Page 3997 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 16 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This is misleading. It is not a fact at all that the difficulty was with the Attorney-General's Department. As Mr Berry himself signed the letter, he was fully aware that it was he and his own Health Department who were withholding the Attorney-General's advice and being improperly obstructionist. I will shortly set out why I say "improperly". What is plainly stated in the Health Minister's letter to me - I quote it in part - is this:
HIV ... has not been reported, except in coded form for research and statistical purposes. The proposed amendments to the Regulations will make all stages of HIV notifiable in coded form ...
What Mr Berry then says quite clearly above his signature, in two consecutive sentences here, is that HIV has been reported only in coded form. That means without personally identifying the patient. Mr Berry then says that the proposed amendments, which obviously must involve some change of some sort, will then - this is evidence that it was not the law now - require HIV to be reported in coded form; that is, without personally identifying the patient. Simply put, you cannot change something and have it end up as it was. Inescapably, then, he is admitting that at the time of writing his department had not been and was not complying with the law, whose requirements he well understood. Question No. 4 is answered again. Mr Berry has again provided evidence that he knew that that notification law was not being complied with. I have tabled a copy of Mr Berry's letter to me, entitled "Annexure H".
On 13 August 1992 the ACT Hansard record shows that the same Minister said:
In 1986 the Medical Officer of Health issued a bulletin to all ACT medical practitioners stating that all categories of infection with the virus were notifiable. The regulations, as they stand, require notification in accordance with ... Schedule 1, and this includes full name and address.
I have tabled a copy of the Hansard of that date, entitled "Annexure I". Question No. 1 is answered again. This is evidence that Mr Berry clearly knew that the law required the reporting of the full details of all patients. All categories of infection with the virus were notifiable. Then, in his very next breath, Mr Berry says plainly that his Government has decided to ignore the law. He said:
However, a policy decision has been made to bring the ACT into line with the practice in New South Wales and Victoria ... where coded information ... is required.
The simple fact is that this coded advising of HIV/AIDS cases had been the norm for some time under this Minister. Mr Berry well knew that it was illegal, as we have already established; but he did it anyway.
On 5 November 1992 the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ruled that the Health Department, in refusing to release the Attorney-General's legal opinion to Dr Proudfoot, was wrong. The AAT ordered the document to be released by 12 November 1992. Notwithstanding this AAT order, and with Mr Berry as their Minister, the Health Department decided that medical practitioners and the public should still not know what the Attorney-General's ruling was on the requirements of the reporting law. They refused to release the document,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .