To Prime Minister,
Australian Government,
Re: demand fair and reasonable
Dear Scott Morrison,
I write to take your attention to former Turnbull Government’s response to two Senate Inquiry into Medical Complaints Process.
Senate inquiry reworded Boards submission,
‘Joint submission from the Medical Board, Nursing and Midwifery Board and AHPRA notes, classifying notifications as vexatious is not straightforward.’
Medical Board of Australia, Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia and AHPRA, Submission 21, p. 6:
‘However, determining that a notification is vexatious can be difficult, and hence data on vexatious complaints and notifications are difficult to quantify.’
NHPOPC, in sentence 1, and 2 of paragraph 3, of page 11 of NHPOPC submission 105.
quantifies data on allegations raised instead.
‘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.’
Remove words from between,
‘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.’
The sentences alter into appearing,
‘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.’
A whole new meaning appears that NHPOPC found vexatious.
It is widely known that words, ‘reveal’ – ‘indicate’ and, ‘higher’ – ‘increase’ are synonyms of each other and can be interchanged meaningfully when rewording the two altered sentences above into one sentence below,
‘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.
Such appears in Senate committee report.
NHPOPC made findings of allegations raised. NHPOPC did not make findings of vexatious. Yet, Senate committee represented their evidence as though they did.
‘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.’
‘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).’
‘2.52 Whilst the committee acknowledges the concerns raised by health practitioners, the independent evidence (meaning NHPOPC) received by the committee does not suggest that vexatious notifications are a widespread issue; rather, they appear to be relatively infrequent.’
Government noted:
NHPOPC, submission 12, p. 12
‘… the NHPOPC’s [National Health Practitioner Ombudsman and Privacy Commissioner] experience in handling complaints about the administrative actions of AHPRA and the National Boards does not suggest that there is a high incidence of people intentionally using notification processes for vexatious purposes.
If one replaces, ‘……….NHPOPC’s experience in handling complaints about administrative actions of AHPRA and the National Boards’, with, ‘independent evidence’ from Committee’s alterations-
‘2.52 Whilst the committee acknowledges the concerns raised by health practitioners, the independent evidence (meaning NHPOPC) received by the committee does not suggest that vexatious notifications are a widespread issue; rather, they appear to be relatively infrequent.’
The altered text would appear into,
‘…The independent evidence does not suggest that there is a high incidence of people intentionally using notification processes for vexatious purposes’
Reword versions could be:
‘……….the currently available evidence suggest that there is a low incidence of people intentionally using notification processes for vexatious purposes’
or,
‘The currently available evidence suggests that the incidence of vexatious notifications is very low,….’
But NHPOPC never quantified vexatious. Hence altered text appears as an error. This is what appears in Government response.
CEO words, ‘…we recognise that the impact on the individuals involved can be significant.’
Government adopts his words as its own, ‘It is acknowledged however that vexatious notifications can have a significant impact on practitioners.’
CEO explains fate of frivolous complaints.
‘If a board came to a view that a matter essentially lacked substance, that there was no basis for the notification or complaint, it would close that notification or complaint without any further action.’
CEO develops meaning of vexatious complaints.
‘…by ‘vexatious’ I mean a harmful intent on the part of the person making the complaint and no patient safety concern emerging when we look at the issue.’
CEO explains fate of vexatious complaints,
‘If the nature of the behaviour of the notifier gave rise to concern, then it would be open under the national law for a board to take own motion and to effectively investigate the conduct of that practitioner in making the notification as something that raises questions about public and patient safety.’
CEO’s words ‘a matter essentially lacked substance, that there was no basis for the notification or complaint (meaning frivolous),’ and his words, ‘a harmful intent on the part of the person making the complaint and no patient safety concern emerging when we look at the issue (vexatious),’ have two very different meanings.
If we replace his words ‘essentially lacked substance, that there was no basis for the notification or complaint,’ with ‘clearly vexatious’, alteration would appear,
‘If a board came to a view that a matter is clearly vexatious, it would close that notification or complaint without any further action.’
It is clearly an error. Which appears in Government responses,
‘Where a notification is clearly vexatious, the National Board has the ability under the National Law to take no further action following initial assessment.
The whole recommendation with the two errors:
‘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. 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. 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. It is acknowledged however that vexatious notifications can have a significant impact on practitioners.’
Senate committee used public submission to construct the image of ‘considerable anecdotal evidence provided by practioners.’
‘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).’
There is no real independent evidence, besides the altered one, to stand in contrast to their constructed image.
It is only reasonably fair that Morrison Government identify the errors of Turnbull Government and then provide recourse and compensation to all those submitters who helped in proper conduct of Senate inquiry, by helping Senate committee construct the image of ‘considerable anecdotal evidence provided by practioners.’ with submissions.
Regards,
Submitters