HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2021-05-26 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Parliamentary Committees

Social Development Committee: Surgical Implantation of Medical Mesh

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (15:55): I move:

That the final report of the committee, on its inquiry into issues relating to surgical implementation of medical mesh in South Australia, be noted.

On behalf of the Social Development Committee, I have a number of people and organisations to thank. Firstly, it goes without saying, thank you to the individual witnesses and their families who have given this committee their time and insights and provided accounts of their journeys with medical mesh, which at times have been most traumatic for them.

As a committee, we acknowledge the devastating impacts medical mesh has had on their lives. Through their written and oral submissions, the committee has been able to understand the deeply personal nature of the damage that mesh can cause in the human body and how the experience of this for many sufferers needs to be given proper recognition and an appropriate response by the relevant authorities.

The committee thanks the commonwealth government agencies and the staff who have been working on the legislative policy and regulatory changes that have rapidly occurred during the time that this inquiry has taken place. A particular thank you is due to Ms Tracey Duffy in the Department of Health and the commission members of the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. Thank you also to Professors Ahern and O'Connell from Monash University for giving evidence concerning the Australasian Pelvic Floor Procedure Registry.

A thank you must also be made to Dr Malcolm Frazer and Ms Nicole Germano from Queensland Pelvic Mesh Service. The committee would also like to thank our own state's pelvic mesh clinic, Dr Roy Watson and the staff who work at the clinic, who provided oral evidence and written responses to several questions that were taken on notice.

The committee would also like to thank the professional colleges, medical associations, non-government sector, universities and research institutes and their learned representatives, whose evidence was educative and much appreciated by the committee. We also thank the advocacy groups who have assisted many of the mesh-affected women and men in this state and supported them through their pain and in making their submissions to the inquiry.

As Presiding Member, I would also like to thank the committee members and the secretariat for their work on this review. Specifically, there has been a great deal of effort, but it has been quite a multipartisan committee, which I have enjoyed. It has been an issue where politics has largely been removed from the discussion and the committee has pressed forward with a joint goal, which has been most worthwhile. I should also note that the initial reference for this particular inquiry was initiated by Ms Dana Wortley, the member for Torrens in the other place, and she should be acknowledged for her contribution.

Further, I would like to add that I excluded myself from some of the proceedings back in February 2020 during the committee's hearing of oral evidence from individuals who have been injured by medical mesh, as a result of a potential conflict of interest on account of my having been employed with Johnson & Johnson for some 16 years. I made a statement regarding this at the time, and I can assure members that I think that was the appropriate thing to do.

I am pleased to be noting the report today on behalf of the committee. Briefly, the Social Development Committee started the inquiry into the surgical implantation of medical mesh by advertising across the state and calling for submissions in July 2019. The committee received 69 written submissions and held 15 hearings, with the report being tabled today the result of a very lengthy inquiry dating back to July 2019, so almost two years.

During this time and largely as a consequence of the report of the Community Affairs References Committee in the Senate on the number of Australian women affected by transvaginal mesh (TVM), many changes have occurred in the regulations and the use of medical mesh. Some of that committee's recommendations are still to be fully implemented but the majority have been, both federally and in South Australia.

After taking into consideration the evidence presented by the many stakeholders and examining some of the emerging national and international policies and regulations concerning the use of medical mesh in pelvic organ prolapse (POP), stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and hernia, the committee has made 17 recommendations to the Minister for Health and Wellbeing.

I will not go into any more detail—there is so much more I could say—except to say that the report has now been publicly tabled. I do recommend the report to members of this chamber who have an interest in this area and indeed to members of the public who may be interested. I think the report will provide a good basis for understanding the issue and for looking at what I believe will be a good and worthwhile path ahead.

The committee has made some recommendations, which I would consider quite strong recommendations. As I said, the inquiry was held in a multipartisan fashion; that is, there was little focus on politics and much more focus on getting a result for people who have really suffered.

I think the final point to make here is that there is no doubt at all that, whilst this particular form of surgery has been very successful for a lot of people, there are a significant number of people who have suffered intensely as a result of these implants or devices being inserted into them, and the response from the medical profession as a whole has been suboptimal, not just in South Australia but right around the world.

The committee attempted to take the best possible evidence it could in order to, firstly, perform an overview of the situation and outline some of the terrible suffering that has occurred as a result of these procedures but also to provide 17 recommendations on what should be done from here. I am pleased to inform the chamber that in many cases these recommendations have already partially been taken up or at least been seen as an obvious next step by those towards whom the recommendations are directed.

The report is well worth a read. I commend it to the house. I look forward to any feedback from other members.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.T. Ngo.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT