Page 4622 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 6 December 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Madam Speaker, again, Mrs Carnell makes the big speech, but you are playing with fairly important stuff here. We have been through this process. We have taken it to the industry consultative groups, and the industry consultative groups have indicated that they favour our approach - despite the rhetoric about a breach of civil liberties - because they realise what a serious area this is and they realise that there is likely to be a need for fairly swift emergency action in the circumstances I have described or similar circumstances. Such action is possible under our scheme. Under your scheme many people could be infected while an officer is racing around the town trying to get me to sign a piece of paper.
MRS CARNELL (Leader of the Opposition) (9.58): Madam Speaker, it seems that recently in this Assembly Mr Connolly has adopted the approach of saying, "We will see whether we can scare the pants off everyone, knowing that regardless of what we say it will be all right". The fact of the matter is that I do not think we have health inspectors - I hope that we do not - who walk around this city peering in through people's windows to see whether they pick up a dirty needle. I hope that health inspectors use proper procedures where they believe that there may be a problem and they may not be given consent to access premises. I hope that, instead of having to peer through the window of the tattooist or the beauty therapist, they can produce written authorisation to enter if they believe that there is a chance - - -
Mr Connolly: So, I need to sign an instrument every time an inspector goes out for every premises they visit?
MRS CARNELL: That is absolutely ridiculous. You are talking about a situation where somebody will not give access to premises. That hardly ever happens. If an inspector believes that there is an absolutely emergency situation because they have seen someone about to reuse a needle, all they have to do is say to the patient, "Excuse me. That is a dirty needle". I am confident that in that situation the operator would not go anywhere near the patient.
Minister, what you have said is just scare tactics. The fact is that civil liberties are important. We do not let our police go onto premises where they believe that a crime is being committed unless they have consent or they have a warrant to go in. Why, in heaven's name, would we let a health inspector do so, whether it be for the purposes of inspecting food or inspecting the operations of beauty therapists, tattooists or other people? It is simply ridiculous, Minister, to go down the track of suggesting that a health inspector who may be at premises and who sees a dirty needle about to be used could not say, "Excuse me. Do not use that dirty needle, tattooist", or that the tattooist in that situation is going to say, "I am going to use it anyway" and the patient is going to say, "And I do not care". Obviously, Minister, that is ridiculous. Let us look at the reality of the situation and always balance civil liberties against what is in the greater public good.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .