Page 4003 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 16 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
For Mr Stevenson to say that I flouted the law is quite clearly an emotional position which has no substance. My position as Health Minister is to defend the health of the people of the ACT. The experts around this country, and the New South Wales Liberal Government, the Victorian Government and others, support me in that respect. I am quite happy with the way that that process has ensued. The paper trail which Mr Stevenson spoke about in his speech is something that I have not been able to address in detail, but I have no reason to say that the timing of all of the letters and all of the letters that he has put forward are inaccurate in any way, without having the time to check them. I know that one particular letter to Dr Proudfoot made very clear our position in relation to the notification of AIDS and how we intended to continue to pursue it. I think this Assembly itself can be congratulated for adopting new regulations. (Extension of time granted) The passage of those regulations in this place made it quite clear.
I think Mr Stevenson talked about inaction at one point in his motion. He talks about contrition and flagrantly breaching statutory duty to uphold the rule of law. This is a view which is expressed by somebody who is opposed to the outcome of the Government's deliberations. I say, Madam Speaker, that the motion is tainted by a particular position about the way that we deal with HIV and AIDS in the ACT. Dare I say that there is also, I suspect, an element of homophobia involved in this whole process. I think that that is regrettable. I think the record will show that not only have we provided the right sort of skill, care and attention, if I can use those terms, for people who suffer with AIDS, but also we have done it for the community as well, and we will continue to do it.
MR KAINE (Leader of the Opposition) (4.04): The motion that is before us is a serious one. My interjection when Mr Berry got to his feet was not intended in any way to be derisory; it was to warn him that this is a serious matter and that he should address the issues that the motion raises. It is distinctly not about what Mr Berry or anybody else thinks about the reporting of HIV and AIDS. It is about the behaviour of a Minister. That is why I interjected. It is a very serious matter and it is not one that I can skate over lightly. I suggest that it is one that the Minister may have addressed differently. That is why I interjected. I would very much dislike to be in the position that the Minister is in now, of being confronted with a motion of no confidence, and I would have appreciated somebody suggesting to me, perhaps in the heat of the moment, that I needed to address the issue. The Minister has not done so.
I have kept out of this debate on the notification of HIV/AIDS up until now because Mrs Carnell has been conducting it very competently. There has been an exchange across the floor of the house between Mrs Carnell and the Minister. The Minister has stood his ground, for whatever reasons, even though I believe that he is wrong; but I have not intruded. Now I cannot keep out of it, because it is a much more serious matter than a debate about notification of HIV and AIDS. Mr Stevenson has put together a fairly convincing picture of a Minister who knows the law, who has been advised by his legal advisers of what the law is, but who has failed to put that law into effect. In fact, I suggest, he almost convicted himself when he got to his feet and said, "Sure, I know the law. I do not agree with it, and I think I am justified".
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .