Ms CHARISHMA KALIYANDA (Liverpool) (16:19): 

The Health Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2023 is part of the Government's regular review and monitoring of legislation to ensure that it remains up to date and relevant. To that end, the bill seeks to make a number of amendments to various Acts within the Health portfolio to ensure that those Acts are operating effectively. As members have heard through the course of this debate, through the numerous amendments that have been put forward in the bill and the work of both the Minister for Health and the Parliamentary Secretary for Health, we are preserving the integrity of our health system and preserving the trust and the respect of the many citizens of New South Wales that carry faith in the health system. The bill addresses some existing challenges to ensure the smoother functioning of our health processes going forward.

A number of stakeholders were consulted in the process of bringing these amendments forward. The Ministry of Health consulted with key stakeholders on the proposals, including the Medical Services Advisory Committee, the Australian Medical Association, the NSW Nursing and Midwives' Association, the NSW Organ and Tissue Donation Service, Legal Aid NSW, local health districts, BEING Mental Health Consumers and the Department of Communities and Justice. These are all important stakeholders because from a psychosocial and holistic understanding of health care we understand that the health system interacts and intersects with many other systems. Consulting widely ensures that we are able to conserve integrity in processes. One change I bring attention to relates to the Health Care Complaints Act. As deputy chair of the Committee on the Health Care Complaints Commission of this House, it brings me great pleasure to go through some of these changes. [Quorum called for.]

[The bells having been rung and a quorum having formed, business resumed.]

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Clayton Barr): I thank members. A quorum is now present. If members are not staying in the Chamber to hear the wonderful contribution by the member for Liverpool, I ask them to leave quietly. I have been reminded that today is one of my favourite days of the year: Talk Like a Pirate Day. So, aaarrr, the member for Liverpool will return thee to the lectern.

Ms CHARISHMA KALIYANDA: Aaarrr, we can all join in the fun. I note that it is Talk Like a Pirate Day. It is important to acknowledge that we have many social determinates of health, which require a range of different stakeholders to be consulted. I am pleased to see in the range of stakeholders consulted on these amendments that many aspects of those social determinates of care are represented. As the deputy chair of the Committee on the Health Care Complaints Commission, it is good to see that an error that was made in a 2022 amendment to the definition of a disciplinary body in the Health Care Complaints Act has been rectified. This will ensure that a professional standards committee falls within the definition of a disciplinary body under the Act.

Under the Health Care Complaints Act, the director of proceedings can decide whether to prosecute a complaint against a registered health practitioner in a disciplinary body. Until 2022, a disciplinary body was intended to be the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal or a professional standards committee. Professional standards committees are bodies that hear complaints about medical practitioners and nurses. Generally, professional standards committees deal with less serious matters than the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal and are less formal than the tribunal.

The Health Legislation (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act (No 2) 2022 amended the definition of disciplinary body in the Health Care Complaints Act to properly reference the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal. That amendment inadvertently removed the reference to a committee as a disciplinary body. The bill will ensure professional standards committees can continue to hear complaints against registered health practitioners. This is important as our system is based on trust and respect for our many hardworking healthcare workers and providers, as well as the understanding that there will be natural justice and fairness of process where mistakes are made or standards are not met. It is in the interests of every citizen of New South Wales that people have recourse to ensure that fairness of process is available to them where possible.

Another amendment being proposed in the bill is to the Mental Health Act 2007. Under the Mental Health Act, when a person is detained in a mental health facility they must be given a written statement of their rights, which is set out in schedule 3 to the Act. The statement sets out the rights a person has when they are detained in a facility, including the person's rights regarding treatment and when a mental health inquiry must be held by the Mental Health Review Tribunal with regard to the person.

The statement also sets out the facility's obligation with respect to the detained person. Under the Act and the mental health regulation, a facility must provide a person with appropriate street clothes and grooming items, such as shaving equipment and make-up, before they appear before the tribunal. The statement of rights as currently set out in the Act does not include details about this obligation on the facility to provide grooming items and street clothes. This bill will ensure this right is included in the statement of rights so that a person is aware of the facility's obligations to help them present their best self when they appear before the tribunal. [Extension of time]

As a mental health worker in my life prior to entering this place, I know that situations requiring inpatient support or detention in a mental health facility can be distressing and highly destructive for an individual and their family or care and support system. Mental health issues impact on a person's appearance and grooming. Some of the harmful impacts upon a person who is not aware of their rights and the obligations of a facility to help support them may be exacerbated. One of the most common reasons why people refuse treatment and seek to avoid health facilities in regards to mental health treatment is due to the loss of autonomy experienced by that person when they are detained in that mental health facility. Ensuring that there is clarity and attention given to the importance of grooming and the obligations of that facility to support them may redress some of the distress and avoidance that people may experience in those circumstances. Therefore, I commend that amendment to the House.

A further amendment proposes to amend the Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966 to give the Health secretary the ability to order the forfeiture and disposal of goods seized under the Act in certain circumstances. The Act regulates scheduled poisons and medicines such as drugs of addiction and prescription‑only medicines, including liquid nicotine. Such medicines are highly regulated and generally can only be supplied by medical practitioners and other authorised practitioners and pharmacists on prescription. Under the Act, inspectors have powers to seize goods where the inspector believes there has been a contravention of the Act. However, a magistrate's order or consent to forfeiture is required for those products to be destroyed. Seized goods can include drugs of addiction that have been diverted and increasingly include liquid nicotine, which unfortunately has become commonly sold in some retail settings.

Due to the increasing number of seizures, it is becoming impracticable to seek a magistrate's order for the destruction of seized goods. As such, the bill makes changes based on the yet‑to‑be‑commenced Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 2022 and creates a more streamlined approach to seized goods. Under the changes, the secretary can order seized goods to be forfeited and destroyed if satisfied of one of a number of grounds, including that the person has been convicted of an offence in connection with the seized goods; the owner cannot be found despite reasonable efforts being made; the return of the seized goods would pose an unacceptable risk to health or safety; the seized goods cannot be lawfully used or supplied by the owner; and with the consent of the owner. The person from whom goods were seized may make submissions to the secretary, which must be considered before the secretary makes a forfeiture order. This change is in line with the new Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act, which Parliament passed last year and which will, upon commencement, replace the existing therapeutic goods Act.

Finally, I speak briefly to the amendments to the Public Health Act 2010 contained in the bill. The bill removes the procedural requirements for making a code of conduct for non-registered health practitioners and health service providers. The Public Health Act allows regulations to be made setting out a code of conduct for non-registered health practitioners and health service providers. A breach of the code can result in the Health Care Complaints Commission making a prohibition order if the person poses a risk to the public. While the code is made by regulation, the Act includes specific procedural requirements over and above what is normally required to make a regulation.

The current procedural requirements for making a code of conduct, which include placing the code and an impact assessment on public exhibition and considering any submissions received, are in addition to the requirements for making subordinate legislation under the Subordinate Legislation Act 1989. The procedural requirements for making the code of conduct have been in place since 2006, when New South Wales became the first jurisdiction to introduce the concept of a code of conduct and prohibition orders. While the additional requirements for making a code of conduct would have been appropriate when the code provisions were first developed, the code provisions are now well established and having additional procedural requirements for prescribing a code of conduct is no longer considered necessary. Mr Temporary Speaker, I seek leave for a further brief extension of time.