Hansard debates

  I consider that the bill is compatible with the charter because to  the extent
  that  some provisions may  limit rights, those  limitations are reasonable and
  demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
  HON. DANIEL ANDREWS, MP
MINISTER FOR HEALTH
Second reading

  Mr ANDREWS (Minister for Health) -- I move:
  That this bill be now read a second time.

The introduction of  this bill is part of the Victorian  government's commitment
to  promoting and protecting  the  health and  wellbeing  of all Victorians.  By
repealing the Health Act 1958 and introducing this new bill, we are updating and
modernising Victoria's public health framework.
Progress  in health is most often measured in  terms of  access to  hospital and
medical services. These  are  important  signposts for government and contribute
enormously to public confidence about how their health system is travelling.

But there  is another dimension  to  the operation of  Victoria's  health system
which  relates to the ways in which the  health of the population as a whole  is
protected  and nurtured --  the  investments which governments  make  in what is
broadly called 'public health' through the  systematic protection of communities
from infectious disease and other mass hazards to health, through the regulation
of water and food supplies, through the promotion of safe and healthy behaviours
and environments and  through preparations made  to  enable health  services  to
respond effectively to disasters and other mass casualty events.
The Brumby government is strongly focused on prevention.
The  2008  statement of  government  intentions  noted that  the  government has
invested  heavily  in   Victoria's  health  system  and  pursued  the  case  for
comprehensive national health reform around three key areas:

  shifting the focus to prevention;
  placing people and their needs at the centre of the health care system; and
  restoring effective funding of the public hospital system.
The new Public Health and Wellbeing Bill is a key initiative in the government's
overall strategy of promoting prevention wherever possible.
It is designed to provide a modern legislative population health  framework that
is  focused on  prevention  and  is sufficiently  flexible  to enable swift  and
effective responses  to  emerging  new threats  to  public health,  as  well  as
well-known risks to public health.

The bill recognises that the state has a significant  role to play in protecting
'public  health  and  wellbeing', which  is  defined to include  the  absence of
disease, illness,  disability or premature  death, and the  collective  state of
public health and wellbeing.
The  bill signifies  that the  state has  a  role  to  play  in  reducing health
inequalities,  as well as  aiming to improve health  status overall. This throws
out  a major challenge  to government. Research  indicates that people's  health
outcomes are highly influenced by the whole environment that they experience, as
well as by  genetic factors and their  general capacity for  resilience.  People
suffering from social disadvantage generally have  poorer  health  outcomes than
the rest of the community.
We as a government have an important role in addressing these important areas of
social policy.

But we also need  the tools to demonstrate the  need for action to  tackle these
social conditions that directly influence health outcomes. The bill provides the
government with key tools to enable data collection, to 

 Page 1732


support evidence-based policy and effective agenda setting.
Public health  delivery  impacts directly  on  public confidence  in  the health
system  when the risks of failure  are palpable -- for  example when there is an
outbreak of Legionnaires' disease or when water supplies are  contaminated by E.
coli, or when the response to disasters is slow or ill-planned.
The bill provides for responses to risks to health and enables the Department of
Human Services to investigate and manage these risks, through a graduated scheme
that enables a proportionate response to matters ranging from small incidents to
emergencies, such  as  an influenza pandemic.  The emergency powers in  the bill
will complement Victoria's detailed emergency planning system.

In 2007 a review process was commissioned to provide  critical commentary of the
responses  by  the Department of Human Services to people living  with  HIV  who
place others at risk, in the context of  past failings in these processes. These
reviews and the report  of an  international expert provided a body of work that
gives overall support  for the current approach  undertaken by the Department of
Human Services in the management  of people  living with  HIV who  put others at
risk, namely  a  public health  approach.  These  reviews have  been  taken into
account in drafting this legislation.

Unlike these immediate risks and their control, the performance of public health
programs  in reducing the  'slow burning' risks  which undermine the community's
health in  the longer term -- the risky behaviours such as smoking, the diseases
preventable  by immunisation in childhood, or detectable at early stages by good
screening services  --  contribute less to  immediate public confidence  in  the
system  but have far-reaching  consequences for life  expectancy,  the burden of
disease and the sustainability of the health system itself.
At the  same time,  public health  must be involved in working  beyond even  the
'slow  burning' risks. The determinants of health precede risk, and risk may  in
fact be an outcome of failure in the areas where the determinants are at work --
education,  employment  and   healthy  workplaces,  good   housing  and  livable
communities, good social networks and social inclusion.

The  bill  contains  a  number  of specific new initiatives which will enable  a
strategic and planned strategy to tackle these broader public health problems in
a proactive way and reduce health inequalities:
  it requires preparation of a state public health and wellbeing plan every four
  years, with the  first plan to be produced  by 1 September 2011 at the latest.
  This  initiative  is part  of  the Brumby  government's  wider  commitment  to
  accountability  and  public engagement -- other examples  include  the  recent
  statement of government intentions;
  it enables the secretary to conduct a public inquiry in respect of any serious
  public heath matter.  The minister may  also  direct the secretary  to conduct
  such an inquiry; and

  it  enables  the minister to direct that a health impact assessment be carried
  out of the  public health  and wellbeing  impact of  a matter specified in the
  direction.
Improving the  health  of  Victorians is  also  an  important part  of  national
economic reform. Victoria launched the Third Wave of National Reform, which sets
out the path to securing Australian prosperity for future generations. The Third
Wave  notes that 'the most effective way to boost productivity and participation
is to develop our  human  capital'.  Improving  health  is  identified  as a key
component  to  building   a  healthy,  skilled  and  motivated  society,  and  a
high-income economy that is among the world's best.
The bill deals with a broad range of  matters and  has been  developed following
thorough consultation.

In 2004, the government released a discussion  paper regarding the review of the
Health Act and in 2005 it released a draft policy paper.
The government greatly appreciates the submissions that it received in  relation
to  both  of  these  papers  from a wide variety  of  sources,  including  local
government, professional  associations, academics,  peak  health bodies,  health
workers, industry representatives and members of the public.
I turn now to the parts of the bill.
Parts 1 and 2
Part  1 of the bill  contains  the purpose of the  bill, the definitions and the
commencement provisions.

The  stated purpose  of the  bill is  to  enact a  new legislative  scheme which
promotes and protects public health and wellbeing in Victoria.
The commencement provision allows  the  bill  to be implemented over a period of
time, with the possibility  of some sections being proclaimed before the default
commencement  date of 1 January  2010. The default  commencement date will allow
adequate time for the 

 Page 1733


remaking of eight existing sets of regulations and provides  for the development
of  new  regulations, should these be required. Allowance must also be made  for
the  development  of   protocols   and  guidelines  with  agencies  involved  in
enforcement of the new legislation,  including  Victoria  Police  and  municipal
councils.
Part 2 of the bill  contains the objectives and principles of the bill. For  the
first time  in Victorian health legislation we are enshrining  in the objectives
the  state's  role in protecting  public health and  wellbeing. These principles
provide  an important guide to the officers who exercise a broad range of powers
under the bill. The principles support  informed and transparent decision making
that involves a proportionate response to risks to public health. The principles
also note the importance of collaboration and prevention.

The precautionary principle  is included and provides  that if a  public  health
risk poses a  serious  threat,  lack  of full scientific certainty should not be
used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent or control the public health
risk.
Part 3
Part 3  sets out  the functions  of the  secretary, the chief health officer and
local  councils in  administering  the act. The  chief  health officer is  being
recognised  for the first time as a statutory position that exercises a range of
powers, particularly  with regard to  the  control of  infectious  diseases. The
chief health officer is  also required to  develop  and implement strategies  to
promote and protect public health and wellbeing.
Part 3 outlines the public health functions of municipal councils.

These will not change the major role of local councils in enforcing public heath
standards within their community.
The  bill  clarifies that councils  have the role of  coordinating and providing
immunisation services to children living and  being educated in  their municipal
districts. I applaud  the outstanding efforts of councils throughout Victoria in
performing  this  statutory duty  to protect residents  from vaccine-preventable
diseases. Victoria's  state  government  is  a  strong  supporter  of  councils'
immunisation work.
As a result of the hard work of Victorian councils and general practitioners, by
the final quarter of 2006 Victoria achieved greater than 90  per  cent  coverage
for full vaccination in children aged one, two and six. This is the first time a
state or territory in Australia has achieved this level of coverage.

Part  3 provides that councils  must prepare public health  and wellbeing plans.
These provisions are similar to those in  the Health  Act, but have been revised
to allow public  health  planning to be  better  integrated into  other  council
planning.
Part 4
Part 4  provides  for consultative councils,  which  promote public  health  and
improvements  in clinical practice  by inquiring into specific  areas of medical
specialisation  with  a view to monitoring  services  and  improving  prevailing
systems and standards. One such council is the Consultative Council on Obstetric
and Paediatric Mortality  and  Morbidity,  the functions of which are set out in
part  4. These  functions remain  as they  are in  the  Health Act,  having been
reviewed and updated in 2004.

Part 4 includes tight  confidentiality provisions, which enable the consultative
councils  to   gather   all  relevant   information   and   make   well-informed
recommendations on improved practice.
Part 5
Part 5 provides for  a  state  public  health  and  wellbeing  plan,  which will
establish the  framework  for promotion  and  protection  of  public  health  in
Victoria. The state public health and wellbeing plan  will  be a public document
that  establishes  Victoria's  objectives and policy priorities over a four-year
period  to meet the public health and wellbeing needs of the people of the state
of  Victoria.  The  state  plan  will  complement  public  health and  wellbeing
planning, which is  undertaken by all municipal  councils and will  specify  the
collaborative  measures to be  taken by the state  in achieving these objectives
and priorities.

Part 5 also provides for the  conduct  of  public  inquiries  to investigate any
serious public health  matter.  These provisions are  similar to those in  other
jurisdictions with modern public health legislation.
The  health impact assessment provision will enable the  minister to be informed
of the impact that a specified matter may have on public health and wellbeing.
Part 6
Part 6  sets  out provisions  relating  to  nuisances. Municipal  councils  must
investigate and address nuisances within their municipal districts.
The  part also continues  the requirement for hairdressers,  beauty parlours and
tattooists, businesses that perform skin penetrations and prescribed 

 Page 1734


accommodation to be registered with their  local  council. Businesses conducting
colonic irrigation will also now be required to register.
The government recognises the infection  control risks that may be posed by such
businesses and requires registration as a  means  of  enabling those risks to be
managed.
It  is  not  the  intention  of the bill to  establish  a  regulatory  framework
governing  these businesses that  relates to matters  other than public  health.
This is a continuation of the current regulatory requirements in  the  Heath Act
and regulations.
Part 7

Part  7  provides  for  the  registration  of  cooling  tower  systems  and  the
development and  auditing of risk management plans. These legislative provisions
were originally  introduced into the Building Act  in 2001  and have  lead to  a
significant  decrease of Legionella in cooling tower systems  in Victoria. Given
the public health focus of these provisions,  it  is  more  appropriate  for the
provisions to be in this bill.
Part  7  also  regulates  the  use  of pesticides in specified areas, where  the
pesticide  use  is not  for  the purposes of  horticulture  or agriculture,  and
specifies the  licensing requirements for pest controllers. These provisions are
complemented  by  the  regulation  of  pesticides  under  the  Agricultural  and
Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act 1992.
Part 8

Part  8  relates  to  the management  and  control  of infectious  diseases  and
micro-organisms.
A critical aspect of appropriate  public health interventions is  a good disease
surveillance system. The part provides  for  notifications of certain infectious
diseases and micro-organisms by doctors and  pathology services. It  also allows
for the  prompt addition  by the Governor in Council of an infectious disease to
the list of notifiable diseases, to allow for a rapid response to any new threat
to public health.
The  principles under which this part  is to be administered are  set out in the
bill. This is important as this part  provides powers that may interfere with an
individual's  behaviour  and  movements.  The  bill   states   that   in   those
circumstances  the measure that is the least restrictive of the  rights  of  the
person should be chosen.

Clause 113  of  the  bill  empowers  the  chief  health  officer  to make orders
requiring a person to be examined or tested by a registered medical practitioner
for  an infectious  disease. The  chief health officer may make such an order if
there is reason to believe that a person may have an infectious disease, and may
pose a risk to public health, and the chief  health officer is unable to  assess
the level of that risk posed by that person's infectious status due to a lack of
information.  An  examination  and  testing  order  is  designed  to  make  that
information available.
The  purpose of public health  testing and examination  orders made under clause
113 is to confirm  the infectious status of a  person who may have an infectious
disease, so that the  behaviour and conduct of that person with the potential to
pose a  risk to others can be managed, either cooperatively or if necessary with
further orders.

The threshold for the making of the order is that there is reason to believe the
person has an  infectious disease in circumstances where the disease will pose a
serious risk to public health.
In this,  these orders can be  distinguished from the  compulsory testing orders
that may be made by the chief health officer under clause 134 of the bill, which
will be discussed later.
In addition to  examination  and testing orders,  the  bill empowers  the  chief
health officer  to make public health orders  in relation to a person who has an
infectious disease and  who  needs to take particular action to prevent posing a
serious risk to public  health. It  should be  noted that  the vast  majority of
persons who are  diagnosed with an  infectious  disease behave appropriately  to
avoid posing a risk to others.

There are a small minority  who, for a number of reasons, may not  be capable of
taking that action, and a smaller number who may not be willing to do so.
The chief health officer is empowered to make a range of orders to deal with the
various circumstances of  these persons. These provisions have been revised as a
result of a number of recent reviews  of  the  administration  of  public health
order  powers  both  nationally  and  in Victoria. The bill contains a right  of
internal review, and a right of appeal to the Victorian Civil and Administrative
Tribunal against a public health order  as  a  result  of the recommendations of
those  reviews.  The  maximum  period of a public health order  is  six  months,
although there is  provision to  extend an order. The bill provides that it must
be varied or revoked if the circumstances  that  justified  it being made should
change.

The  person   subject to the order  may  apply at any time   to the chief health
officer for a review of the order and the chief health officer must within seven
days of receiving such an application revoke, vary or confirm the order.

 Page 1735


The person subject to  the  order may also at  any  time apply to the  Victorian
Civil and Administrative Tribunal for a review of the order.
Although it  remains an offence  not to  comply with  an order,  the offence  of
knowingly  or recklessly infecting another person  with  an  infectious  disease
previously found in section 120 of the Health Act  has not been included in  the
bill.  Since  that  offence was enacted in 1988, there has  been  no  successful
prosecution of  the offence. The  offence of knowingly  infecting another, apart
from being very difficult to prove, has  been  superseded  by  the  inclusion in
section  19A  of  the  Crimes Act of an offence to intentionally infect  another
person  with HIV.  The Crimes Act also contains a hierarchy of offences that can
be used to prosecute conduct that recklessly puts others at  risk of  their life
or of serious harm, and this includes the reckless transmission of an infectious
disease.

Other factors are that the Crimes Act makes provision  for charges of attempting
to commit the offence, and that  a criminal penalty is more appropriate than the
existing  civil  penalty. The prosecution  of these offences  under the criminal
law, rather than health legislation, is also in keeping with the recommendations
of  the reviews of the administration of public health orders mentioned earlier.
It is appropriate that  conduct  by  a  person  with  an infectious disease that
amounts to criminal behaviour be referred to the police and be dealt with by the
criminal justice system.
Part 8 re-enacts provisions for the making of compulsory testing  orders when an
incident involving a caregiver (such as a doctor or nurse) or custodian (such as
a  police  officer)  could  have resulted in a person involved in  the  incident
contracting a  blood-borne infectious disease, such  as HIV or hepatitis  C. The
most common example of such an incident is  a  needle-stick  injury  involving a
health worker at a hospital.

After such an incident, it is necessary for both people involved to be tested so
the risk of infection having been transmitted can be established.
Most  people  involved in these incidents consent to being tested and no  orders
are necessary. The  bill  continues  the  current system by which in those cases
where it does  prove necessary  a senior medical officer at a health service can
order a test to be conducted on a person involved.
These provisions were  amended as recently  as  2005, remain  substantially  the
same, and are working well. However, the definition of  'caregiver or custodian'
has  been expanded and made more explicit in the bill. It includes a wider range
of health workers, and any police officer while acting  in the  course of  their
duties as a police officer.

There is now explicit provision made in the bill for the chief health officer to
obtain  existing health information  about  a person  involved  in one of  these
incidents, either  from departmental records or  from records held  by  a health
service, and to disclose that information to the person who may be at risk. This
will eliminate the  necessity  for testing of  a person previously diagnosed  as
having one of these infectious diseases.
In cases where no health records are available, the  chief  health  officer  may
make an order for testing.
Compulsory testing orders are not intended to control the conduct of persons who
have an  infectious disease. Rather they  are aimed at obtaining  information in
order  to  give  a  person  who may  have been  exposed to  infection  a  better
understanding of their risk of contracting the disease, and what may be required
for clinical management or treatment of the risk.

Compulsory testing  orders  are  subject  to a much lower threshold and are only
made if  there is a possibility that if a person had an infectious disease, then
that disease may have been transmitted to a caregiver or custodian, depending on
the nature of the incident. These orders are primarily made in the interests  of
the caregiver and custodian, and  not the  person being  tested, who  may not in
fact  have any disease, or who  may have a disease but not  pose any risk to the
public at large. These  compulsory testing orders  are of more restricted  scope
than  other examination and testing orders. They are  serving a narrower purpose
in recognition of the risks that those such  as  health professionals and police
officers may be exposed to when performing their everyday work.

The vast majority of incidents involving caregivers and custodians do not result
in the  transmission of a  blood-borne  virus, and preventative  therapy  can be
taken  to further  reduce the  risks of  acquisition of hepatitis B and HIV. For
example  the  risk of transmission  from needle-stick injury  to  a caregiver or
custodian from someone who is hepatitis  B positive and infectious  is estimated
to be around 33 per cent, for a hepatitis C positive person the risk is around 3
per  cent  and from an  HIV  positive  person the risk  is  around 0.3 per cent.
Caregivers and custodians should be routinely protected against hepatitis B as a
vaccine is  available and,  if they  are not,  a course  of  vaccination can  be
commenced  after  the  injury. With hepatitis C there is presently no vaccine or
post-exposure prophylaxis available, and with HIV the risk assessment will  take
into account the risk of 

 Page 1736


transmission according to the nature of the  injury. A post-exposure prophylaxis
is available for HIV and would be used if the risk was considered high.
If the  chief health  officer is  satisfied that  it is  necessary and  orders a
person to undergo  a blood  test, and  that person  refuses to  comply with  the
order,  there is provision  in the  bill for  the chief  health officer  to make
application to the Magistrates Court to allow Victoria  Police to use reasonable
force to enforce the order. This may involve using reasonable force both to take
a person to a place to be tested, and to undergo the test.
What can be considered reasonable will depend on the circumstances of each case.
The use of unreasonable force would expose those using it to civil liability. It
is  envisaged that  force will  be used  very  rarely,  and  its  use  would  be
appropriate and only to the extent necessary in those rare cases.

In  order to increase the  transparency of the  chief health officer's decisions
relating  to   both   compulsory   testing  orders  and  public  health  orders,
de-identified  information  regarding  these orders  must  be  included  in  the
Department of Human Services annual report.
Part 8  also  provides for  immunisation  status  certificates,  which  must  be
provided by a parent to their  child's  primary school. These certificates are a
means of encouraging parents to know whether their  child  is fully immunised. A
certificate recording whether or not a child is immunised assists  the school in
responding to outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases. This provision  is  not
intended to prevent parents from objecting to their children being immunised.
The part re-enacts the provisions regarding blood and tissue donations.

These provisions  provide a statutory  defence  for blood donors  against claims
that a  recipient  has  contracted an  infectious  disease from a  donation,  if
specified facts and matters can be proven.
The part also makes provision for  autopsies  to  be conducted where the coroner
does not  have  jurisdiction  and the  chief  health officer  believes  that  an
infectious disease caused or contributed to the person's death.
The part also regulates brothels  and  escort  agencies  in  order to reduce the
likelihood of  the  transmission of  sexually  transmissible  infections.  These
provisions  will not affect the regulation of brothels  and escort agencies that
currently occurs under the Prostitution  Control Act, but will  enhance safe sex
practice.
Part 9

Part 9 provides for powers to be exercised by authorised officers. The powers of
entry to  be exercised are consistent  with current government policy,  but make
allowance for response to risks to public health, as well as  the  investigation
of offences.
For the purposes  of investigating risks  to public health,  authorised officers
may enter public places, and any other premises, including residential premises,
with the consent of the occupier.
For the purposes of  monitoring  compliance  with the act and regulations, or to
investigate  a  possible  contravention  of  the  act or regulations, authorised
officers  can enter any  regulated  premises at any  reasonable  hour during the
daytime, or when the premises is open to the public. The categories of regulated
premises are specified in the bill.

If  a business  premises is part of a residential address, the officers may only
enter that part of the premises that is registered for the business.
Entry to any premises, including residential premises, is with consent or with a
warrant.
However,  in  relation  to  any contravention  of  the  act or  regulations,  an
authorised officer  may,  without  a  warrant, enter any premises at any time if
they believe on reasonable grounds that there may be an immediate risk to public
health that must be dealt with.
The rules regarding announcement of entry,  identification cards, and the powers
of search and  seizure under warrant reflect  current government policy and  are
consistent with like provisions in recent statutes dealing with such matters.

Part 10
Part 10 provides for powers for the chief  health officer to respond to risks to
public  health.  These  are the powers used to deal with the  investigation  and
management of the most  common  risks  to  public  health,  such as outbreaks of
salmonella and gastroenteritis. However, they have been made  flexible enough to
deal with other less common risks as they arise.
Part 10  also provides  for the declaration of a public health emergency by  the
Minister for  Health. An emergency will only be declared after consultation with
the  relevant authorities  under  the  Emergency  Management  Act.  Should  that
consultation determine that action is more appropriately taken under the 

 Page 1737


Emergency Management Act,  the minister would  not  declare an  emergency  under
these provisions.
Whilst it is hoped that such an emergency will not often arise,  it is essential
that Victoria has the appropriate planning and  legal framework to address these
risks.
The  powers would  allow the  chief health officer to order persons or groups of
persons  to remain at a  place, or not to  enter  particular areas. An order  to
detain people  will be subject to a  requirement that  it be  reviewed every  24
hours. Decisions to  detain people  for more that 24 hours will be supervised by
the chief health officer, and reportable to the minister.  The  vast majority of
people are cooperative with authorities in such circumstances, through both self
interest and  civil duty.  Those who  are not  could  be  made  subject to  more
specific public health orders if necessary to protect public health.

The  bill  provides  mechanisms for  the  chief  health officer  to  obtain  the
assistance of  council officers and the police in the course of an emergency. It
is  envisaged that  council  officers will be  authorised  to perform  specified
roles, and that the police would carry out normal policing duties, in accordance
with agreed protocols.
Part 11
Part 11 has general regulation-making  provisions,  general powers of authorised
officers, provisions regarding review and appeals and matters regarding offences
and  legal proceedings. The  part  also enables  the  secretary  or a  municipal
council  to  issue  an  improvement  or  prohibition  notice  in relation  to  a
contravention or likely contravention of the act.
Part 12

Part 12  contains saving and  transitional  provisions and  amendments  to other
acts, including the repeal of the Health Act 1958.
I make the following statement under section 85(5) of the Constitution  Act 1975
of the reasons  why  it is the intention of  clause 240 of the bill  to alter or
vary section 85 of the Constitution Act 1985.
Clause  240  states that it is  the intention of this  section  to alter or vary
section 85 of the Constitution Act 1975 to the  extent necessary  to prevent the
bringing before the Supreme Court of an action of a kind referred to in sections
124 and 142.
The actions referred to in sections 124 and 142 are actions against a registered
medical practitioner.

Section  124  provides that  no  action will lie  against  a registered  medical
practitioner  who in  good  faith and  with  reasonable  care conducts  a  test,
examination and assessment, or  provides counselling,  pharmacological treatment
or prophylaxis, in relation  to  an  examination  and  testing order or a public
health order made under division 2  of part 8 of the act. Division  2 deals with
the management and control of infectious diseases, and empowers the chief health
officer to order a  person  to undergo any of a range of  measures to reduce the
risk they  may  pose  to  public  health.  Often  these  measures,  such  as  an
examination or  counselling about the nature of the disease,  will be undertaken
by a registered medical practitioner.

Similarly, section 142 provides that no action lies against a registered medical
practitioner  who in good faith and with reasonable care takes a blood  or urine
sample, conducts a test or provides test results or counselling in relation to a
test on  a  person who has been  involved  in an incident  with  a  caregiver or
custodian. In relation  to these incidents,  the chief health officer  may order
that a  test  be  conducted  on a person who  has  refused  to  be tested, and a
registered medical practitioner  will be asked  to perform the test  and provide
results.
The aim of sections  124  and 142 is to protect registered medical practitioners
who implement measures ordered by the  chief  health  officer  as  part  of  the
response  to  a  threat to  the health  and wellbeing  of the  community. It  is
appropriate  that  registered  medical  practitioners  be  protected  from legal
liability for their actions in these circumstances.

If registered medical practitioners were not provided with this  protection, the
regulatory framework for  the protection of  the public from infectious  disease
would not be effective.
I commend the bill to the house.
Debate adjourned on motion of