Page 626 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 20 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Question put:
That the motion (Mr Humphries's) be agreed to.
The Assembly voted -
AYES, 7 NOES, 10
Mrs Carnell Mr Berry
Mr Cornwell Mr Connolly
Mr De Domenico Ms Ellis
Mr Humphries Ms Follett
Mr Kaine Mrs Grassby
Mr Stevenson Mr Lamont
Mr Westende Ms McRae
Mr Moore
Ms Szuty
Mr Wood
Question so resolved in the negative.
EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES (CONFIDENTIALITY) BILL 1992
Debate resumed from 13 May 1992, on motion by Mr Moore:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MR BERRY (Minister for Health, Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport) (11.38): This Bill, tabled by Mr Moore, is modelled on the Commonwealth Epidemiological Studies (Confidentiality) Act 1981. The majority of the provisions of Mr Moore's Bill are copied directly from the provisions of that Act. However, the provisions in the Commonwealth Act were designed to meet a narrowly defined exercise, a study of the effects of chemicals used in the Vietnam war. That Act was not intended to be a generic Act covering all future work of this nature. As a result, the provisions in Mr Moore's proposed Bill are not sufficiently comprehensive, in the Government's view, to meet the needs of the ACT.
The Bill does not allow for the disclosure of information by record keepers, including doctors, to parties conducting epidemiological studies. Therefore, researchers will have access only to information from cooperative subjects. Of course, if you want a study to mean anything you have to be able to have access to all aspects of information in order that rigorous investigation can be applied; that is if you want a credible result from any study.
Also, significant information will not be available to researchers from record keepers because doctors and record keepers are not protected from civil prosecution if they provide information without the subject's consent. I think we would all recognise the difficulties that flow from that. This will severely limit the usefulness of any research in the ACT. As well as not protecting doctors and record keepers, the Bill also does not provide immunity from civil action to persons assisting in a prescribed study who use information that may have been provided without consent. Again, that is an area that is of concern to the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .