Page 3499 - Week 13 - Thursday, 26 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Moore: But they are interlinked.
MR HUMPHRIES: They are interlinked; indeed they are. Is it possible to rank those two matters, to say which of the two is more important?
Mr Moore: No.
MR HUMPHRIES: Is it necessary to do so? Perhaps it is not. Let me put it this way. I will not express a view on that question, but I will say this much: Mr Berry told listeners to ABC radio this morning that HIV sufferers are, in a sense, under a sentence of death; that in the present state of medical technology and knowledge they are certain, regrettably, to die. Bringing people in this category forward will assist in their treatment, will alleviate their suffering; but it will not, in itself, in the present state of medical knowledge, save their lives.
The second question does save people's lives. The prevention of the spread of the disease, the notification of people who are at risk, is a vitally important process of ensuring that people's lives are not lost, and that is what this Government has lost sight of. Madam Speaker, I argue that the second issue is at least as important in ensuring that a proper public health policy is applied in the ACT.
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Humphries, I have to interrupt you because it is 45 minutes after the commencement of Assembly business.
Motion (by Mr Moore) agreed to:
That Assembly business be extended by 30 minutes.
MR HUMPHRIES: Madam Speaker, the fact is that this Government has set in place a regime which does not allow for the proper balance of those two factors I refer to - the need to prevent the spread of the disease and the need to bring forward people who are suffering from the disease. It does not do that.
There has been a great deal of quoting from the recommendations of the legal working party of the Intergovernmental Committee on AIDS; but it has all been selective, with respect, so far from those on that side of the house. The fact is that it recommends code notification, that is true; but, hand in hand, in the very next recommendation, on the very next page of this report, it makes reference to an equally important recommendation. I want to read that recommendation more fully than has been done so far. It states:
Partner notification should occur as recommended in the National HIV/AIDS Strategy, i.e. it should be raised during pre-test counselling, and be of a voluntary rather than coercive nature.
True. However, let me go on to read what it next says:
However, professional care-givers should be protected by legislation from liability in two circumstances:
. for breach of confidence actions by their clients in exceptional circumstances where they exercise their discretion to notify the partner;
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .