Dear Members of Parliament,
Kindly raise a matter that appears Contempt of Parliament. Senator Rachel Siewert authored and published a public inquiry report where she stated:
‘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.’
‘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).’
‘2.29 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.’
‘2.27 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’ 30 NHPOPC, Submission 105, p.11.
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 findings, but only submitted evidence about number of allegations raised.
‘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 appearance, and thus meaning of NHPOPC’s evidence into,
‘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.’
Alteration now matches both 2.28 and 2.52. Government believed 2.52, ‘The currently available evidence suggests that the incidence of vexatious notifications is very low,’
Boss Martin Fletcher provided evidence in senate inquiry, ‘The point I am also making is that, even though the numbers are small we recognize that the impact on the individuals involved can be significant’
Government acknowledged, ‘It is acknowledged however that vexatious notifications can have a significant impact on practitioners.’
Government accepted the evidence of the boss over majority by believing alterations, and denied recourse and compensation to majority.
Regards,
Chandrika Barman,
Submitter 132
On behalf of all submitters to 10 May 2017 Senate inquiry into medical complaints process.