Update March 2007

Mal's Musings

Malcolm A Traill

IN  THE  PUBLIC  INTEREST
Updated 8/3/2007

The Governor-in-Council�s List

 

 

In December 2005, I wrote to the State Minister for Health, requesting information regarding the appointments to and from the Governor-in-Council's list. I received a response from Mr Peter Allen, Undersecretary, Policy and Strategic Projects dated 13/2/2006, replying for the Minister. Points made are :

 

     the selection process for Board appointments (short-listed candidates);

     other Board experience, particularly relevant hearing panel experience;

     retiring Board members (to continue to sit on any hearings that are incomplete at the time their term expires, and to be available for         future hearings)'.

This account still does not explain how the names reach the Minister. Presumably, someone (such as the Deputy CEO) must suggest them, and confirm the (presumed) willingness to participate.

 

So, a dominant person in the Office of the Board would be in the position to :

The views of a trusted dominant person would be likely to be agreed-to by the Board

 

The Governor in Council's list from June 2001 to 13/2/2006 ;

 

            Ms Rae Anstee                                     Dr Frank Ham

Mr Michael Arnold                               Mr Peter Hardham

Dr Andrea Bendrups                            Mr Warren Johnson

Dr Dorothy Barbara Burge                   Ms Elizabeth Kennedy

Dr Bernard Clarke                                Dr Geoffrey Kerr

Mr Brian Collopy                                 Dr John McNamara

Dr John Court                                      Dr Patricia Molloy

Ms Anna Dea                                       Dr Aruna Reddy

Dr Quintus L De Zylva                          Mr Ian Russell

Mr John Dillon                                      Ms Kathleen Sanders

Ms Joan Dwyer                                    Dr Elizabeth Shanahan

Ms Dierdre Anne Fitzgerald                  Dr Eng-Seong Tan

Mr Michael Gorton

 

Of these, the following appeared in Panels involving me :

 

                        Year    Panel Member                                                   On Board#

2004       Dr John Court (Chairman of Panel)                 1994-Oct. 2003

2005       Dr Geoffrey Kerr (Chairman of Panel)            2001-June 2004

Ms Anna Dea                                                      *

Dr Quintus L De Zylva                                        *

                                    Kathleen Sanders                                                 1999-July 2005

2006       Mr Michael Gorton (lawyer)                             *

 

(Those who showed antagonistic dominance have had their names highlighted. Dr Kerr, with the Chairman's casting vote, together with Ms Dea, could out-vote all the others. The '*' indicates that they did not seem to be on the Board 2002-6;

'#' dates are taken from the Annual Reports.)

 

The Panels

The Panel of 2004 was unable to comprehend that the Federal Professional Services Review Committee represented General Practitioners, and that I was a Specialist: that the process was fundamentally flawed. Drawing the Chairman of the Panel from the Governor in Council's list would not seem to be consistent with the guidelines (see above).

The Panel of 2005 was, by the completion of the hearing, entirely from the Governor in Council's list and, having no current Board member, would seem to have been answerable to the Deputy CEO (Mr John H. Smith). The Panel's seemingly sensory and cognitive deficiencies (together with the use or acceptance of slides in logic) have been dealt-with elsewhere on the web-site. Drawing the Chairman of the Panel and two others (initially) from the Governor in Council's list would not seem to be consistent with the guidelines (outlined above). The VCAT ignored these points.

The Panel of 2006 was informed of the earlier Panel deficiencies but chose not to take any notice: the concept of there being an entrapment was 'fanciful', without reason (naturally): Hearings and their material were taken in isolation.

 

The overall pattern would seem consistent with specific selection of those with antagonistic dominance as Panel members from the Governor in Council's list; acquaintances who might have been carefully collected and appointed to the list over the years, with a planned prospect for producing predictable outcomes.

 

The Panel of 2004 dealt with a faulty premise (at least), and from this, all the others built upon flawed issues and precedents. Like dominoes, they should all fall.

 

At the end of the day, readers should recall that, for all the time, cost and effort expended by and for the Board and its Office, there was only one direct patient complaint - and this patient should have been assessed for perjury.            

 

Copyright © MA Traill March 2007

Press "Back" to Return