Page 4013 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 16 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The motion goes on to allege "a total inability or, in any event, failure to comprehend the seriousness of his offence". That again is not true. Mr Berry, with the weight of advice that he had sought, changed the law. He took action. He could see that the regulations in relation to notification were not adequate, were not capable of consistent interpretation, needed to be clarified, and he clarified them. That cannot be interpreted in any way as a failure to comprehend the seriousness of any situation. This part of the motion also refers to an offence. There has been no offence. Mr Berry has acted appropriately and with great propriety on this matter. It is this motion which I believe is offensive.
Finally, Madam Speaker, in respect of the fourth part of this motion, as I have said, I have total confidence in Mr Berry as Minister for Health. I do not require his resignation. In fact, it would be extremely distressing to me if Mr Berry felt that this matter in any way reflected on his ability to conduct his portfolio responsibilities. He has acted at all times appropriately, well, and with the best interests of the community that he serves uppermost in his mind. Madam Speaker, I believe that the motion put forward by Mr Stevenson should be roundly defeated on the floor of this Assembly.
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (4.42): Madam Speaker - - -
Mr Humphries: Mrs Carnell should get the next call. She is on this side of the chamber. We should alternate.
MADAM SPEAKER: Thank you for pointing that out, Mr Humphries. It does always come back to whom I see first. I think Mr Wood, unfortunately, was that person this time. Please continue, Mr Wood.
MR WOOD: I want to raise a couple of points that Mr Kaine claimed in his conclusion as the real thrust of the Liberals' argument. These points demonstrate how poorly put together and how weak the Liberals' argument is. Mr Kaine waved this set of papers that has been circulated and said, "It seems to me very well documented, very well considered. It is all there, dated and signed, and that is sufficient". But what are these papers? They are basically letters from Dr Proudfoot to various people, and replies to Dr Proudfoot, concluding with a letter from Mr Stevenson and a couple of other documents. Mr Kaine then went on to say that this is fundamentally - - -
Mr Kaine: What about the internal health organisation correspondence?
Ms Follett: I raise a point of order about the interjections, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER: Yes, I was on the point of commenting on them. Mr Kaine, please desist.
MR WOOD: Mr Kaine went on to say that this was fundamentally a legal issue. But the papers and the whole argument show otherwise. It remains an issue about the means of notification of AIDS/HIV. That is what the argument is about. That is what got Dr Proudfoot started on this exercise, and that is what continues to drive him. There is no other question. The legal question is clearly demonstrated in these papers and in other papers to be one of some confusion. That is what the legal situation is. The real situation is fundamental, basic, clear and unmistakable. It is the argument about the way of notification of AIDS/HIV. That is what the issue is and that is where it comes back to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .