Page 1657 - Week 06 - Thursday, 13 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
HIV and AIDS
MR LAMONT: My question is to the Deputy Chief Minister in his capacity as the Minister for Health. Yesterday in the Assembly the Opposition claimed that the Government's policy for the notification of people living with AIDS places women in danger. Will the Minister reassure the people of Canberra that this is not true?
MR BERRY: I thank Mr Lamont for the question. By way of history, Madam Speaker, in September 1983 acquired immune deficiency syndrome, AIDS, became a notifiable disease in the ACT. Since then there has followed constant debate as to the definition of the term "AIDS". In 1986 the Medical Officer of Health issued a bulletin to all ACT medical practitioners stating that all categories of infection with the virus were notifiable. The regulations, as they stand, require notification in accordance with the form in Schedule 1, and this includes full name and address. However, a policy decision has been made to bring the ACT into line with the practice in New South Wales and Victoria and to conform with the epidemiological and statistical requirements of the HIV National Centre where coded notification, together with more detailed information, is required. This information is not identifiable, but it is traceable.
Yesterday in the Assembly, Madam Speaker, it was suggested by the Opposition that our policy of reporting in code would place women at risk. That is an outrageous emotionalisation of the issue and it is the sort of thing which has caused difficulty in dealing with the epidemic of AIDS. It is the sort of emotional political approach that ought not be taken in dealing with this very serious problem. I was surprised and disappointed to see this approach being taken by the Liberals' health spokesperson. It just appears to me, Madam Speaker, to be part of the scare tactics of the Liberals to whip up some disinformation about issues in order to draw attention to themselves in some way.
As the Liberals may know, the privacy laws prohibit medical practitioners and any other person from disclosing the sort of information that I have been referring to. Using scare tactics to score a cheap political point or two, on such a serious issue as HIV/AIDS, does nothing to promote responsible behaviour or debate on the question of AIDS. It is not true to say that because of actions of this Government women are in danger. This issue, of course, is a hazard to the community if it is not dealt with properly; there is no question about that. Men and women are at risk if we do not deal with it properly. If we emotionalise it and take cheap political points on the issue, if we do not take a bipartisan approach to this, then we will never succeed on the issue.
Mrs Carnell: Why don't you ask us?
MR BERRY: It is far too serious an issue to politicise. I am surprised to hear Mrs Carnell say, "Why don't you ask us?". She has to remember that they are in opposition; we are in government, managing the health system. If she has a problem with the way we are dealing with something, she can come and see me, and I will help her out.
Mr Humphries: As long as it is his position it can be bipartisan.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .