Page 4001 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 16 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is all right for people to embark on a campaign about those issues. I would not expect any support from Mr Stevenson on anything where one is shown to support a view which just happens to be supported by the gay community. I would not expect Mr Stevenson to support me one way or the other there. The gay community very clearly support the notification of HIV in coded form. They do that for very clear reasons, because of their fears about discrimination. Professionals throughout the world know that where there is a fear of discrimination when it comes to the reporting of HIV there is a grave risk to the community that the notification of the disease will not occur because of that fear of discrimination. Madam Speaker, from my point of view that is a correct view. Leading experts in this field form the same view. The most recent report of the legal working party of the Intergovernmental Committee on AIDS - I think I have said in the past that it was issued on 9 November, as I recall - says, in recommendation 2.1.2:
Only coded (i.e. non-identifiable) and confirmed ... data should be required to be notified in State and Territory public health legislation with the obligation to do so being placed on laboratories in cases of HIV infection and on doctors in the case of clinical diagnosis of AIDS.
I support that view, and that is a view that has been supported by, as I have said earlier, successive administrations of health in the ACT. I have also said that there are differing views about this. Some people out in the community believe that there should be no distinction between HIV and other reportable diseases, and there is a very distinct group of experts who say that there ought to be. So, on health grounds, Madam Speaker, I think the best outcome is for it to be notified in coded form. One day in the future, when there is no fear of discrimination because one is unfortunate enough to have caught HIV or to have AIDS, in the various circumstances where that can happen, maybe it could be treated differently; but in my view, and in the view of those who support my view, that is not the case now.
I am not going to argue about the legal position. I will say, though, that the campaign that has been run by Dr Proudfoot has been based on a different view from that which I have just expressed. That is made clear in his letter, which was referred to as "Annexure B" by Mr Stevenson. He says:
Many jurisdictions throughout the world (including Queensland and several states of the USA) operate a system of compulsory HIV notification with full identification to the public health authority.
He goes on to say:
I believe such an arrangement would save lives. As I have explained, the law of the ACT has laid down such a system, but the law is being flouted.
He, quite obviously, has a different view from all of the other experts around the country. The Liberals have expressed a view similar to Dr Proudfoot's.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .