Page 3636 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 20 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Madam Speaker, on 12 February this year I wrote to Mr Berry asking him for his response to two of the Bills that I currently have on the table - the Tuberculosis (Repeal) Bill and the HIV Notification (Liability of Medical Practitioners) Bill. I wrote this letter in obviously a vain hope of achieving a more positive approach to important health issues.
Madam Speaker, instead of replying to my letter, Mr Berry put out a media release on the TB issue a few days after my letter. Apart from it being exceedingly bad manners to respond to my letter by a media release, it was not even copied to me. The media release did not say, "Please, Mrs Carnell, could you take your Bill off the notice paper, because we are reviewing the issue that you are talking about". The media release was headed "Liberal proposal places public health at risk". Mr Berry, if that was a request to withdraw my Bill, I think you had better have new people draft your media releases.
Madam Speaker, mass radiological screening is an outmoded measure, and I know that Mr Berry and his department agree with that. It is neither cost-effective nor appropriate in stopping the spread of TB. The NHMRC have recommended that community-wide screening such as chest X-rays, Mantoux testing and BCG vaccination are no longer a requirement for the general public. I know that Mr Berry's own public health area agree totally. The reason I brought up this Bill - if you look back to my tabling speech you will see - is that I believe very strongly that public health legislation needs to be reviewed on a regular basis. This legislation was brought in in 1950 and has been replaced by various other pieces of legislation. In fact, the Parliamentary Counsel, in a letter in response to my drafting request, said:
I have taken the liberty of comparing the TB Act with the Public Health (Tuberculosis) Regulations and Public Health (Infectious and Notifiable Diseases) Regulations. Subject to one exception, provisions with similar effect to those in the TB Act -
the one that my Bill was seeking to get rid of - appear in one or other of those pieces of legislation. The letter continued:
The exception relates to mass screening for tuberculosis. There does not appear to be a provision in either piece of legislation ...
Madam Speaker, in an attempt to make sure that public health legislation actually reflected the current state of medical practice, I chose to withdraw my Bill; but I am very pleased to hear that Mr Berry and his department are going down the track of a much wider review of public health regulation. On that basis I will comply with Mr Berry's request and ask that the Bill be removed from the notice paper.
MR BERRY (Minister for Health, Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport) (11.01): I am glad that at last Mrs Carnell has seen the good sense of the Government's position in relation to this matter, which has been around for some time. It is very clear that from the outset this was a bright idea which was designed to grab a headline, and it probably did. I do not recall now whether it did, but it was certainly designed to do so and to try to make the Government's approach to these sorts of things look inadequate. When it comes
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .