Page 3487 - Week 13 - Thursday, 26 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
A high profile case has been that of Trisha Goddard, a media presenter. Ms Goddard learnt of her husband's HIV status only after he died and after she had had a baby. I think that situation was just too awful for most women to consider. Her case was a dramatic demonstration of the fact that men do not necessarily tell their partners - and this, by the way, was in New South Wales and that is why it happened - if they become infected with this disease. The current legislation, however, relies on good faith for partner notification. As we have seen, the world does not always live up to these standards. You cannot always rely on good faith alone. The fact that people do not always see fit to inform each other of their status, together with the recently revealed facts about bisexual activity, makes for a very dangerous situation indeed. As Who magazine says:
Goddard's story is more than one woman's isolated nightmare. It is a startling example of the terrifying truth of the '90s. Nobody is safe from AIDS.
One might note that married women who believe that they are in a monogamous, stable relationship are at particular risk in the event that their partners do enter into bisexual activity. This is because unprotected sex within the marital relationship is very much the norm, as one would expect it to be. Indeed, the study presented yesterday to the fifth national conference shows that condoms and other forms of protection were used only 13 per cent of the time where a relationship is perceived to be stable or regular.
Madam Speaker, the Government has neglected the issue of partner notification. It is totally irresponsible to have introduced amendments of this nature while the issue of partner notification has still not adequately been dealt with. The Government said, in its response to the Estimates Committee, that its approach was in keeping - - -
Mr Connolly: There is not one Liberal Health Minister who agrees with you on this.
Mr Berry: Not one of them. Even Gary disagrees with you.
MRS CARNELL: I think it is important to listen to this. The Government said that its approach was in keeping with recommendations of the legal working party of the Intergovernmental Committee on AIDS. I am sure Mr Connolly knows this paper very well.
Mr Moore: Its very first recommendation is on notification.
MRS CARNELL: I totally agree. It is true that the working party has recommended coded notification. It is the first recommendation in the book; that is right. But it also recommended a protocol to be enshrined in law for notifying partners. That is the second recommendation in the book.
Mr Connolly: Voluntary, not coercive. You are on about being coercive.
Mr Humphries: You have forgotten that bit. By legislation.
MRS CARNELL: Exactly, by legislation. Does that mean that the Government can read only one page? It could not get up to the second recommendation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .