Page 3991 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 16 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
of HIV/AIDS patients, that Wayne Bruce Berry had a responsibility to uphold the law, and that he knew the law, yet failed to uphold the law, his obligation to the people of Canberra and to this parliament is to resign not only his ministerial responsibilities but also his seat in the ACT Legislative Assembly. If he will not take this action voluntarily, it is our responsibility to ensure that he does.
There is, however, a fifth question that I will address today. It is one that compounds the seriousness of Wayne Berry's culpability. That question is: Did Wayne Berry mislead this house? I will present today evidence which shows that the Health Minister did mislead this house. This evidence, however, is not required to prove the validity of this motion. I will present the evidence in chronological order. The following chronology of acts and omissions will clearly show that this house can have no confidence in Wayne Berry, either as the Health Minister or as a member of this Assembly.
The facts are that since 30 September 1983 Regulation No. 10 under the Public Health (Infectious and Notifiable Diseases) Act clearly required all doctors to notify full personal details, including name and address, of patients diagnosed as having human immuno-deficiency virus, HIV, to the Medical Officer of Health. This measure was put in place as a means of protecting the public health by empowering that public official to take steps, authorised by the Act, to minimise the spread of the disease. But in order for the Medical Officer of Health to fulfil that obligation, he needed to know the details of patients who have the disease.
On 15 January 1985, at a meeting of the AIDS management group of the ACT Health Authority, the then Medical Officer of Health, Dr Sheena McLeod, addressed the issue of notifiability of AIDS and expressed concern that she was no longer receiving notification of positive test results from doctors and pathologists following ACT Health Authority communications and that this lack of monitoring could have serious implications. What I just said was a direct quote from a document from exhibit B, minutes of the meeting, which was part of the evidence considered by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in AAT case No. C92/17. This case will be referred to in more detail later in my speech.
On 25 November 1985 Mr R.J. Cheshire of the ACT Health Department issued a circular stating that under the regulations only category A or full-blown AIDS was notifiable to the Medical Officer of Health. This document forms part of exhibit B of AAT file No. C92/17. On 23 December 1985 Mr J. O'Halloran, director of the legal branch of the ACT Health Department, sent a minute to the Health Department chairman, Mr Bissett, via O'Halloran's superiors, Messrs Foskett and Sexton. It read in part:
I confirm my recent verbal advice to you that your press statement that only type "A" AIDS is notifiable in the ACT is not supported by the regulations.
... ... ...
Sub-Regulation 3(3) provides "that for the purposes of these Regulations where the organism presumed to cause an infectious disease or a notifiable disease is found to be present in a person that person shall be deemed to be suffering from that disease.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .