Healthcare: Human rights revisited (Part 1)

By | | comments
(Image via ama.com.au.)

Dr Leong Ng – himself a victim of a sham peer review  discusses oddities in Australian law and the proliferation of bureaucracy and how these factors impact on the human rights of health professionals.

Part 1

FLAWS AND MALICE in administrative processes anywhere have a serious impact on the human rights of persons subjected to these.

Examples of adversely affected Australians during the past twelve months include the mental health of asylum seekers, the psychological impact on the unfairly accused, such as Peter Slipper and victims of workplace bullying and harrassment such as Dr Caroline Tan and other health workers.

Recent encouraging developments include the imprisonment of a bullying employee at Woolworths and the hurried “resignation” of the CEO at Ballarat Health Services following claims of a bullying culture.

An ever-increasing global army of administrators and decision makers (as shown below) also has implications in relation to human rights in the health sector.













The United Nations Covenants

Young Australia signed several United Nations (UN) covenants on human rights at various times:

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 

‘No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.’

(Article 17: signed on 13 August 1980.) 

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 

‘The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right to work, which includes the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts, and will take appropriate steps to safeguard this right.’

(Article 6: signed on 10 December 1975.)

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966)

‘The right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.’ 

(Article 12: signed on 18 December 1972.)

It is mysterious why a purportedly advanced and developed country has omitted other parts of the United Nations Charter. For example:

Convention against Discrimination in Education

‘Of inflicting on any person or group of persons conditions which are incompatible with the dignity of man.’


Another oddity is the compilation of extremely detailed state and Commonwealth statutes which seem to enjoy rapid passage in parliament, usually in the middle of the night, when many MPs are inattentive, asleep or absent.

The Slippery Slopes of Australian-style health practitioner regulation

Once a Bill becomes an Act, it is difficult to amend or repeal without onerous debate or revolt. Strangely enough, despite signing the above covenants in credible international platforms – such as the UN Security Council – the above instruments are not fully incorporated into domestic State or Commonwealth statutes.

With existing statutes, are accompanying sets of regulations – including militarised ones – which frequently evolve. These remain subservient to their respective Acts.

Therefore, not surprisingly, laws frequently conflict. Australian lawyer Mark Leeming addresses this in his book, Resolving the Conflict of Laws.

The book explains that there exists a "hierarchy" of laws, like a hierarchy in the judiciary or any private club. Essentially, it affirms that the Australian Constitution is supreme — though there may be arguments that Parliament is supreme.

International Law prevails over the Commonwealth Statutes, then there are the State and Territory Statutes (it remains controversial whether a state statute is ascendant over a territorial statute) and so forth.

But, international law is not easily enorceable in any rogue state.

And, I am sure the Australian Government’s legal advisors know that many links appear to be absent between international and domestic law. That is, the United Nations instruments are not fully articulated into domestic Commonwealth or State Statutes.

This is why incidents like the Dhu case in Western Australia and unlawful bullying of health practitioners continue to take place.

An important aspect of the Westminster system of government, which Australian law is purportedly based on, is that Parliament enacts the law; the Judiciary administers the law and the Executive - various statutory bodies (agencies, police and so on) enforce the law.

Simply put, this is called the doctrine of separation of powers and in any true democracy they should be separated, not just appear to be separated.

Conflicts of interest must not occur as any process in a department can then be tainted. For example, in enforcing the law a statutory agency must not be the judge, jury and executioner.

This is not always the case, however. For example, an Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) board member’s conflict of interest was recently exposed.

AHPRA remains in Wonderland

The spotlight is now on AHPRA — the latest incarnation of state health regulatory boards.

Though AHPRA is purportedly a fresh start replacing many discredited health boards Australia-wide, it has incorporated and metamorphosed from the long established culture of past state health boards — both good and toxic.

Principally, because of numbers, what stands out are the medical and nursing boards' persecutions by these agencies. Naturally, "disciplinary" actions stand out.

Following the disastrous handling of the Dr Patel case and the Bacchus Marsh debacle, there has been a frequent mantra about “protecting the public”.

In what appears to be a knee-jerk reaction, AHPRA in Victoria is openly soliciting for complaints against health registrants — still not learning from the unresolved case of nurse Jane Thompson in NSW.

Protecting the public from whom? Those rogue registrants? Definitely so.

But, in my view, the public – including registrants – also need protection from the regulators. Simple administrative errors (including a non bona fide review) may lead to the permanent end of long illustrious careers.

After all, AHPRA is the regulator, which opens and closes the door for the registrant. The regulator can also indirectly harm the public and registrants by breaching their human and civil rights.

Errors and malice in protection and non bona fide assessments must be remedied through compensation by the State and must not be concealed. Only then can there be justice.

The Aftermath of the Dr Patel case

It would be foolish to deny that numerous breaches of the human and civil rights of registrants have occurred since Patel – including to Patel himself. But it appears that Patel may have traded such gross breaches perpetrated by the regulators on him for “freedom”, just as corporate style “deeds of release” can be traded privately in law, for non-actions or money.

The first investigator of the debacle, Tony Morris QC, was dismissed because of “bias” but he still submitted his findings to Australian Parliament.

Are human and civil rights breaches higher in the hierarchy of laws than administrative processes of convenience?

Much has been written about matters around this elsewhere. The current Royal Australian College of Surgeons (RACS) “campaign” resulting from an earlier EAG final report and public apology offers precarious hope for some surgeons.

It appears that intended actions against perpetrators will likely be private or internal rather than statutory and the old boys’ club is actively implementing damage control.

Considered together with an earlier Independent Australia article, readers are invited to decide for themselves after reading the Judgement.

My question:

“Is there a higher hidden ‘authority’ (as claimed here) and is the said practitioner a ‘protected species’?”

Disclosure: Dr Leong Ng, FRCP Edin, a medical oncologist, signed a deed of release under duress in return for non-detention/deportation whilst under a non-immigrant medical practitioner’s visa in Victoria in April 2005, following months of escalating workplace bullying. The Royal Australasian College of Physicians – a private company - was allegedly complicit in the framing of this deed. Honouring the "gag" in the deed had caused him massive career damage – including retaliatory punitive false suspension and reporting to the NSW Medical Board when the whistle was blown, after multiple attempts by the Tweed Hospital to fraudulently use his non-claims provider number in 2006. He has since become more au fait with the relevant laws in Australia and is an active Founder and Committee Member of the Health Professionals Australia Reform Association. 

If you would like to learn more about HPARA please email hparacommittee@gmail.com, call 0499 399 081, or follow HPARA on Facebook HERE.

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License

Monthly Donation


Single Donation


Think. Subscribe to IA for just $5.

Recent articles by Leong Ng
Our health industry needs a Commonwealth Integrity Commission

There have been calls for a Royal Commission into the health industry since a lack ...  
The OHO Act 2013 revisited – is it really protecting the public?

Drs Leong Ng and Chandrika Barman recently painted in IA, a grim picture of health ...  
HPARA, Healthcare and AHPRA — The good, the bad and the ugly

Dr Leong Ng and Dr Chandrika Barman trace the “care” in Australia's healthcare ...  
Join the conversation
comments powered by Disqus