Dr LIM - 1995-02-28
Can the minister advise honourable members of any developments arising from his meeting with the federal Minister for Human Services and Health, particularly in light of comments by the member for MacDonnell last week?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I am pleased to be able to advise honourable members that the federal Minister for Human Services and Health, Hon Carmen Lawrence, was indeed much more rational and appreciative of the difficulties facing us in addressing the problems of Aboriginal health than was the member for MacDonnell, the opposition spokesman in this Assembly on health matters. I am pleased to say that the meeting was worth while. Sometimes one does not know what the outcome of such meetings will be or whether it is worth travelling halfway across the nation to have them. I was able to raise issues with Hon Carmen Lawrence in respect of our shared concerns about Aboriginal health. The outcome of the meeting indicated that she too is concerned about the duplication and consequent waste of resources and the fact that resources directed towards providing services to Aboriginal people could be better used. She recognised also that the Territory has circumstances that are relevant to its own situation and that differ from the demands faced by the states. Likewise, that is not always a message that is easy to put across to federal politicians. However, the federal minister, recognises that we have a higher percentage of Aboriginal people in our population - some 25% - that 70% of these people live in remote areas that are difficult to service, and that it is difficult for them to avail themselves of services in some circumstances.
The federal member had some difficulty in discussing the matters in depth although I am pleased to say that she provided me with some information that she asked that I keep confidential. It is a matter for continuing discussion between herself and her Cabinet colleagues. I hope the practices, policies and procedures that the federal government hopes to put in place will come to fruition in the federal budget. From indications I received from the federal minister on Friday, I am pleased to state that the federal government will work with the Northern Territory government to address the problems that beset us. To that end, we each agreed to have an officer or officers appointed from within our departments to consider some options for presentation to both ministers over the next month or so. Those options will include the possibility of establishing some form of bilateral arrangement between the Commonwealth and the Territory whereby we can pursue these matters and overcome the duplication and the inefficient processes that we are experiencing currently. I emphasised to the federal minister my particular concerns about the duplication that occurs with 3 funding agencies - the Commonwealth, ATSIC and ourselves - often going in different directions and not spending taxpayers' money to the best advantage. From my meeting with the federal minister, I am confident in saying that we will see some benefit derive to the Territory, in particular to Aboriginal people, in the coming months.
That was in stark contrast to the circumstances that I left on Thursday with a censure motion moved against me in this Assembly by the member for MacDonnell. I must say that, on my return, I was gravely concerned after reading transcripts of what the honourable member
Page 457
had to say on television and radio, and comments made by the member for Barkly. The member for MacDonnell was given the opportunity to vent his spleen on the 7.30 Report on Thursday night. The interviewer asked: 'What would you do if you had the opportunity to address these problems with the minister?' Did the honourable member indicate that we had to work to improve the diet and to overcome the chronic malnutrition problems in Aboriginal people? He did not. Did he say that we must work to improve the personal and community hygiene of Aboriginal people? He did not. Did he seek a reduction in alcohol consumption ...
Mr EDE: A point of order, Mr Speaker! The question related to the minister's visit to Western Australia to talk to the federal minister. The minister is now attempting to revive, and indeed contribute to, a previous debate in this House. He has the opportunity to do that by other means, but he should not do it in Question Time.
Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The minister is referring to his conversation with the minister in Perth and comparing it with what was said here.
Mr REED: Mr Speaker, if the honourable members opposite had listened carefully to the question, they would be aware that it contained a reference to remarks made by the member for MacDonnell. I know why he has his head in his hands. Obviously, he recalls what he said on the 7.30 Report last Thursday.
He did not indicate that we should be considering ways of reducing alcohol consumption to reduce the resultant extreme levels of alcohol-related injury and domestic violence that see people entering our hospital system. He did not say that we should seek to reduce cigarette smoking to address the chronic levels of respiratory disease in Aboriginal people. Given an opportunity on the 7.30 Report to say what he would do, he simply said that we should 'be giving people free vehicles'. A Toyota-led health recovery is what is in the mind of the member for MacDonnell. That was his top priority. We are familiar with his priorities - the continuation of Labor's paternalistic policies in respect of Aboriginal affairs, more handouts causing more dependence and the removal from Aboriginal people of their ability to become more independent. We should be encouraging Aboriginal people to become more independent. The policies that we have been putting in place, with the construction of new health clinics and the provision of wide-ranging health services addressing the causative factors, are much more positive than the comments that the member for MacDonnell, the opposition spokesman, is able to make.
He should be ashamed of himself. I ask him in the future to be more precise in his remarks. If he wants to be critical, he should be factually critical. I refer him again to his comments in this Assembly last week where, on the basis of hearsay, he claimed that a doctor employed by the Department of Health and Community Services in Alice Springs was about to resign. I believe his words were: 'I hear that he is about to resign'. They will be recorded in Hansard. He used emotive words in an attempt to paint a picture that was much worse than the one that exists. When he heard that the doctor might be resigning, did the member check with him before making his comments in this Assembly? Of course not. He did not want to spoil a good story ...
Mr EDE: A point of order, Mr Speaker. Whilst you may have been justified in your previous ruling, the minister has not made any reference whatsoever since that time to the
Page 458
subject of the question that was asked of him. He has taken the opportunity to make a further contribution to the censure motion debate that occurred last week. I ask you to bring the minister to heel.
Mr SPEAKER: It is my understanding that the question was fairly broad.
Mr Ede: It was not. He asked him simply to report.
Mr SPEAKER: In fact, the minister is still comparing the reality of what was said by the member ...
Mr Ede: And therefore he can do it for the next 20 minutes?
Mr BAILEY: A point of order, Mr Speaker!
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have not finished ruling on this point of order. I ask the member for Wanguri to resume his seat.
There is no point of order.
Mr BAILEY: A point of order, Mr Speaker! I refer you to standing order 121. A question should not be asked which reflects on or is critical of the character or conduct of those persons whose conduct may only be challenged by a substantive motion. If such a question was asked, it breaches standing order 121.
Mr SPEAKER: I have no indication from the minister's words that he is making any reflections against the member for MacDonnell other than stating his understanding of what was said.
Mr REED: Mr Speaker, I emphasise that I am simply quoting comments made by the member for MacDonnell. I can fully understand why he is embarrassed by them because the doctor about whom he was speaking phoned my office yesterday to explain that he is not resigning, that he is embarrassed by the comments made by the member for MacDonnell and that he hopes the comments have not been taken incorrectly by either the department or myself. Before rising in this House with emotive hearsay propositions, as he so frequently does - and that has been clearly illustrated in this instance - I ask the member for MacDonnell to confirm the hearsay or rumour before repeating it in this Assembly.
Mr Bell: There are 6 positions and 3 people in them.
Mr REED: Whatever you want to say by way of interjection will not excuse you from your guilt in this instance in suggesting that a doctor was about to resign when ...
Mr BELL: A point of order, Mr Speaker! If the honourable minister wants to use emotive terms such as 'guilt', he has to do so by way of a substantive motion. I would be quite happy to debate this matter. At this stage, the minister has been on his feet for in excess of 10 minutes. If he wants to take up that amount of time with these comments, he owes this
Page 459
Assembly the courtesy of introducing a ministerial statement, which he can do at any time, or of moving a motion to have the whole matter debated again.
I point out to the minister that, if he believes the absence of DMOs is not a problem and that he has no responsibility because only 3 of the 6 positions are filled now and, by the end of March, there will be either 1 or zero positions filled - and he then alleges a peccadillo on my part because one person may have changed his mind - he is kidding himself. That would be bad enough, but he is also letting the Territory down.
Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Given the number of occasions on which the member for MacDonnell himself uses the word 'guilt', I am rather surprised that he considers its use a reason for calling a point of order.
Mr REED: Mr Speaker, the outburst from the member for MacDonnell is a clear indication that he fails to recognise this information as hearsay. Now he says that the doctor changed his mind. The doctor never had it in mind to resign in the first place. The member has been acting on rumour and innuendo and I can appreciate why he feels so guilty about it.
Page 460
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I am pleased to be able to advise honourable members that the federal Minister for Human Services and Health, Hon Carmen Lawrence, was indeed much more rational and appreciative of the difficulties facing us in addressing the problems of Aboriginal health than was the member for MacDonnell, the opposition spokesman in this Assembly on health matters. I am pleased to say that the meeting was worth while. Sometimes one does not know what the outcome of such meetings will be or whether it is worth travelling halfway across the nation to have them. I was able to raise issues with Hon Carmen Lawrence in respect of our shared concerns about Aboriginal health. The outcome of the meeting indicated that she too is concerned about the duplication and consequent waste of resources and the fact that resources directed towards providing services to Aboriginal people could be better used. She recognised also that the Territory has circumstances that are relevant to its own situation and that differ from the demands faced by the states. Likewise, that is not always a message that is easy to put across to federal politicians. However, the federal minister, recognises that we have a higher percentage of Aboriginal people in our population - some 25% - that 70% of these people live in remote areas that are difficult to service, and that it is difficult for them to avail themselves of services in some circumstances.
The federal member had some difficulty in discussing the matters in depth although I am pleased to say that she provided me with some information that she asked that I keep confidential. It is a matter for continuing discussion between herself and her Cabinet colleagues. I hope the practices, policies and procedures that the federal government hopes to put in place will come to fruition in the federal budget. From indications I received from the federal minister on Friday, I am pleased to state that the federal government will work with the Northern Territory government to address the problems that beset us. To that end, we each agreed to have an officer or officers appointed from within our departments to consider some options for presentation to both ministers over the next month or so. Those options will include the possibility of establishing some form of bilateral arrangement between the Commonwealth and the Territory whereby we can pursue these matters and overcome the duplication and the inefficient processes that we are experiencing currently. I emphasised to the federal minister my particular concerns about the duplication that occurs with 3 funding agencies - the Commonwealth, ATSIC and ourselves - often going in different directions and not spending taxpayers' money to the best advantage. From my meeting with the federal minister, I am confident in saying that we will see some benefit derive to the Territory, in particular to Aboriginal people, in the coming months.
That was in stark contrast to the circumstances that I left on Thursday with a censure motion moved against me in this Assembly by the member for MacDonnell. I must say that, on my return, I was gravely concerned after reading transcripts of what the honourable member
Page 457
had to say on television and radio, and comments made by the member for Barkly. The member for MacDonnell was given the opportunity to vent his spleen on the 7.30 Report on Thursday night. The interviewer asked: 'What would you do if you had the opportunity to address these problems with the minister?' Did the honourable member indicate that we had to work to improve the diet and to overcome the chronic malnutrition problems in Aboriginal people? He did not. Did he say that we must work to improve the personal and community hygiene of Aboriginal people? He did not. Did he seek a reduction in alcohol consumption ...
Mr EDE: A point of order, Mr Speaker! The question related to the minister's visit to Western Australia to talk to the federal minister. The minister is now attempting to revive, and indeed contribute to, a previous debate in this House. He has the opportunity to do that by other means, but he should not do it in Question Time.
Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The minister is referring to his conversation with the minister in Perth and comparing it with what was said here.
Mr REED: Mr Speaker, if the honourable members opposite had listened carefully to the question, they would be aware that it contained a reference to remarks made by the member for MacDonnell. I know why he has his head in his hands. Obviously, he recalls what he said on the 7.30 Report last Thursday.
He did not indicate that we should be considering ways of reducing alcohol consumption to reduce the resultant extreme levels of alcohol-related injury and domestic violence that see people entering our hospital system. He did not say that we should seek to reduce cigarette smoking to address the chronic levels of respiratory disease in Aboriginal people. Given an opportunity on the 7.30 Report to say what he would do, he simply said that we should 'be giving people free vehicles'. A Toyota-led health recovery is what is in the mind of the member for MacDonnell. That was his top priority. We are familiar with his priorities - the continuation of Labor's paternalistic policies in respect of Aboriginal affairs, more handouts causing more dependence and the removal from Aboriginal people of their ability to become more independent. We should be encouraging Aboriginal people to become more independent. The policies that we have been putting in place, with the construction of new health clinics and the provision of wide-ranging health services addressing the causative factors, are much more positive than the comments that the member for MacDonnell, the opposition spokesman, is able to make.
He should be ashamed of himself. I ask him in the future to be more precise in his remarks. If he wants to be critical, he should be factually critical. I refer him again to his comments in this Assembly last week where, on the basis of hearsay, he claimed that a doctor employed by the Department of Health and Community Services in Alice Springs was about to resign. I believe his words were: 'I hear that he is about to resign'. They will be recorded in Hansard. He used emotive words in an attempt to paint a picture that was much worse than the one that exists. When he heard that the doctor might be resigning, did the member check with him before making his comments in this Assembly? Of course not. He did not want to spoil a good story ...
Mr EDE: A point of order, Mr Speaker. Whilst you may have been justified in your previous ruling, the minister has not made any reference whatsoever since that time to the
Page 458
subject of the question that was asked of him. He has taken the opportunity to make a further contribution to the censure motion debate that occurred last week. I ask you to bring the minister to heel.
Mr SPEAKER: It is my understanding that the question was fairly broad.
Mr Ede: It was not. He asked him simply to report.
Mr SPEAKER: In fact, the minister is still comparing the reality of what was said by the member ...
Mr Ede: And therefore he can do it for the next 20 minutes?
Mr BAILEY: A point of order, Mr Speaker!
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have not finished ruling on this point of order. I ask the member for Wanguri to resume his seat.
There is no point of order.
Mr BAILEY: A point of order, Mr Speaker! I refer you to standing order 121. A question should not be asked which reflects on or is critical of the character or conduct of those persons whose conduct may only be challenged by a substantive motion. If such a question was asked, it breaches standing order 121.
Mr SPEAKER: I have no indication from the minister's words that he is making any reflections against the member for MacDonnell other than stating his understanding of what was said.
Mr REED: Mr Speaker, I emphasise that I am simply quoting comments made by the member for MacDonnell. I can fully understand why he is embarrassed by them because the doctor about whom he was speaking phoned my office yesterday to explain that he is not resigning, that he is embarrassed by the comments made by the member for MacDonnell and that he hopes the comments have not been taken incorrectly by either the department or myself. Before rising in this House with emotive hearsay propositions, as he so frequently does - and that has been clearly illustrated in this instance - I ask the member for MacDonnell to confirm the hearsay or rumour before repeating it in this Assembly.
Mr Bell: There are 6 positions and 3 people in them.
Mr REED: Whatever you want to say by way of interjection will not excuse you from your guilt in this instance in suggesting that a doctor was about to resign when ...
Mr BELL: A point of order, Mr Speaker! If the honourable minister wants to use emotive terms such as 'guilt', he has to do so by way of a substantive motion. I would be quite happy to debate this matter. At this stage, the minister has been on his feet for in excess of 10 minutes. If he wants to take up that amount of time with these comments, he owes this
Page 459
Assembly the courtesy of introducing a ministerial statement, which he can do at any time, or of moving a motion to have the whole matter debated again.
I point out to the minister that, if he believes the absence of DMOs is not a problem and that he has no responsibility because only 3 of the 6 positions are filled now and, by the end of March, there will be either 1 or zero positions filled - and he then alleges a peccadillo on my part because one person may have changed his mind - he is kidding himself. That would be bad enough, but he is also letting the Territory down.
Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Given the number of occasions on which the member for MacDonnell himself uses the word 'guilt', I am rather surprised that he considers its use a reason for calling a point of order.
Mr REED: Mr Speaker, the outburst from the member for MacDonnell is a clear indication that he fails to recognise this information as hearsay. Now he says that the doctor changed his mind. The doctor never had it in mind to resign in the first place. The member has been acting on rumour and innuendo and I can appreciate why he feels so guilty about it.
Page 460
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016