Page 4017 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 16 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MADAM SPEAKER: Please continue.
MR HUMPHRIES: If you are not going to rule in my favour - - -
MADAM SPEAKER: Please continue.
MR HUMPHRIES: Fine; thank you. Madam Speaker, the suggestion has been made, by Mr Wood particularly, that in some way I acted improperly.
Mr Wood: No; I just said that you did not do anything.
MR HUMPHRIES: Madam Speaker!
Mr Berry: It is an issue of debate, Madam Speaker. He cannot debate the issue that was raised by Mr Wood. He has had his turn. If he wants to raise it as a personal explanation after debate, that is quite appropriate and I would welcome it. But he cannot - - -
MR HUMPHRIES: I have been given leave to do it now.
Mr Berry: Well, I just raised a point of order. I am testing that leave.
Mr Kaine: Are you challenging the Speaker's ruling?
Mr Berry: It is just a point of order.
Mr Kaine: Are you dissenting from the Speaker's ruling?
MADAM SPEAKER: There is no challenge to the Speaker's ruling. Mr Berry is quite rightly pointing out that we cannot re-enter the debate. Mr Humphries understands that. Mr Humphries, it is a personal explanation - to explain how you were misrepresented. You are not to re-present any argument, Mr Humphries, but simply to point out how you were personally misrepresented. I will give you one last chance.
MR HUMPHRIES: Are you suggesting, Madam Speaker, that I have not been doing that?
MADAM SPEAKER: Yes, Mr Humphries, I have already ruled that you were presenting an argument and I asked you to skip it. Now, would you come to the personal explanation.
MR HUMPHRIES: Well, I clearly cannot, Madam Speaker, if you are going to rule in that fashion. I am afraid I cannot.
MRS CARNELL (4.53): I think it is important to start by going over where we have been. We all know that in 1983 - we certainly all know now - the Public Health (Infectious and Notifiable Diseases) Regulations listed AIDS as a notifiable disease. It has been quoted on a number of occasions that subregulation 3(3) indicates that, where an organism is present, then a person is deemed to have that particular infectious or notifiable disease. We also know that in 1985 a legal opinion was put forward which indicated that both HIV and AIDS were notifiable. We know that another legal advice or legal opinion was forthcoming on 18 September 1991. That is the one that Dr Proudfoot has had much trouble in getting. It was an opinion from Mr Bayliss - the advice of 18 September 1991.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .