Page 4012 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 16 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
That was the advice to Mr Humphries. I table that document. There is no doubt whatsoever that legal opinion in relation to the notification of HIV and AIDS has varied. If we look at Mr Stevenson's own documents, even in the document dated 23 December 1985, which Mr Stevenson has put forward as proof of his allegation, the writer, J. O'Halloran, Director, Legal, says quite clearly:
In my opinion this means ...
J. O'Halloran clearly admits that there are other opinions. Madam Speaker, I think that all members in this Assembly will acknowledge that legal opinions vary, that legal opinions may change over time, and that at any one point in time different legal advisers may give different opinions on the same issue. There is no doubt whatsoever that legal opinion on this matter has varied over the years.
I would say, Madam Speaker, that it is also a fact that medical opinion on this issue has varied over the years. HIV/AIDS is a relatively new disease, a very mysterious disease, and it is only as the years progress that more and more information comes to light on the disease - that the risks of the disease become more apparent, that the pattern of infection becomes more apparent, that the people who are at risk become more and more apparent to the medical profession. There is no doubt in my mind that, just as legal opinion on the correct interpretation of the regulations has varied, medical opinion has developed over the years as well. So, I totally refute part 1 of Mr Stevenson's motion, unless members are willing to pass the same motion in regard to Mr Humphries, for that is, indeed, the situation.
Madam Speaker, part 2 of Mr Stevenson's motion alleges that "For this, he showed no contrition". That is simply untrue. Mr Berry has acted appropriately in making sure that the law is now clear. If that is not contrition over a state of affairs which he and Mr Humphries knew to be inadequate, I do not know what is. Mr Berry has now ensured that the notification of all stages of HIV/AIDS is in line with other States, except for Queensland, and is made in coded form. To me, that is an appropriate legal and humanitarian response to this issue in our community. To say that he showed no contrition is simply a political assertion. It is no more than that. It is grandstanding and it is untrue. Mr Berry has acted responsibly, appropriately and with compassion. If it had occurred earlier, if, for instance, Mr Humphries had done it, he would have been applauded by members on this side of the chamber.
Part 3 of Mr Stevenson's motion alleges and reads in part:
As his behaviour demonstrates a wanton disregard and lack of respect for the law ...
I have already spoken on that, Madam Speaker, and I say again that this part of the proposition is simply not correct. Mr Berry has acted in a timely fashion, or as timely a fashion as was possible, and in due process of law. He has changed the law, Madam Speaker. Up to that point he was aware that legal opinion on the law varied. I am sure that Mr Humphries, as I have proved, was also aware that there was variation in opinion. To interpret that as a wanton disregard and lack of respect for the law is simply political posturing, and Mr Stevenson knows that it is. Madam Speaker, this part of the motion is as offensive and as untrue as is the rest.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .