Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 9 Hansard (4 September) . . Page.. 3027 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

On the other side of the argument, first of all, there is the issue of civil liberties; secondly, there is the issue of medical practitioners being compelled to take blood, which may distract them from their primary focus, which is saving the person's life or working on their health and wellbeing; and, thirdly, there is the issue which argues against this legislation, which is that, whenever the courts, including the High Court, have considered issues to do with the invasion of a person's body - this applies to courts here and in the United Kingdom and Canada - they have been very reluctant to allow that in any sense. They are the two sides of the argument, in a nutshell.

Mr Speaker, I wrestled with this issue. My initial reaction was to reject the Bill. Then, having discussed the issue with quite a number of people, I felt that perhaps I should support it. But, in the end, I felt that it was entirely inappropriate to put on medical practitioners this requirement to take blood. I think it sets an entirely inappropriate tone. Also, it is in the context of a situation where we know that there are fewer and fewer people drink-driving. We have to continue to work and we have to continue sending the sort of message that Mr Kaine set out to send in this package of Bills. That message, which I agree with, is that drink-driving is not on. We have been doing that successfully.

So, Mr Speaker, it is an on-balance decision. I do not think they are clear-cut issues. In the end, I feel that it is appropriate to oppose this legislation. I certainly understand why the Government has put it up and I understand why other members will support it.

MR WHITECROSS (10.16): Mr Speaker, the Labor Party will be supporting this legislation. As Mr Moore has said, it is an on-balance decision. I do not lightly accede to legislation which has people submitting themselves to having their bodies invaded, on pain of a penalty of 30 penalty units; but I think that the legislation, as it existed, already provided for that. So, in a sense, that debate has already been had. What this legislation really does is clarify issues to do with the doctor-patient relationship and the notion that doctors might feel that they were not able to submit to taking blood from a patient who was under their medical care because the action was unrelated to their medical treatment. I think that is something which ought to be clarified. So, Mr Speaker, on balance, the Labor Party will be supporting these two Bills.

MRS CARNELL (Chief Minister) (10.17): Just to follow up very briefly on Mr Moore's comment, the request for this piece of legislation actually came from doctors in Accident and Eergency who felt that the clarification that Mr Whitecross was talking about was necessary to give them the opportunity to, as they have said, do the right thing, particularly in circumstances where accidents have occurred.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.

Bill agreed to.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .