Page 3996 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 16 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Under the Regulations, medical practitioners, hospitals and pathologists are required to report cases of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome to the Medical Officer of Health ... by full name, giving details of address, date of birth and the treating medical practitioner's name ... HIV infection has not been notified except in coded form for research and statistical purposes.
We will recall the clear legal statement given by the Health Department's legal director, Mr O'Halloran, "Annexure A". This was unequivocal advice that HIV and full-blown or category A AIDS were to be treated as one and the same for purposes of compliance with these reporting requirements under the regulations. In spite of this, senior public servants, in full knowledge of the fact, continued to act illegally for some considerable period of time. This was with the full knowledge and complicity of Mr Berry as Health Minister. This answers question No. 4 and proves that Mr Berry failed to uphold the law. His own director of services policy of the ACT Board of Health stated that, though the law required the full name and address and other details of HIV/AIDS patients to be notified to the Medical Officer of Health, this was not being done. I have already tabled a copy of page 5 of the document I quoted, entitled "Annexure E".
On 17 June 1992 the Hansard record shows that Mr Berry, addressing Mrs Kate Carnell on HIV reporting procedures, said:
What she wants to do is to drive HIV sufferers underground. That is what she wants to do. There is an agreement between all State governments on the way that HIV is notified. It is notified in a coded form - - -
Mr Berry then went on to say:
It is notified in a coded form ... Voluntarily.
(Extension of time granted) Thank you, members. South Australia and Western Australia require full, detailed reporting and, until recently, so did Queensland and the ACT. Mr Berry misled the Assembly when he claimed that it was otherwise. In answer to question No. 5, this provides the evidence that Mr Berry misled the house. On this occasion, though, he went on to reiterate that he well knew that his department was failing to require the legally mandatory full reporting. He said:
... HIV will continue to be notified differently from other infectious diseases because we are not going to drive HIV sufferers underground.
Question No. 4 is answered again. This again evidences that the Health Minister knew that the law was being broken and in fact directed that this be done.
On 10 July 1992 the Minister replied to my letter of 21 April 1992 in the same misleading style as his earlier letter to Dr Proudfoot. I state his reply in part:
... regarding Dr Alex Proudfoot's concerns about the reporting procedures for HIV/AIDS in the ACT and the fact that he was unable to obtain a formal legal opinion from the Attorney-General's Department on this matter.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .