Page 4757 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 7 December 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
an education and advertising campaign to inform women of the register's purpose. In addition, all women will be sent a letter on first receipt of any results at the register informing the woman of this fact and providing the opportunity for her to have all information removed. It is possible for any woman to have her particulars removed from the register at any time.
The draft regulations, the protocol for operation and the draft letter were sent to the Privacy Commission for comment, who confirmed that all reasonable steps had been taken to inform the woman that all aspects of the Privacy Act 1988 had been met.
Thank you for your interest and I look forward to your continuing support.
There were further discussions. The advisory committee - comprising Dr Joanne English, Dr Sandra Hogg and Professor Jim Dickinson - were contacted again in late November. All three felt that the decision to remove the clause giving women the right to be told that they did not have to be on the register had been appropriate and that by adding it now the goodwill of the medical profession would be lost. There was a meeting of the Cervical Cytology Register Management Committee just after that. I do not have a date on this minute; but I gave it to Mrs Carnell last week, so the date must have been late November or early December.
Mrs Carnell: It did not have a date on it. I have it in front of me.
MR CONNOLLY: That is right. It did not have a date on it, but I gave that minute to you as soon as I got it and I gave it to you last week. The minute states:
PURPOSE
To further advise on the proposed amendments put forward by the Leader of the Opposition.
BACKGROUND
2. At a Cervical Cytology Register Management Committee meeting last night the proposed amendments to the regulations were discussed.
3. The unanimous agreement of the committee was that the regulations should not be amended, as agreement on the content had been reached after extensive consultation.
4. The medical representatives (Drs Graham Dawson and Penny Roberts-Thompson, Division of General Practice, Dr Jan Barrett, Pathologist, and Dr Anne Hosking, Obstetrician and Gynaecologist) on the committee wished their vehement opposition to the proposed clause relating to the responsibility of the health practitioner be recorded and passed on.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .