Page 4756 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 7 December 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I know that it might seem to many people in the house that these are all fairly technical sorts of terms, but regulations in this sort of area must be right. The words must be right. The right to information is a right that we all support. I am confident that we all believe that a woman must have the right to know that she can opt out of the register if that is appropriate for her. The other recommendations are from the Federal AMA, backed up by the pathologists and backed up by the Queensland AMA. The local AMA have chosen to remain silent on this issue, Madam Speaker.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General and Minister for Health) (6.31): The Queensland AMA should definitely be the main body we consult in all these matters! Madam Speaker, these regulations have a very long history, going back about 20 months. Mr Berry would know very well, and I know from the six months or so I have been involved, that these regulations have been through consultation after consultation after consultation. We have spoken with local doctors. Understandably, there have been some very sensitive issues in this area. While it is a very important public health initiative to have the register, it goes to some fairly intimate material and there are obvious privacy issues.
Mrs Carnell wrote to me some little while ago suggesting this raft of amendments. I must say that some of them are quite immaterial. You say "eyether"; I say "eether". They are quibbling over words. When Opposition members want to move the "tomarto-tomayto", "eyether-eether" sort of amendment, often my practice is to say, "For the sake of an easy life, if you are just quibbling about words, I will agree to it". But in this case these regulations have been through 20 months of incredibly complicated consultation. We showed Mrs Carnell's amendments to the management committee looking after the implementation phase, which comprises some very eminent local doctors. I then wrote to Mrs Carnell on 29 November, saying:
Thank you for your letter detailing proposed amendments ... The draft regulations have undergone lengthy consultation with appropriate professional organisations who have been responsible for the final definitions ... I am therefore unable to support any of your proposed amendments.
Proposed new subclause 4(1) was a new requirement to advise women of the right to opt out. At that stage the requirement was for the doctor to inform the patient. In the last 24 hours or so, that has changed to the Medical Officer of Health. This is all very reminiscent of last week. I then went on:
Any attempts to substantially alter the intent of the regulations, after agreement had been reached following lengthy consultation with all groups represented on the advisory and management committees, could undermine support for the register from those groups and adversely affect the benefits to be gained by women from the register.
Alternative protocols and practices have been developed by the management and advisory committees in order to ensure that women are informed of the existence of the register. These include signage and pamphlets regarding the register to be provided to all practitioners and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .