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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 10 Hansard (25 September) . . Page.. 3357 ..

Clause 102

MS TUCKER (5.56): I move:

Page 55, line 5, subclause (1), after paragraph (a), insert the following paragraph:

"(ab) advise the patient of his or her rights under paragraph 99(c);".

Our second amendment requires that a medical practitioner must advise his or her patient of their rights, as set out in the Bill. A person who has or may have a notifiable condition or is at risk of exposure to a notifiable condition has the right to privacy and has the right to receive all reasonably available information about the medical and social consequences of the condition and any proposed treatment. There is little benefit, however, in the individual having these rights unless he or she is also made aware of them.

MR MOORE (5.56): It is part of the whole principle of the Bill itself. It is called enabling, and I think it is a very significant amendment from that perspective. It actually puts into action what the legislation is trying to achieve.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 103 to 112, by leave, taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 113

MS TUCKER (5.57): I move:

Page 61, line 22, paragraph (1)(d), omit the paragraph.

Our final amendment is to omit the paragraph allowing the Chief Health Officer to issue a direction requiring a person who has a transmissible notifiable condition to undergo specified medical treatment. Completely adequate public protection measures have been set out in the Bill, including provisions to confine people, to prohibit them from entering a particular place, and requirements to refrain from hazardous behaviour or activities. The Greens regard it as the most extreme abuse of civil liberties to medically treat people against their will.

MR MOORE (5.58): Mr Speaker, this follows in some ways the debate we had the other day on the Motor Traffic Act, when there was some debate about whether we would even allow the taking of blood from somebody at an accident scene. These public health directions are a very important issue and, like this whole piece of legislation, the balance is critical. There is a balance between the rights of an individual, as has been identified correctly by Ms Tucker, and the rights of the community as a whole to be protected from the spread of disease and the range of other health problems that can occur. It seems to me that Ms Tucker has put her finger on a power that was unnecessary. My understanding is that this power was in the original legislation and

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