Page 2475 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 31 July 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MS LAWDER (Brindabella) (11.11): It is true that I was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes through a workplace test, right here in the Assembly, late last year. It was an accident—a fortuitous accident. I had not planned to be tested, but on the day the testing was taking place one of my staff who had booked a slot was away sick, so I thought I would pop down, take that slot and use it as a photo opportunity on social media to promote awareness of diabetes in the ACT.
Imagine my shock when I was diagnosed with diabetes. That was not what was I was expecting. Despite the fact that with my second child I had gestational diabetes, it seemed so long ago that I had forgotten this would put me at greater risk of diabetes later in my life. Despite the fact that both of my parents have type 2 late onset diabetes, I never dreamed it would happen to me or at least at my age. It did not occur to me. I thought I had 10 or 20 years before I might be diagnosed with diabetes. So I was surprised, and not in a pleasant way.
This has encouraged me to make changes to my lifestyle, and I want other people—the estimated 5,500 people in the ACT—to have that same opportunity. It would not have occurred to me to go to my GP and ask to be tested for diabetes. I go to my GP, not frequently but every so often, and usually it is a focus on a particular health issue at that point in time, rather than broader health issues and speculative, preventative health checks. That is why the concept of workplace testing—making it easy, making it accessible—is so important. I would like ACT public servants to have that opportunity.
I thank Ms Stephen-Smith for her amendment. It is subtle, but it is a retraction of what I called for. As Mrs Dunne has already outlined, I do not believe in the government telling you what to do in all aspects of your life; I would never dream of mandating testing. But making it available in their workplace makes it much more likely that people will avail themselves of the test. That gives them the opportunity to be diagnosed early and prevent that significant impact on our health and hospital system that Mr Rattenbury, for example, referred to.
The wording of Ms Stephen-Smith’s amendment is not a commitment to provide workplace testing; it is about promoting testing. I appreciate the point about information sessions, but that does not mean the government will make workplace tests available if ACT public servants would like to take that test. It is a retraction, and I am a bit disappointed about that. Staff information sessions are a start, but as I have just said, knowing about diabetes, knowing you might have risk factors and knowing you may be likely to have diabetes later in your life does not mean you get tested or that you think you have diabetes at the time.
Testing being available in the workplace is one way we can prevent long-term health impacts for thousands of Canberrans, not to mention the impact on our health and hospital systems. My attempt was never to mandate testing; it was to make it available. We will support the minister’s amendment today with some degree of disappointment. It is a good starting point and we can always work forward from there.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video