HEALTH & COMMUNITY SERVICES COMPLAINTS COMMISSION:
A STUDY IN MANUFACTURING COMPLAINTS, FRAMING SERVICE PROVIDERS & BETRAYING PARTICIPANTS THROUGH POLITICAL ACTIVISM
(AKA “NO GOOD DEED GOES UNPUNISHED” v3.0)
In April 2021, Specialist Support Coordinator & Social Worker, Matilda Bawden, was placed on a Prohibition Order by the SA Health & Community Services Complaints Commission (HCSCC), signed off by Associate Professor Grant Davies. The Order served to prevent Bawden from providing “health education services” to her disabled clients or commenting on any aspect of COVID 19 vaccinations.
Mr Davies has abused his public office in the public persecution of Bawden as an “anti-vaxxer” scalp which he needed to hold up to the media, to serve as an example to all other “anti-vaxxers”.
However, Mr Davies did so regardless of the fact that Bawden had COMPLIED FULLY with the HCSCC Code of Conduct and which in fact NECESSITATES that health service providers facilitate and offer their clients alternative and second opinions about health treatments!
Bawden is completely innocent of any of the allegations levelled maliciously and falsely against her. Bawden did not act unlawfully, unconscionably or improperly, so this unexpected act of retribution is heinous at best.
This outrage must not be permitted to go without remedy as it tramples on the rights of all people of this state to have fair, unfettered, free and easy access to information about any and all health treatment options and risks of adverse events (including death!), without the financial ties to pharmaceutical or corporate interests (including AHPRA) seeking to deny South Australian citizens their lawful rights and remedies for conflicts of interest and corrupt practices.
It seems Mr Davies is confident that he doesn’t have to answer to the people of South Australia which he was appointed to serve, including Bawden’s clients and Bawden herself!
Bawden’s request for information (detailed below) stands; demanding accountability by Mr Davies or else the whole State Government’s public sector is condemned to wreak of the stench brought upon it by Mr Davies’ misconduct, amply demonstrated here.
Davies issued a public press release to all media outlets accusing Bawden of breaching the HCSCC Code of Conduct, before she was given any chance to even rebut the allegations. In so doing, Davies deliberately set out to defame her good name “in the court of public opinion”, thereby impugning her professional practice all over Australian mainstream media. The Prohibition Order threatens a $10,000 fine or TWO years in prison.
Davies had NO LEGITIMATE CAUSE OF ACTION against Bawden whatsoever, but his public persecution of her was intended to instil fear & to make her an example to all other professionals in the community who might similarly caution their clients about the risks of COVID vaccinations.
Importantly, Davies falsely claimed that Bawden is a “health service provider” even though Bawden has NEVER provided any health services. The Order prevents Bawden from sharing links to government websites warnings of the risk of adverse events or sharing alternative medical opinions, which can be seen internationally. It even prevents Bawden from sharing a pharmaceutical company’s product insert or sharing any opinions that may be deemed “anti-vaxx”.
The malicious misconduct by Davies lies in the action itself which VIOLATES Schedule 2 – Code of Conduct for Certain Health Care Workers, which obligates service providers to provide options and choices to their clients – even second opinions!
Schedule 2—Code of conduct for certain health care workers
1—Interpretation
In this Schedule—
health care worker means a natural person who provides a health service (whether or not the person is registered under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia));
health service has the same meaning as in the Health and Community Services Complaints Act 2004.
2—Application of code
This Schedule applies to the provision of health services by—
(a) health care workers who are not required to be registered under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) (including de-registered health practitioners); and
(b) health care workers who are registered health practitioners under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) and who provide health services that are unrelated to their registration.
3—Health care worker to provide services in a safe and ethical manner
(1) A health care worker must provide a health service in a safe and ethical manner.
(2) Without limiting subclause (1), a health care worker must comply with the following:
(a) a health care worker must maintain the necessary competence in the health care worker’s field of practice;
(b) a health care worker must not provide health care of a type that is outside the health care worker’s experience or training, or provide services that the health care worker is not qualified to provide;
(c) a health care worker must only prescribe or recommend treatments or appliances that serve the needs of clients;
(d) a health care worker must recognise the limitations of the treatment that the health care worker can provide and refer clients to other competent health service providers in appropriate circumstances;
(e) a health care worker must recommend to clients that additional opinions and services be sought, where appropriate;
(f) a health care worker must assist a client to find other appropriate health care services, if required and practicable;
(g) a health care worker must encourage clients to inform their treating medical practitioner (if any) of the treatments or care being provided;
(h) a health care worker must have a sound understanding of any possible adverse interactions between the therapies and treatments being provided or prescribed and any other medications or treatments, whether prescribed or not, that the health care worker is, or should be, aware that a client is taking or receiving, and advise the client of these interactions;
(i) a health care worker must provide health services in a manner that is culturally sensitive to the needs of the health care worker’s clients.
Further, Davies created a DOUBLE JEOPARDY (“stitch up”) designed to entrap Bawden by demanding that she provide evidence of “training and qualifications relevant to COVID 19 & COVID 19 vaccinations”, to defend his claim that Bawden is a health service provider (which she is not and never has been as she does do not give medications, take blood sugar levels, measure blood pressure, assist with colostomy bags or insulin or any other ordinary routine “health” services to any clients in home or in any other setting). Meanwhile, Davies would also then argue that Bawden was not a suitably qualified “health service provider” &, therefore, she is in breach of the HCSC Act 2004; HOWEVER, if she is a legitimate “health service provider” Bawden is then OBLIGATED to present clients with choices and alternative opinions anyway, or she is in breach of the Code of Conduct if she fails to do so.
Heads, the HCSCC wins; tails, the most vulnerable in the community lose!
Bawden was denied due process, transparency or any opportunity to be vindicated, whilst Davies himself breached his own SA Public Sector Codes of Conduct and Ethics. Certainly, this type of gross misconduct is not allowed under:
1) The HCSCC Code of Conduct, nor
2) The South Australian Public Sector Values and Behaviours Framework [ https://www.publicsector.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/218270/DPC108-Public-Sector-Values_Digital.pdf ] , nor
3) The Code of Ethics for the South Australian Public Sector [ https://www.publicsector.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/218141/Code-of-Ethics_Digital.pdf ].
In fact, by refusing to provide information to Bawden pertinent to her defence, but then insisting his Prohibition Order will remain, the Commissioner declared himself beyond the law and beyond transparency.
The issues at stake are as follows:
- The HCSCC was in fact set up to protect vulnerable patients from being DENIED access to information and services, as historically many people with disabilities were denied their human rights and dignities when interacting with medical and health services. The HCSCC is now acting in direct conflict with this mandate.
- It is NOT the role of the HCSCC to manufacture complaints where none exist. No client of Bawden’s made a complaint or was placed at risk. No client of Bawden’s is so vulnerable as to be unable to make informed decisions about their own health care options, nor can they legitimately be cut out of the right to make decisions for themselves.
- NDIS clients commonly exchange “social” conversations about topical news, current affairs, media reports, etc… with their workers and clients often rely on their workers to inform them of things around them, especially if blind or deaf or intellectually impaired. The notion that NDIS participants should be DENIED information about COVID19 vaccinations, masks, restrictions, lockdown, State of Emergency Orders and other things constantly in media reports which able-bodied workers could readily obtain, share and discuss is outrageous.
- It is preposterous to suggest that NDIS clients who are not in institutionalised care or under Guardianship Orders must be denied information about alternative treatments, risks or adverse events relating to any medical procedures they might consider.
- It is against the human rights of disabled persons to be subjected to coercive medical treatments or to exploit their ignorance to subject them to coercive medical practices.
- NDIS clients control what help and services they want from their providers NOT the HCSCC! In absence of any adverse findings by the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, Bawden is answerable only to her clients.