Page 1091 - Week 04 - Thursday, 21 May 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
acknowledgement be recorded are as smooth as possible. That is really important to get right. This needs to be as straightforward as possible for families and not overly bureaucratic. I am happy to support this amendment so that we can get it right. That said, I will be frustrated, and I will be knocking on the minister’s door, if it does take a full 12 months for this to be carried out. While I accept the amendment, I do hope it is much sooner than 12 months time.
The second amendment that has been proposed removes the legislative provision regarding the family being able to request, through the registrar-general, a letter of acknowledgement from the Chief Minister. As Minister Rattenbury has flagged, this is something that does not need to be a legislative provision. It can be done through an administrative change with the Chief Minister and his office and directorate, and it will be simpler if the request is direct rather than linked to the registrar-general. Importantly, in doing so, it allows people to request the letter whether they wish to have the acknowledgement on the death certificate or not. It separates those two processes.
I do not want to have something in legislation simply for the sake of it. On the basis that the Chief Minister has been clear in his support of this, and that this is something he will do, I accept that this does not need to be provided for in the legislation. I acknowledge his commitment today that he will work with donor families and the broader network on what the most appropriate and acceptable form, or forms, of words may be for this acknowledgement letter.
The third amendment relates to the definition of “tissue donor”, thus who will be eligible to have “tissue donor” recorded on the register and on their death certificate. In this case, the amendment will provide only for those who donate organs or tissues on the occasion of their death. In agreeing to this amendment I acknowledge that the heart of the intent of the legislation has been kept, and I appreciate the lengths to which Minister Rattenbury explained in his speech the issues around including living tissue donation at this stage.
What is not changing is that the opportunity for recognition on a death certificate remains optional, entirely up to the family and not time limited. Families will be able to make the written request at any time, but it is a matter for each family to decide for themselves if it is something that works for them. This removes any urgency in needing to make a decision about it and takes into account that what might be right for each family can change over time. It also means that families whose deceased loved one was an organ or tissue donor before this comes into effect will have this opportunity, too—families like Helen Day and so many others.
This is, to the best of our collective knowledge, an Australian first. However, ACT residents are not the first to push for it. This is a national issue for donor families who wish to have this option. I again want to acknowledge the incredible work of so many, but especially Penny Mitchell in Victoria, who, after 10 years of effort, sitting outside shopping centres and farmers markets, getting handfuls of signatures at a time on her petition, until she got thousands and thousands—a tedious process but such an important one—got the Victorian government to sit up and pay attention to what she hoped to achieve.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video