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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 10 Hansard (25 September) . . Page.. 3352 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

The common perception of health out in the community can be described, quite simply, as being, "You look all right today". It goes a long way further than that, as has been said before. It goes to all of the issues one confronts in life. It goes to the issue of the community we live in, the houses we live in, the planning of our city, the transport arrangements of our city, wages and working conditions, occupational health and safety, where we live on the planet. I could go on with a list as long as both arms, if I can put it that way. It encompasses all things that we, as intelligent human beings, try to manipulate to make sure that our quality of life is improved.

It would be naive to suggest that we could have a piece of legislation that would cover every aspect of life on the planet as it affects one's health and wellbeing. I dare say that there will be future attempts to revise this legislation to make it more adequately cover a new version of the things we need to do to make people healthier and to make their lives easier, safer, and free of illness, conflict and all those things we try to avoid as we build a healthier society.

This process, I am reminded, began in 1994, and I remember some quite vigorous argument in this place on other issues preceding that period. One I recall was the Tuberculosis Act, where it was argued, on the one hand, that it was outdated and ought to be ditched and, on the other hand, that we needed some form of legislation to deal with the issue when it arose, because there were signs in certain segments of the community that tuberculosis was still a problem. There was another argument that, because we were in the process of developing a new Public Health Act, that was where it ought to be dealt with. I see that it has been dealt with in that context, and that appears to be the proper course. The same applies to a number of other matters in relation to blood-borne diseases that are now even more controversial, given a report this morning by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. It is an issue that is in many ways picked up by this piece of legislation because it deals with reportable matters, if I can describe them in that way, which the Chief Health Officer will be empowered to deal with.

One aspect of the legislation that I do not propose to change but that needs to be commented on is the mere being of a Chief Health Officer. The Mental Health (Treatment and Care) Act prescribes a Director of Mental Health. There has not been a permanent Director of Mental Health for several years, but there have been many Directors of Mental Health over the last 10 or 12 months - in fact, one a month. An amendment to make sure that that circumstance could not happen does not immediately come to mind, but I trust that the obligation under the legislation to provide for a Chief Health Officer is adhered to in future and that it is not managed in any way like the Mental Health (Treatment and Care) Act, whereby the Director of Mental Health, in all his or her forms at this point, continues to be a problem for the Government.

I note that a range of amendments have been proposed by the Government; I received a letter on 24 September in relation to the matter. Superficially, I do not have any particular problem with those, although I think it is a bit over the top for the Government, in particular, to deliver comprehensive amendments to a Bill of such magnitude a day before it is to be debated and, more particularly, on a sitting day before it is to be debated,

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