Page 4019 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 16 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Various legal opinions have been obtained and the latest legal opinion that we have from the Government Solicitor is that AIDS means infection with HIV at all stages.
So, Bob Scott indicated on 25 September that there is no doubt any more - everything is signed, sealed and delivered; we know exactly where we stand now. Then the annual report came out. It came out the week after Dr Scott said this. What does the annual report say? The annual report suggests that HIV is notifiable on a voluntary basis. Again we appear to be all over the place in this whole situation.
You will also be aware that every single activity report in this area for the whole 12-month period, up to June anyway, indicated that HIV was notifiable on a voluntary basis. Remember that Mr Berry, on 13 August, said that this never happened; it did not happen. People in ACT Health never notified medical practitioners, pathologists or anybody else on this issue. So, it would appear that Mr Berry had a legal advice, and one would have to suggest that it was more than likely the legal advice of 18 September 1991, which indicated quite clearly, as Dr Scott said in the Estimates Committee, that HIV was notifiable at all stages. At the very least, one would have to say that Mr Berry misled the house, or came very close to misleading the house.
Mr Berry: You cannot even say that, Kate.
MRS CARNELL: Okay, I will requote. I will withdraw that and requote what Mr Berry said on 17 June. He said that HIV notification was made voluntary, in coded form, and that HIV would continue to be notified differently from other diseases. At the very least, there seems to be substantially different advice given by Mr Berry in all sorts of places - here, in his annual report, and in his activity reports that are distributed very widely. I think general medical practitioners would have every right to suggest that information that is in the annual report is correct. The annual report, remember, was issued a week after Dr Scott made his comments at the Estimates Committee.
At the very least, Mr Berry was acutely aware of the situation that existed. He was acutely aware when he made the initial changes to the regulations in June, when he did not address the AIDS/HIV issue. He took quite a number of months to address the issue. At the very least, we had a situation, probably for 12 months but at least for six months, where the Minister was acutely aware of what the legislation said but had not got around to changing it.
Mr Wood: Where did Mr Humphries stand? You did not comment on that.
Mrs Carnell: I have no - - -
Mr Wood: Mr De Domenico might comment on Mr Humphries's story.
MR DE DOMENICO (5.01): Perhaps I will start off by commenting, through you, Madam Speaker, on that very point. Mr Wood stood up and he said, "But listen; here is a piece of paper dated April 1991 and you, Mr Humphries, from April until June 1991, when our Government took over, did not do anything in two months or three months".
Mr Wood: And 15 months before that.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .