Bills

Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) (Blood Testing for Diseases) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 13 November 2014.)

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Employment, Higher Education and Skills, Minister for Science and Information Economy, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (15:33): I understand that there are no further second reading contributions on this bill, so I thank honourable members and will make a couple of concluding remarks. I thank members for their contributions to the debate. Police perform a vital role. Unfortunately, however, many police officers are assaulted as part of their duties and often in circumstances where there is a risk of the transmission of an infectious disease. In 2013 there were 279 instances where police officers came into contact with blood, 128 instances involving officers being spat at and two occasions where a police officer suffered a needlestick injury.

Currently there is no means to compel an individual to provide a biological sample. The passage of this bill will mean that, when a person is suspected of committing a prescribed offence against a police officer and exposing the police officer to their biological material, the suspect can be compelled to provide a blood sample for the purposes of being tested for communicable diseases. The purpose of taking this sample from a suspect is to assist with the diagnosis, clinical management and treatment of an exposed police officer.

Because some communicable diseases, such as HIV and hepatitis, can have lengthy incubation periods where the disease is present in the body but cannot be detected, the police officer may be left to wait for months to confirm whether or not they have contracted the disease. Of course, that is an incredibly stressful time for that person and their family.

Across Australia examples of such experiences are, unfortunately, not uncommon. One police officer was spat upon by an offender who claimed he was HIV positive, and the officer later suffered anxiety attacks. Another officer had to wait three months for the all clear after having blood spat at him by an offender who had hepatitis C and who claimed to have HIV or AIDS. The bill will (1) provide an efficient means for testing individuals suspected of a prescribed offence and, on the results of a test, contribute to decisions on treatment, and (2) have the effect of reducing the stress and anxiety for officers who have been exposed to an individual's biological material.

Reservations about the bill were raised by some members in their contributions. The bill deals with sensitive issues and, as stated by the Hon. John Darley in his contribution, there needs to be a balance between a suspect's usual entitlement to medical confidentiality and informed consent to undergo medical testing on the one hand and, on the other hand, compelling an individual to undergo testing in order to protect the legitimate health and safety concerns of police officers who have been exposed to the risk of infection by an individual. The view of the government is that this bill strikes the right balance.

Honourable members have expressed their support for the bill, and have suggested that it should be extended to other categories of emergency workers and to licensed security agents. This is worthy of thought and consideration, but such an extension raises major operational, professional and cost implications, issues upon which the government is currently awaiting advice. I propose to adjourn the matter until advice has been received and considered by the government and other parties, where appropriate.

Bill read a second time.