Adjourned debate on second reading.
 
  The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: Two years ago I indicated Democrat support for the Clinical Dental Technicians Bill which had been introduced by the Hon. Paul Holloway. We are now dealing with the dental prosthetists Bill, introduced by the Hon. Angus Redford, which has quite a number of similarities. When I dealt with Paul Holloway's Bill two years ago, the Dental Association lobbied me after I had supported his Bill and attempted to get me to see the error of my ways.
 I have been lobbied twice this year by the Dental Association against the passage of this Bill. I was not totally impressed with their methods. On the first occasion they were quite up front about what they were doing: they rang and asked for an appointment to speak with me about the issue. On the second occasion it was much more surreptitious. I received a phone call saying that a review of the Dental Act is going on and that they wanted to talk to me about that. I said, `I know nothing about it, but, sure, come in and talk to me about it.' We talked about a review of the Dental Act for at least two or three minutes and it then turned into about a hour long foray again on this Bill. I was not impressed at all by their using that method to have a second go at lobbying me under what I regarded as false pretences.
 This is certainly a Bill that gets them upset. I wanted to read some comments that the Dental Association made about the Bill in a publication of theirs called ADA Dental News, Issue No. 2, March 1998. They refer to an interview the President of the ADA (South Australian Branch), Dr Greg Jaunay, said when he appeared on Today Tonight on Channel 7. These were the points that he made:
 1. That Mr Redford had not researched the matter anywhere near satisfactorily;
 2. That the proposed amendment does not meet a need in the community;
 3. That CDTs (clinical dental technicians) do not have the knowledge or training needed to provide this complex treatment. Of the 35 registered CDTs in South Australia, some have received no formal clinical education; about 67 per cent have the full-time equivalent of four weeks formal training; some have the full-time equivalent of seven weeks formal training.

The clinical dental technicians or dental prosthetists (by whichever name you choose to know them) strongly object to those sorts of comments. The ADA has a briefing paper about this Bill and, again, I quote some of the comments about this Bill. It is quite a substantial paperóin fact it is six pages long. Taking up this issue about the training of clinical dental technicians or dental prosthetists, this document from the ADA says, at point 3.6:
 Amongst the 37 known to ADA (SA) registered clinical dental technicians in South Australia, there is no evidence of formal clinical education in 23 casesó
I am not sure what the ADA means by `formal clinical education'ó

the remainder having gained mutual recognition from education and training of various standards from other States.

When they met with me again they were quite patronising towards these people and said they could have got their qualifications in Albania, for instance. Obviously there is no such evidence. They continue:
 3.7: ADA (SA) understands the current situation to be clinical training and education for clinical dental technicians ranges from the equivalent of four, seven, eight and 17 weeks of clinical training to one year of full-time study.
 3.8: The argument of ADA (SA) in relation to education and training rests on the premise that adequate clinical education and training must be undertaken by all persons involved in invasive procedures.
 3.9:ó
and this is one really gets to meó
ADA (SA) acknowledges that some, but by no means all, individual clinical dental technicians may currently be able to demonstrate clinical competence and ethical behaviour as well as the desire and the ability to learn and therefore could be of benefit to the community.

Let us pull that sentence apart. They are saying that some clinical dental technicians may be able to demonstrate ethical behaviour. This is appallingó
 The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:
 The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: Yes, all dentists obviously demonstrate ethical behaviour. That is a most incredibly patronising thing to say about people in another profession who are clearly competing for business with dentists. I can understand why the dental prosthetists would be upset by comments like that. I would find it a whole lot easier to deal with the Dental Association if it did not exhibit such superior attitudes.
 The basis of the Dental Association's argument is its view that the prosthetists lack suitable training and that, as a consequence, these people will be unable to deal adequately with infection control. Again, I find this to be somewhat patronising. Surely it is in the interests of a dental prosthetist to know how to deal with infection. After all, when they are dealing with patients they are not aware of the health status of their patients and given that they could be dealing with someone who has HIV or hepatitis there is a danger to themselves if they are lax in their procedure. So it is in their interest to be able to handle infection control procedures well.
 The ADA's view is that disease patterns of oral health are becoming more complex and as dental prosthetists do not have degrees they would not be capable of understanding the degree of complexity of this. Again, I find this a very patronising argument. In the last few months I have come across quite a number of economists who have degrees and I have heard some of the most amazing cant from some them. A degree is certainly not a measure of either intelligence or commonsense.
 Dr Greg Jaunay of the ADA told me that his organisation supports the use of hygienists and dental therapists because they have undertaken what he termed `properly designed courses'. On the other hand, the ADA pours scorn on the various courses that dental prosthetists have undertaken, including one offered by the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology. I find it hard to believe that an educational institution of the stature of the RMIT would approve a Mickey Mouse course, as the ADA would have us believe. The clinical dental technicians sent a letter to me, and I will quote what they said in regard to this claim:
 The ADA claims that the RMIT course is inadequate. It might well be asked why were two delegations sent to Melbourne to try and stop South Australian clinical dental technicians from gaining this qualification. The ADA did all within their power to stop all courses and when they failed in that they then tried to discredit them.

 The Hon. A.J. Redford interjecting:
 The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: I am reading from a letter from the dental technicians and dental prosthetists. They say that the ADA actually went across to Melbourne to try to prevent South Australian dental prosthetists from going over and doing the course. The letter continues:
 It is simply not believable for the ADA to sustain the argument that CDTs in South Australia are not qualified to provide partial dentures when they are considered qualified in other States. One could predict they will oppose the Bachelor of Oral Health having a dental prosthetist component.

On the record of what we are seeing so far, I would not be surprised to see that. The ADA has also argued that it is inappropriate for us to be dealing with this Bill now ahead of a review of the whole Dental Act. I think it is important that a review of the Dental Act should be happening and should be happening right now, but that is not good reason to hold off on dealing with what has now become a perennial issue with dental prosthetists. By way of example, the Government has been saying for the past three years that the Mining Act needs a complete review, and everyone knows that that is the case, but we continue to deal with amending legislation for that Act. We cannot as a Parliament refuse to deal with issues as they arise simply because a major review might be pending.
 In general I support aspects of the Hon. Angus Redford's Bill. I would appreciate knowing at some stage about a couple of the issues that the Dental Association has raised, in particular with regard to the Dental Board and the tribunal. It is arguing that it is unfair to impose a dental prosthetist on those bodies, so I would like to knowó
 The Hon. A.J. Redford interjecting:
 The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: No, that was not argued. It was arguing that on the basis of the number of dentists in South Australia, as opposed to the number of dental pros-thetists. I would appreciate knowingó
 The Hon. A.J. Redford interjecting:
 The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: No, but that is obviously how it is arguing. I would like some information about the make-up of theó
 The Hon. A.J. Redford interjecting:
 The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: Well, it has presented that view to me. I would be interested in some feedback from the Hon. Angus Redford about the numbers who are represented on the board, how democratic they are and that type of thing. I believe that by recognising dental prosthetists they can be registered and that this, in itself, provides the opportunity for ensuring that standards are maintained and for further policing of adequate infection control.
 In relation to the issue that the Dental Board used as proof that prosthetists should not be on it, the ADA complained that there is no dental hygienist on the board. My reaction to that is that we should amend the Act so that dental hygienists have representation on the board as well. Again, the Hon. Angus Redford might like to address that later. It is clear that a review of the Dental Act is necessary, and I know that from evidence that the Social Development Committee took when it was looking at its reference on HIV/AIDS and hepatitis.
 There are matters of concern to me such as the fact that the Dental Board does not have a compulsory right of entry to premises; and that the Dental Board can conduct an inquiry into a complaint about professional conduct but it only has the power to reprimand not even to impose a fine and the only alternative it has is referral of the case to the Professional Conduct Tribunal.
 This Bill recognises dental prosthetists and the only way it will be able to prove the ADA wrong is to have a system that allows them to demonstrate their capacity to implement infection control procedures. That can only be done if the Dental Board has the necessary powers of inspection. I believe that a pre-condition, so that those two bodies will not be inclined to misuse their power against the dental prosthetists, is that the prosthetists must be represented at the very least on the board.
 In order to put the ADA's concerns to rest in the longer term, I suggest also that, if legislation such as this is ultimate-ly passed, a review of the Act be undertaken after it has been in operation for two years and if there are problems then Parliament will be able to address it. I believe that the move to register and to recognise dental prosthetists in this Bill is a forward move for dental health in South Australia.
 
 The Hon. CAROLINE SCHAEFER secured the adjournment of the debate.
 

 
Site assisted by Intramedia Design