Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

The medical complaints process was set up to investigate and solve issues such as bullying and intimidation in the medical profession. The evidence the committee heard strongly suggests that the medical complaints process itself—the notification of an investigation and the investigative process itself—is actually being used to bully and intimidate some medical professionals.

I came to this committee late. I have heard from a number of medical professionals in Tasmania about complaints under the AHPRA investigative process. One of them in particular really stood out, a local surgeon in my northern home town of Launceston. He is an orthopaedic surgeon who has been there nearly 30 years. He spent that last 30 years cutting people's limbs off because of obesity and diabetes. He thought one day: 'I have to do something about this. I have to be more than a technician. I have to understand why I am confronted with this issue.' And he fully understands the cost to the community and our budget on health care and the impacts of those issues. He started looking into a holistic preventative health-care approach which, of course, involved diet. He spent many years researching that himself. Eventually he came to the conclusion that his obese patients and those with diabetes needed to have the right diet if they were going to tackle this issue. There is an old saying: pioneers get the arrows and settlers get the land. This doctor, Dr Fettke, is a pioneer and he has a lot of arrows sticking out of his back. He has been totally outspoken about this issue, and no doubt he has ruffled a few feathers along the way to get his voice heard around diet.

I became aware of Dr Fettke's situation in Tasmania and an AHPRA investigation. The day I met with Dr Fettke we had a discussion. I then put out a statement about his situation. Launceston had lost seven specialists at our local hospital in six months and, believe me, we have a lot of problems attracting and retaining medical professionals in Tasmania. I was really worried that we were going to lose another good specialist if this issue was not dealt with. I saw Dr Fettke and his wife in the markets, and they came up to me and gave me a hug—let me tell you, in a public place the emotion was very clear—because someone had actually spoken out on their behalf.

I actually had a series of formal meetings with Dr Fettke because I wanted to understand his situation, and it became very clear to me that something was badly wrong with this investigation. His complaint was like what I had heard from other medical professionals. What was becoming evident through witnesses in the inquiry is that these things drag on for way too long, and in some cases years: five or six years of investigation and having their names dragged through the mud. Goalposts keep getting moved. Every time they meet the investigative requirements they are asked to provide new information. It starts being seen as bullying and harassment, which has an impact on their mental health, their work and their ability to do their job.

The committee heard that other surgeons, including brain surgeons, have felt they have been run out of this country by the AHPRA investigative process—a never-ending series of investigations to the point that they just cannot cope any more. This was a consistent theme that the committee picked up on.

Although we had to hear Dr Fettke's case and others, these cases were important to the committee as case studies about systemic issues within the AHPRA investigative process. We absolutely need a good regulator. We need to have confidence in our regulator. We need to come up with better ways to make the investigative process quicker, fairer and more effective. We need to look at potential changes to the investigative process, and I am very glad that the committee has recommended a separate, much more succinct inquiry into AHPRA and how we can improve the process.

AHPRA has been in place for five years now, but it seems to me that the culture within this organisation, from what I have seen, definitely needs a shake-up. 'Who is policing the policeman?' That is what I would say. Who is policing the policeman? Nobody—absolutely nobody. There are a lot of issues that I do not have time to go in to about the transparency of their evidence, the way they operate, the way they function. It definitely needs some light shone on it and some disinfectant. I often do not use this kind of language, but I have really been quite stunned and surprised at some of the evidence that we heard from medical professionals. Sometimes mistakes are made. Sometimes there is definite misconduct. We absolutely have to have a process that stamps that out.

We also need to make sure the young Australians want to go into medicine, nursing or health care and become healthcare practitioners. But when we hear evidence like this of a culture, a hierarchical culture, within the healthcare system, a culture of elitism that starts at university and the bullying and harassment, it is not the kind of thing I would necessarily recommend that my daughter go into. I think there is a much bigger issue at stake here, and it is incumbent on us to solve this problem and make sure that we get to the bottom of it. I will leave it at that, as I said, because other senators want to talk. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.