House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2) 51 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Motions Controlled Environmental Diseases CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENTAL DISEASES Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Bragg Deputy Leader of the Opposition Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11:57): I move: That the regulations made under the Public and Environmental Health Act 1987 entitled Controlled Environmental Diseases, made on 1 May 2008 and laid on the table of this house on 6 May 2008, be disallowed. I indicate in the few minutes that I have to present this that, whilst I will be seeking leave to continue my remarks in anticipation of the parliament being prorogued, I will give notice in due course that these regulations be disallowed. The Public and Environmental Health Act 1987 is over 20 years old. I note, as repeated in the budget again this year, that the government has under consideration a review of the whole of the act. The opposition welcomes that review and we certainly hope that in due course we will have a new bill before us sooner rather than later to review, because this is an act which is in need of review but which currently has the important responsibility of protecting us, regulating and controlling to ensure proper sanitation and drainage in premises and property, and also to ensure protection of our water supplies from pollution and other measures. One of the most significant aspects of this legislation is to protect us from diseases, and the principal way that this is attended to in the legislation is to have an obligation to certain diseases as identified in the legislation or by regulation as notifiable and/or controlled notifiable diseases, and they are scheduled. Those identified as controlled notifiable diseases have been determined to be dangerous, which often can cause death or significant disfigurement or disability, and for which the course of action is to maintain some vigilance in the management of these diseases, often for which there is no cure but for which there can be some treatment, and to ensure that we know when they are in the community. So, there is a process whereby certain persons, including medical practitioners, are obliged to report to the department the existence of such diseases. Whilst there is some provision for immunity from prosecution under a penalty arrangement, essentially that imposes obligations on relevant health authorities (particularly local governments) to activate procedures. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Debate adjourned.