Page 4228 - Week 13 - Thursday, 19 November 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
life-threatening situations. Amendments to this act are consistent with the government’s policy on harm minimisation and our statement on social inclusion.
As members would be aware, the ACT Naloxone program, which began in March 2012, was Australia’s first to provide Naloxone to reverse the effects of an opioid overdose, on prescription to potential victims. This allows people other than health professionals to administer the drug in a timely manner to overdose victims, helping them to save lives. Final evaluation of the program demonstrated it has been a genuine life saver. It also identified some opportunities for improving the program which the government is committed to.
The amendments to the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act will provide an exemption such that the good Samaritan provisions currently in the act apply to people administering Naloxone with the aim of resuscitating someone who has overdosed whether or not the good Samaritan is significantly impaired by a recreational drug, including alcohol.
Currently, section 3 of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act provides that a person who gives assistance to another person who is injured or in need of emergency medical assistance does not incur personal civil liability except for in certain circumstances. These circumstances include if the person rendering assistance is significantly affected by a recreational drug, which includes alcohol.
It is possible that a person who administers Naloxone under the overdose management program could themselves be affected by drugs or alcohol. While the risk of long-term or serious harm caused by Naloxone is low, it is important for the success of the overdose management program to promote this uptake by reducing the risks of participants being subject to civil liability in these limited circumstances. The perception of the risk of liability may also be a disincentive to people to participate in the program, and this highlights the need for the exemption.
The repeal of part 3 of the Health Act is necessary as the review report of part 3A that was tabled in the Assembly in February this year recommended that the government reconsider the ongoing role of the Local Health Network Council.
The national health reform agreement required states and territories to agree to LHNCs, local health network councils. They were intended to provide more local and flexible governance arrangements for hospital management. Amongst other things, LHNCs were expected to deliver agreed services and performance standards, monitor LHNC performance, and improve local patient outcomes.
The government was committed to establishing a LHNC by signing up to the national health reform agreements. However, the changes to health funding announced in the federal budget in 2014-15 seriously undermined the need for LHNCs. Consequently, the requirement to continue with them no longer exists, and these provisions in the act are now redundant.
The proposed amendments to the Health Records (Privacy and Access) Act will bring the definitions of this act in line with the definitions for carer, child, young person and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video