Page 3504 - Week 13 - Thursday, 26 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (11.36): Madam Speaker, the emergence of the human immunodeficiency virus and the spread of the AIDS epidemic has been one of the great tragedies of the latter part of this century. It has affected millions of lives. It will cost millions of lives. We as Australians should be proud of the fact that Australia is seen internationally as one of the countries that are leading the world in a mature and enlightened approach to this disease. We are seen as the model for the control of AIDS in Western society. That is an extraordinary thing, because anyone who knows the history of Australian government and the Australian federation, with Federal and State and Territory governments who tend to spend most of their time squabbling, and two major political parties who tend to spend most of their time squabbling and taking cheap political points, would be amazed that we as a nation have been able to lead the world in a mature approach to AIDS.
Every State and Territory government has cooperated with the Federal Government in this approach so far. Not one major political party has thought that there would be political capital in getting down in the gutter, in the muck, and attacking governments, raising nonsense, and raising homosexuality as the Opposition did today. No-one has done it. Not one Liberal Party Health Minister has done it. But Mrs Carnell has got the prize. Mrs Carnell has decided to be the one who cannot resist getting down there in the sewer and making grubby politics about the control of AIDS. I think, Madam Speaker, that that is something that we should all be ashamed of.
I noted Mr Humphries's remarks. They were a lot more rational. He was directing himself to a debate that we have had about what the law was and what it is. That is fine. Mrs Carnell's remarks were grubby. In the back of this report there are - - -
Mr Kaine: Madam Speaker, you are very quick to pull up members of this side of the house when attacks on other people's characters are made, but you do not stop this Minister. I think that what he just said is absolutely scandalous. I think you should draw him back and ask him to conduct debate in a reasonable way.
Mr Berry: Under what standing order is this point of order raised?
Mr Kaine: I am asking the Speaker to use her commonsense and to ask the Minister to be decent and reasonable in his debate. This personal attack nonsense is unacceptable.
MADAM SPEAKER: As the debate has been interrupted, may I remind all members of the house that the debate was previously stopped to allow Mrs Carnell silence, and silence was achieved. Could we similarly have silence for Mr Connolly? Mr Connolly, perhaps you might keep the spirit of Mr Kaine's advice in mind whilst you continue.
MR CONNOLLY: I certainly would not attack Mr Kaine, because I could not imagine Mr Kaine conducting himself as Mrs Carnell did earlier on. She ignored the vast body of research and writing on AIDS. What was her source for this nonsense about compulsory notification? An article in Who magazine. Well, there we stand. Who magazine, some trashy news magazine, says that we should have compulsory notification and Mrs Carnell says that we have to have notification; that people have to be obliged to notify if they have AIDS.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .