individuals involved can be significant.’

Government responds to Senate inquiry report, as seen page 5, August 2018 public report, ‘It is acknowledged however that vexatious notifications can have a significant impact on practitioners.’

Clearly, Government accepted the point made by CEO Martin Fletcher.

CEO Fletcher shares beliefs about ‘potentially’ vexatious complaints, ‘If I can give you one example, we have a research partnership with the University of Melbourne. They looked at 850 mandatory notifications over a 12-month period. They found fewer than six that they believed potentially met the criteria for a vexatious notification. The point I am also making is that, even though the numbers are small……..’

Inquiring Senator Rachel Siewert clarifies with examples, in line 2 and 3, para 19, chapter 6, page 57, of her authored senate inquiry report that a ‘potential’ is different from the real.

‘Ultimately, the committee was not satisfied that a sufficient causal link could be drawn between Dr Fettke’s evidence to the committee and the media release to warrant referral of the matter to the Senate Committee of Privileges. Instead, the committee resolved to inform the Senate of the potential breach of privilege through this report.’

 

Government  further responds, ‘AHPRA has commissioned research to better understand the extent of vexatious complaints. The currently available evidence suggests that the incidence of vexatious notifications is very low, and that greater risk is posed to the public from people not reporting their concerns.’

The government also refused to support a recommendation made by senate committee.

‘Recommendation 3 The Committee recommends that the COAG Health Council consider whether recourse and compensation processes should be made available to health practitioners subjected to vexatious claims. Australian Government response to recommendation 3: The Australian Government does not support Recommendation 3.’

Government explains reason. First it differentiates between the fate of vexatious and legitimate.

‘Where a notification is clearly vexatious, the National Board has the ability under the National Law to take no further action following initial assessment. Where legitimate public safety concerns are raised, AHPRA and the National Boards have a responsibility to investigate.

The Australian Government does not support actions that could discourage people from raising their concerns with AHPRA.’

Clearly, the government is talking about not supporting anything that could discourage legitimate complaints.

Government identifies the basis of origin of not discouraging legitimate public safety concerns. The origin is the referenced “currently available evidence”.

‘The “currently available evidence” suggests that the incidence of vexatious notifications is very low, and that greater risk is posed to the public from people not reporting their concerns.’

That referenced “currently available evidence” appears in 2.52 of senate inquiry report, which is further characterized as ‘independent’.

‘2.52 Whilst the committee acknowledges the concerns raised by health practitioners, the independent evidence received by the committee does not suggest that vexatious notifications are a widespread issue.’

Authoring senator identifies the source of independent evidence as NHPOPC in 2.25, p.15, of her authored report.

‘2.25 The considerable anecdotal evidence provided by practitioners stood in contrast to independent evidence provided to the committee by the National Health Practitioner Ombudsman and Privacy Commissioner (NHPOPC).

Besides having found NHPOPC’s evidence to stand in contrast to considerable anecdotal evidence, she further finds NHPOPC’s independent findings to conflict with perspectives of practioners in 2.29.

‘2.29 The conflict between the perspectives of the practitioners and the findings of the NHPOPC may be explained by differing interpretations of the use of the word vexatious.’

Senator now claims in 2.27, 2.28 that NHPOPC made its own independent findings of vexatious notifications and uses superscript 30 as evidence to support her claim.

‘2.27 In response to a question on notice to the committee’s previous inquiry, NHPOPC submitted that she received two vexatious notifications each year in 2014– 15 and 2015–16. As a proportion of NHPOPC’s total notifications for these periods, vexations notifications comprised three per cent and one per cent respectively.29

2.28 NHPOPC’s submission to the committee also indicates vexatious notifications for the 2016–17 year were trending higher than in the previous two years, with an estimated twelve complaints received at the time of submission, or 6.5 per cent of the total notifications received during the period.30’

Superscript 30  is reference to foot note 30, and that is:                                                                                                    30 NHPOPC, Submission 105, p.11.

But did NHPOPC really made their own findings of vexatious complaints? Let’s find out shall we, in superscript 30.

Upon examination of line 1, and line 2, of para 3 of page 11, of NHPOPC submission 105, it appears that NHPOPC made no such independent findings.

NHPOPC submits in para 3, p.11, submission 105.

‘Evaluation of complaints received from 1 July 2016 to 30 December 2016, does, however, reveal an increase in complaints from health practitioners raising concerns about allegedly vexatious notifications. While the data for this period is yet to be audited, the NHPOPC estimates that twelve complaints have been received from health practitioners during this period where the health practitioner has raised an allegation of vexatiousness in relation to a notification. This represents 6.5 per cent of the 182 complaints received during this period.’

Omit, ‘complaints from health practitioners raising concerns about allegedly’ from line 1, and ‘been received from health practitioners during this period where the health practitioner has raised an allegation of’ from line 2 of para 3, p.11.

The missing words would alter the unedited text into appearing as the edited text below,

‘Evaluation of complaints received from 1 July 2016 to 30 December 2016, does, however, reveal an increase in vexatious notifications. While the data for this period is yet to be audited, the NHPOPC estimates that twelve complaints have vexatiousness in relation to a notification. This represents 6.5 per cent of the 182 complaints received during this period.’

Edited text now matches, ‘2.28 NHPOPC’s submission to the committee also indicates vexatious notifications for the 2016–17 year were trending higher than in the previous two years, with an estimated twelve complaints received at the time of submission, or 6.5 per cent of the total notifications received during the period.’ That is a misleading statement by virtue of missing words.

The edited 2.28 creates 2.52, ‘Whilst the committee acknowledges the concerns raised by health practitioners, the independent evidence received by the committee does not suggest that vexatious notifications are a widespread issue’

That 2.52 is now a further misleading statement. It influences the government’s response, ‘The “currently available evidence” suggests that the incidence of vexatious notifications is very low, and that greater risk is posed to the public from people not reporting their concerns.’

Moreover the referenced evidence is about prevalence of vexatious, and not incidence of vexatious as the government reports on its own, in another original misleading manner.

The truth is independent evidence from NHPOPC do not suggest that prevalence or incidence of vexatious notifications is very low. Therefore, it cannot suggest that incidence or prevalence of legitimate public safety concerns, the opposite of vexatious notifications, as not very low. Therefore it cannot suggest that greater risk is posed to public from not reporting the ‘not very low’ prevalence or incidence of legitimate public safety concerns. That means the currently available evidence never suggested that greater risk is posed to public from people not reporting legitimate public safety concerns.

In any case, if government does not support recourse and compensation processes be made available to health practitioners subjected to vexatious claims, irrespective of the prevalence, what was the point of launching such a senate inquiry then, wasting tax payers money into launching a pointless inquiry?

Because the senate inquiry has only been about making a public display of methodic omission and changing meaning of NHPOPC’s evidence, in full public view, to influence the government into acknowledging the point made by Martin Fletcher, and nothing else.

Intriguingly, parliament website publishes.

Forged or falsified documents

The presenting of a forged, falsified or fabricated document to either House or to a committee, with intent to deceive, has been treated as a contempt.[128]

Conspiracy to deceive

To conspire to deceive either House or a committee of either House could be punished as a contempt. The abuse of the right of petition and forging or falsifying documents could be examples of this type of contempt.

Deliberately misleading the House

May states:

The Commons may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt.

 

Regards,

 

Dr. Chandrika Barman

Submitter 132 of senate inquiry medical complaints process.

 

By | 2020-05-29T11:12:18+00:00 May 29th, 2020|AHPRA|Comments Off on Dr. Chandrika Barman vs Martin Fletcher AHPRA CEO Exposed