Page 4029 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 16 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STEVENSON: It is not only what I say. It was also presented in the reasons for decision in the AAT case C92/17, the head of which was Mr Beddoe, who is a lawyer. It was also clear, as I said, to the Health Department's own legal director, Mr O'Halloran, and it was also certainly clear to Dr Proudfoot. Madam Speaker, in May this year discussion paper No. 1 was issued under the authority of Margaret Norington, director of services policy of the ACT Board of Health, and she stated:
Under the Regulations, Medical Practitioners, hospitals and pathologists are required -
I repeat "are required" -
to report cases of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome to the Medical Officer of Health ... by full name, giving details of address, date of birth -
and so on. She went on to state:
HIV infection has not been notified except in coded form for research and statistical purposes.
On 17 June this year Mr Berry said:
There is an agreement between all State governments on the way that HIV is notified. It is notified in a coded form ...
That is not correct. It misled this house. In South Australia and Western Australia they require full detailed reporting, and until recently, of course, so did Queensland and the ACT. Mr Berry misled this Assembly when he claimed otherwise. He knew that the department was failing to require the legal mandatory full reporting. Mr Berry said:
... HIV will continue to be notified differently from other infectious diseases because we are not going to drive HIV sufferers underground.
That is his opinion. It is clear that Mr Berry knew what the law was. It has been clearly stated that there is no distinction within the law on AIDS. In the law, in the regulations, AIDS is required to be reported, and Mr Berry knew that full well. He showed this when he said, as recorded in Hansard on 13 August this year:
However, a policy decision has been made to bring the ACT into line with the practice in New South Wales and Victoria ...
In other words, "It is not in line with that at the moment. It requires amendment of the regulations". He then amended the regulations because the regulations did not allow that priorly. On 13 August he went on to say in his tabled notes:
I would now like to inform the house that I am advised that ACT Health has never notified medical practitioners, pathologists and the hospitals that they no longer need to give name and address when notifying AIDS.
Here he suggests that they should - - -
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .