Page 947 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 17 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
been spelt out. At the end of that meeting on 12 February, Mirinjani went away and were going to make a detailed response; they were going to put it in writing to formalise it. It did not need to be in enormous detail, because that was not required.
They took seven weeks to respond to that. I am not complaining about that. But they did not send it back the next day or the next week. It was received back on 31 March. They took their time over that, and I think that is reasonable. I have no argument with it. A week after that the Planning Authority received its response from the leasing branch seeking amendments to the development conditions. For six weeks, two departments were handling this matter. That is about the same period of time as Mirinjani had it. At that time there was a very large workload with a number of other quite significant documents to be dealt with. That took us up to 12 May, when the Planning Authority sent the revised conditions to the leasing branch. They did not muck around. On 14 May they sent the documents back to Mirinjani. On 14 May they sent the documents saying, "There you are. You want that".
A month later, on Monday this week, we got a comment that we have been slow; that there have been bureaucratic delays. That is the history of it. You think about it and you judge it. I believe that the matter has proceeded properly. We in this chamber know - indeed, there is a strong emphasis in this chamber, from some more than others - that we have our planning guidelines, our policies and our ways of doing things; and they are not rapid. I do not know whether the person who made this speech thinks it is just a matter of signing a document. That is not the case. The bureaucrats have proceeded promptly. Indeed, on 1 June they met with architects. Ahead of Mirinjani, the Planning Authority met with architects to keep things moving. So I am disappointed that Mirinjani management should make those comments, and I am disappointed that the papers would not seek to have a reasonable story on their front page.
HIV and AIDS
MRS CARNELL: My question is addressed to the Minister for Health. The Public Health (Infectious and Notifiable Diseases) Regulations currently require the notification of auto-immune deficiency syndrome. This situation has been confirmed recently in substantial regulatory amendments. Why is HIV, a highly infectious disease and the precursor of AIDS, not listed as an infectious disease or a notifiable condition in the new regulations?
MR BERRY: The issue of notification of AIDS and HIV has been one that has been around for some time. I am sure that Mrs Carnell, as a professional, would know why HIV is not listed.
Mrs Carnell: No. I just asked.
MR BERRY: I am sure you would know, if you were a health professional, or a real one.
Mr Humphries: We would all like to know.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .