Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 9 Hansard (18 November) . . Page.. 2605 ..
MR OSBORNE (continuing):
I thank members for their support in allowing me to follow this process. As I have said, I am seeking leave. I am following the standing orders of the Assembly in relation to this, Mr Speaker. I might just add that the Bill was commissioned at about 7 o'clock last night. The draft was emailed late last night and I did not see a copy of it until 10.00 this morning. That is the reason why it is being brought on in this way. As I said, I do apologise for that. I am attempting to put it on the table, but not for debate today, so that members can go away and have a look at the issues and hopefully come back with some positive input. I thank members for their support.
That the motion (Mr Osborne's) be agreed to.
The Assembly voted -
AYES, 9 NOES, 8 Ms Carnell Mr Berry Mr Cornwell Mr Corbell Mr Hird Mr Hargreaves Mr Humphries Mr Moore Mr Kaine Mr Quinlan Mr Osborne Mr Stanhope Mr Rugendyke Ms Tucker Mr Smyth Mr Wood Mr StefaniakQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.
MR OSBORNE (11.51): I present the Health Regulation (Maternal Health Information) Bill 1998, together with its explanatory memorandum.
Title read by Clerk.
MR OSBORNE: I move:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
Mr Speaker, on 19 November 1992 the High Court delivered a judgment in the landmark case of Rogers v. Whitaker. It concerned whether a specialist medical practitioner was under a legal duty to inform his patient about a risk assessed at one in 14,000. The court held that he was under such a duty. In the course of the two judgments the court spelt out the nature of the duty to provide information. Similar principles concerning disclosure were applied in the very recent High Court decision in Chappel v. Hart, 2 September 1998. This case concerned the disclosure of a risk of perforation of the oesophagus.