Page 3266 - Week 12 - Thursday, 19 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR LAMONT: As you are a member of that committee, Mr Kaine, I am surprised at you. As you would be aware, that matter has not been the subject of any deliberation and/or consideration by the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee. Until such time as it is, I am not in a position to have to do anything that you have suggested that I should be doing.
Notifiable Diseases
MR STEVENSON: My question is addressed to Mr Berry. It concerns an important matter of public health. A doctor, Alex Proudfoot, recently sought clarification from the Health Department on a doctor's responsibilities under existing laws to report notifiable diseases, including AIDS. The answer came by way of written advice from the Attorney-General's Department to the Health Minister, who refused to release it, for no known reason. As this doctor has a number of years' direct experience in the sexually transmitted diseases area, he was gravely concerned about the public health risk of proposals such as regulation change No. 27 gazetted on 17 November 1992, which eliminates the capacity to inform partners of AIDS patients that they are at risk. In the public interest, Dr Proudfoot filed a freedom of information request for the data. This was denied. Again in the public interest, he appealed the matter to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and won. This was at his own expense. The Government chose not to abide by the umpire's decision. They still refused to release this document, for no apparent reason, filing an appeal to the Supreme Court and seeking to recoup their legal costs from Dr Proudfoot.
I ask the following: Will the Labor Party withdraw from this shameful misuse of its legal resources and release this document? If it will not, will the Minister guarantee to pay the legal costs of both parties to this needless appeal, given that Dr Proudfoot acted from a position of public, not personal, interest? If not, why is this disclosure being so vigorously resisted and why should Dr Proudfoot potentially pay for this ill-advised appeal? Finally, will reporting requirements for all other notifiable diseases be reduced to the functionally useless level of anonymous reporting now applicable to AIDS?
Ms Follett: Madam Speaker, on the last part of Mr Stevenson's question, I would ask whether Mr Stevenson has in fact reflected on a vote of the Assembly.
Mr Stevenson: No, yes, yes, no.
MADAM SPEAKER: Order, Mr Stevenson! I cannot think at the same time as listening to yeses and noes. Just let me consider the matter for a moment. We are worried that the whole matter may be sub judice.
Mr Berry: There is a response that will not interfere with the operation of the courts.
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Stevenson, I would prefer to read the question and to give you the call later, so that I am absolutely sure that we are not transgressing sub judice rules.
Mr Stevenson: I am only too happy for you to do that, although Mr Berry did say that he has an answer that would not interfere.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .