2012-02-23
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise you of the presence in the gallery of the Gifted and Talented Class from Moil Primary School, accompanied by Ms Natalie Parkes and Mrs Samantha Saynor. On behalf of honourable members I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have before me a document relating to pairs for me and the member for Fong Lim from 10.15 am today until noon. I thank the member for Fong Lim for that.
Mr Tollner: It is my pleasure, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr Tollner: Anything I can do to help.
Madam SPEAKER: I will remember that, member for Fong Lim.
Mr Tollner: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr McCARTHY (Construction): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Building Act to provide for two different matters. The first matter relates to miscellaneous housekeeping matters. The second matter is in response to the commencement of the Commonwealth Disability Access to Premises Buildings Standards 2010. Since the commencement of the significant reforms to the Building Act in 2006 the act has been tested and it has become apparent that a number of minor housekeeping amendments are required.
Some of those housekeeping matters were included in the Building Amendment (Registration and Other Matters) Bill 2011 introduced in the Legislative Assembly on 23 November 2011. That bill relates to registration requirements for builders and the residential building consumer package.
The three remaining housekeeping matters in this bill are to allow the Practitioners Board to impose conditions on an applicant’s registration; to allow for an extension to the building contractor’s registration as a one-off to spread out the common date for registration to assist with processing registrations; and to provide appeal rights to the Building Appeals Board for applicants seeking accreditation for building products and construction methods from the Building Advisory Committee.
The functions and powers of the Building Practitioners Board include considering applications for registration as a building practitioner. If the applicant is considered fit and proper for registration and has met the qualification and experience requirements the board must register the person. On occasion, the Practitioners Board is required to consider an application where a person may meet most but not all of the requirements relating to experience. Currently, the act does not enable the board to place conditions on a practitioner’s registration which would enable registration, subject to particular conditions.
The bill will insert a provision to enable the board to impose conditions on the registration of a practitioner as the board considers appropriate. The conditions, however, must not be inconsistent with the act, regulations or a ministerial determination. The provision also specifies an offence of up to 40 penalty units for a breach of a condition of registration. This was considered necessary on the basis of advice that the existing offences against compliance with registration requirements in section 22 would not extend to a breach of a condition.
To ensure that all practitioners work within the scope of their registration, including any conditions, the bill also inserts a provision requiring the board to make an entry in the register of all conditions imposed on a practitioner’s registration.
The second housekeeping matter relates to the common date for renewal for some building contractors. Immediately before the commencement of legislation that introduced the registration of building contractors on 3 July 2006, a high number of applications were processed. The common registration date for those contractors was 3 July 2006, and the duration of registration for building contractors continues for two years.
Due to that common registration date, the extension of transitional arrangements that occurred, and the subsequent first registrations, a large number of registered builders seek renewal between July to December every two years. Specifically, within the five months from July to November in 2012, 60% of renewals for building contractors within a 24-month cycle will be processed. The five months from July to November constitute only 20% of time in that 24-month cycle. In terms of volume, that is 526 applications out of a total of 857 current building contractor registrations being processed in a short time frame.
To address the problems associated with processing large volumes of applications within a short time frame, as a one-off, this bill will amend existing section 24D to enable the regulations to extend the registration period beyond two years for building contractors who were first registered between 1 July 2006 and 30 June 2007. It is intended that regulations will specify that the extension will be to the builder’s birthday or, if there are two nominees for a corporation, the nominee whose birthday first occurs. New registrations will continue to have the renewal date as the date of first registration.
The third housekeeping matter relates to the process of accreditation of building products, construction methods, designs, components or systems by the Building Advisory Committee. There is currently power in the Building Act at section 53 that allows such accreditation, although there is no defined process and no associated appeal rights. The accreditations granted are included in a register referred to as the Northern Territory Deemed to Comply Manual.
The function of assessing and granting approval for accreditation has been the subject of legal advice. Legal advice is that a right of appeal to the Appeals Board should exist, and the bill corrects this anomaly through an amendment to existing section 19.
The bill also makes some minor changes to the head of power in section 53 to enable the regulations to set out a defined process for the application of products for accreditation. Once the regulations have been prepared, industry will have an opportunity to comment on the proposed process, including any proposed fees that may be prescribed by regulation.
The commencement of the Commonwealth Standards occurred on 1 May 2011 to coincide with the commencement of the 2011 edition of the Building Code of Australia. The Commonwealth Standards is a legislative instrument made under the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992. The standards contain both administrative and technical provisions. The Building Code of Australia is the relevant standard for building work adopted in each jurisdiction in Australia and contains only technical requirements.
Each state and territory provides for the administrative aspects of adopting those technical standards through relevant building control legislation. The 2011 edition of the Building Code of Australia incorporated new access provisions that replicate the technical requirements set out in the Commonwealth Standards. To ensure the administrative provisions of the Commonwealth Standards are given effect, each jurisdiction was to consider amending its respective building control legislation to replicate those provisions contained in Parts 1 to 4 of the standards.
Non-compliance with the standards can result in a complaint to the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Commissioner and could also result in a claim of unlawful discrimination in a federal court. Section 32 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 provides that it is unlawful to contravene the disability standards. A complete defence under the standards is compliance with the technical provisions which are the same technical requirements relating to disability access in the Building Code of Australia. If compliance with those requirements would impose unjustifiable hardship, the Commonwealth Standards permit a modification or departure from compliance to the extent that it would not involve unjustifiable hardship. The standards set out what a federal court may consider when determining whether compliance would involve unjustifiable hardship at Part 4.1. One of the matters a federal court will consider is any decisions made by a state or territory panel established to make recommendations on building access matters.
The bill inserts 129F and 129G in the act to enable an owner or lessee to apply to the Building Appeals Board for a decision that compliance with the disability access provisions in the Building Code of Australia would impose unjustifiable hardship. This will enable those applicants to proceed with building work where there is a modification or departure from full compliance with the access provisions in the Building Code of Australia.
To determine these applications, the bill inserts clause 129H which requires a Building Appeals Board to consider the same matters set out in 4.1 of the standards. In addition to providing for access modification decisions, the bill inserts 129D and 129E to enable the Building Appeals Board to make decisions about alternative solutions. Alternative solutions are a feature of both the Commonwealth Standards and the Building Code of Australia. Those documents contain performance requirements which may be met by using the deem to satisfy provisions or by using an alternative solution that is at least equivalent.
The deem to satisfy provisions contain technical measurements, calculations, and other quantifiable measures. By complying with those provisions, a person can be sure they have met the relevant performance requirements and, accordingly, it is an absolute defence to a claim under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992. To allow for innovative building solutions, the performance requirements may also be met if an alternative solution is at least equivalent to the deem to satisfy provisions and, therefore, complies with the performance requirements.
Currently, building certifiers may consider whether an alternative solution meets the performance requirements of the Building Code of Australia. It is not proposed that it be mandatory for the Building Appeals Board to consider alternative solutions relating to disability access. A certifier will still retain the ability to consider an application for an alternative solution. However, the certifier or owner may choose to apply to the board for an opinion for a proposed alternative solution for a disability access provision.
It is intended that for disability access decisions, the Building Appeals Board be constituted in accordance with the national protocol on disabled access. The protocol provides that where a body is established to consider access-related matters, the membership should include a sufficient number of people with relevant expertise. It also specifies that the body must include at least one person competent in access or, where the body consists of more than three people, at least one-third of those members must be competent in access matters.
The administrative provisions of the standards also allow for some concessions relating to lessees and existing lifts and toilets. It is intended that the regulations will incorporate those concessions. The regulations will also provide for fees payable for applications to the board relating to alternative solutions and access modification decisions. Regulations will also set out requirements for notifications on building and occupancy permits for building work that features an alternative solution, or has been the subject of an access modification decision that has permitted modified compliance with the disability access provisions.
Victoria has made legislative provision for the consideration of unjustifiable hardship applications vested in its Building Appeals Board, and had an existing provision for the consideration of alternative solutions. The response to the Commonwealth standards in this bill was modelled on the relevant provisions in the Victorian Building Act.
It is expected that this bill will facilitate consistent decision-making between the Northern Territory building control system and the Federal Court under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, where modified compliance with the disability access provisions on the basis of unjustifiable hardship is sought. It will also enable the consideration of alternative solutions in relation to disability access provisions. This will mean greater certainty for industry stakeholders, which was one of the main objectives of the Commonwealth standards.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 20 October 2011.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Deputy Speaker, I notice this bill was delayed. I guess it was because of negotiations with the Independent member for Nelson who was waivering at one stage about some of the concerns raised by the opposition with regard to this bill. However, the slick negotiators that you are, you have him across the line. It looks like this bill will pass with the assistance of the member for Nelson, which is deeply disturbing to the opposition, largely due to some particular clauses which I know the minister is aware of. Our position really has not changed on those.
We, largely, support the bill - most parts of the bill, say 99%. The objectives of the bill are to promote and protect public health and safety by minimising - and I could list a couple of those points here which were provided to me in a briefing - the accidental and deliberate poisoning by regulated substances; misadventures by poisoning by regulated substances; the manufacture of substances of abuse and the diversion for abuse of substances and abuse; and harm from therapeutic goods, etcetera. The thrust of the bill generally has the support of the opposition.
The area that we are concerned about, and it struck me straight away during the briefing, is clause 89, Issuing prescription to a patient. I can outline that for the House:
(1) An authorised prescriber commits an offence if the prescriber:
There is a maximum penalty of 100 units.
Subsection (1) does not apply if the patient is a partner of the recipient and the substance is for treating a prescribed medical condition of the partner, and the prescribed medical condition applies to the issue of the prescription.
Essentially, the prescribed medical condition in this case is chlamydia. We all know how widespread that is across the Northern Territory. Over the years, governments of all persuasions have been at pains to reduce this condition across the Territory. This government believes this is a mechanism which will go a long way in reducing that.
Essentially, it is extended partner therapy - that is what they call it in the United States - or patient delivered partner therapy, or PDPT. In other words, someone can go to a physician and say: ‘I have chlamydia’, or be diagnosed with chlamydia and say: ‘My partner, therefore, would have chlamydia but does not want to come to the doctor so would you provide me the medication so I can dispense it to him or her?’ That raises a number of concerns, not only the fact that someone could be receiving medication without their knowledge - there is no real protection in here for the patient who might be receiving this medication. There are plenty of protections for the authorised prescriber, that is the GP who might be issuing the prescription or issuing the drugs, but not for the person who might be taking it - particularly without their knowledge. That raises a number of concerns.
Also there is the issue that stuck out alarmingly to me of child protection. We have had a couple of briefings with a few people who have tried to reassure us that it is very rare that such a situation would arise where a person would be able to cover up child abuse by providing a child with prescription medication for chlamydia. The answers I have received to those concerns are that it is very rare that this sort of thing would happen; it is very unlikely that this sort of thing would happen; that child abusers or such offenders would not go to such lengths to cover up child abuse; or in these circumstances it does not really fit the profile of a child abuser. It is all a bit nebulous; it is all maybe not, or we do not really think it would happen.
It is not substantial enough for me and, indeed, for the opposition to sign off on the clause. In our view, the door is being left ajar ever so slightly. Maybe you are right, minister, and maybe Dr Howard Bath is correct, that maybe it is a rare occurrence, or maybe it is highly unlikely. However, that does not actually categorically rule out the possibility and, as a result, this particular clause cannot have the support of the opposition.
You have a look at the situation with child abuse across the Northern Territory: to suggest it is bad would be putting it lightly. I do not suggest for a second that this government condones anything such as child abuse, or you would be even trying to facilitate it. I have to say though that your efforts with regard to child protection in the Northern Territory have been far from exemplary.
There are a number of outstanding notifications; we have had a couple of reports. The member for Araluen has raised a number of concerns about what is unfolding across the Northern Territory, particularly in remote communities, with regard to child abuse. It is something that is with us and it is not diminishing at what we would say is an acceptable rate. We certainly cannot support a clause in a bill that potentially leaves the door ajar for a perpetrator to commit child abuse and get away with it.
That is the point. To me, it is glaringly obvious. Are we the only ones in this Chamber who see it? I thought the member for Nelson might come onboard with this. He sought advice, and he has had meetings and briefings. He has spoken to doctors and to people across the Territory, and presumably across the country, about this sort of thing. Again, the same response: it is highly unlikely; I doubt it would happen. That is just not good enough for us. Anything that leaves the slightest possibility for child abuse to take place is not good enough.
I am not surprised that the government is prepared to dismiss these concerns. Your record has not been good. We have had a couple of pretty damning reports, substantial reports. The Little Children are Sacred report and the Growing them strong, together report both highlight serious flaws in the child protection policies of the Northern Territory Labor government, highlighting your appalling record. I am not surprised that this sort of thing is dismissed as ‘it is unlikely it would happen’. I do not for a second think the Northern Territory Labor Party would condone such behaviour, but you do not seem to want to go to any length to shut it down. In fact, I would even suggest that there are potential cover-ups in this area. We have seen it - maybe not a cover-up, but just a denial. That is what this is about here: it is unlikely that it would happen; it is very rare; it does not fit the profile of a paedophile; look, just let it go through because we might be curing chlamydia or helping stamp out chlamydia across the Northern Territory in remote communities and that far outweighs anything else.
Well, we do not take that view at all; in fact, we take the opposite view. If one child’s welfare is put at risk that is enough for us to say no way, and that is exactly what we were saying.
I am surprised the member for Nelson has come on board. He will have his reasons and I am not going to launch into a personal attack against the member for Nelson. We have spoken at length and he heard the concerns. Member for Nelson, I am somewhat surprised you are allowing the passage of this bill. We circulated some amendments which were quite reasonable and I thought the arguments we put forward with regard to this stacked up. I thought it was an absolute no-brainer and perhaps it was an omission. During the briefing I asked about this and was not met with much of a confident response. That is what leads me to think it was an omission or oversight.
I was told, again, it is unlikely - not a very satisfactory answer. I was told that chlamydia is only manifests in older women - post-adolescent women, not young women of 14, 15, 16. It is generally found in women in their late teens and early 20s. That is extraordinary in itself because, while some of the statistics might point to that, it is saying too bad if those younger women are contracting it - which they are. We have a number of reports about child sexual abuse, sexually transmitted diseases and sexually transmitted infections in young women across the Northern Territory. To say: ‘Well, it does not really happen with people that age’ - is it an omission, or is it a denial, or is it because you have spent so long working on this bill?
I recognise the minister and his team have spent a long time working on this and, largely, this bill has our support. Ninety nine percent of this bill has the opposition’s support. It is, largely, a pretty good bill and well overdue. We need to bring ourselves in line with the rest of the country and bring ourselves into the 21st century with this. However, I have the feeling it was a bit of a gotcha and I was not trying to be a smart alec in the briefing. I saw the slide come up on the projector and then I was told this is what this particular clause was about. The first thing I asked was about child abuse, which is when I got the: ‘Oh, it does not really happen. It only affects certain ages’. It was probably an over-reaction to something which is going to do much good in the communities.
It may do a lot of good in the communities for people who have contracted chlamydia, but it is not going to do much good to a child who has been sexually abused as the perpetrator is able to, under this legislation, go to a doctor to receive a prescription for the medication and, then, legally give it to that child. I understand that the Care and Protection of Children Act also comes into play, but that still means that the person is able to provide that medication to that child. That, to me, is a glaringly obvious cause of concern. When I raised it with my shadow Cabinet colleagues they were outraged. They said: ‘You are kidding!’ It took a bit of explaining as to what exactly was taking place here. There were concerns – and some of the other members will speak on this – about the partner being able to deliver the patient therapy, and the whole concept surrounding that. That goes a bit against the grain as well. This sort of thing does not take place in other jurisdictions across Australia.
I know the argument has been that a large number, not quite 50%, of the states in the United States have signed off on this kind of thing …
Mr Elferink: In California, no doubt.
Mr CONLAN: There is list of them here. Nevertheless, just because it is done in America does not necessarily mean it is great practice in Australia.
I can understand what the government is trying to do. However, I do not think this is the way to go. We do not think, as an opposition, this is the appropriate way; it goes against the grain. The big concern is that you can, essentially, slip something into someone’s drink or into their Cornflakes. We have raised that and it might be a flippant way to articulate our concerns, but it is a genuine concern. I know the argument you cannot stop anyone doing that anyway. Many of us are on medication. We might be able to do that, in any case, but this is actually providing a legislative instrument for that to happen.
There are the concerns with regard to disclosing people’s names to the physician, and also patient records. It is very important to note that, if someone presents to a doctor and says – and this was an example given to me during the briefing – ‘I have chlamydia, I have the symptoms’, and the doctor diagnoses that person with chlamydia, and that person - in this case, say, a female – says: ‘I am married, but I have also had a couple of other sexual partners. I do not want my husband or anyone to know about his sort of thing’, the doctor will be able to provide enough doses for those partners as well. The husband, the partner in the first instance, and any other sexual partners this person may have had - say there are two or three - even just the one, the original partner still is not recorded as having chlamydia.
Where do those statistics go? If we have one or two, does that mean there are another two people who have been given medication for chlamydia, and that those particular instances have not been recorded with regard to STI statistics? That is a concern because how do we know how widespread whatever it is, is? How are we ever going to be able to get on top of this sort of thing if we do not have reliable data? There is a concern also that it is just about compiling reliable data around this sort of stuff.
I mentioned that we have no protections for the person receiving the drug or prescription which may cause adverse reactions. The whole practice of giving someone a course of medication without any understanding of that person’s medical history, or if that person is allergic to something, flies in the face of common sense. It flies in the face of medical practice as well. I have spoken to the Australian Medical Association. I know that the government does not often like the Australian Medical Association, and sometimes they can be a bee in everyone’s bonnet. Nevertheless, they are GPs and medical practitioners. The first thing that was said to me was it does not sound like sound medical practice to dispense medication to someone you have no understanding or record of their medical history. Not only the dispenser but also the person who is prescribing the medication has no record or no indication of that person’s medical history. That does not sound like very good medical practice.
If we can find a way around that, then all well and good, but there is no way around that in this legislation. All it does is absolve the prescriber of any civil liability if there is an issue or an adverse reaction, perhaps a fatal reaction. Again, it is a case of it is highly unlikely that someone will have such a reaction to a course of medication to deal with chlamydia – well, maybe. Just like it is perhaps highly unlikely that a child sex offender will be requesting a course of medication for chlamydia to cover up child sexual abuse which he perpetrated, or maybe that is highly unlikely. I do not necessarily think that it is actually highly unlikely particularly in the climate in the Northern Territory with regard to child sexual abuse and how rampant it is across the Territory. Nevertheless, if it is highly unlikely that is one thing, but the fact is that it is not totally impossible. It is not impossible, but there is still a chance, a slight chance, that this sort of thing can take place.
There is a slight chance that someone can have an allergic reaction, a reaction of sorts to this medication. In fact, it even says in the draft guidelines for PDPT:
But that is still not ruling it out. There is still a risk of an allergic reaction to this medication and to me that is not good enough.
Why are we legislating for something that is 90% or 95%? We need to be 100% sure that if we are going to go down this path, and we are going to allow this practice to take place, we are going to pass a law in this House and we are going to legislate that those people who are on the receiving end of this legislation are protected, that we have done everything possible to ensure their safety and wellbeing. I do not believe that is taking place. This is not concrete, minister.
The fact that there is a very low risk of an allergic reaction to this type of thing does not pass the Country Liberal’s test. Clearly, we have the health and wellbeing of Territorians put on a much higher peg than the Northern Territory Labor government.
This is glaringly obvious to us all. I believe the member for Nelson recognised some of this. He will have his reasons, and no doubt he will outline them shortly, as to why he has supported this, despite these concerns. I believe these are genuine concerns ...
A member: And real concerns.
Mr CONLAN: Yes, and real concerns. We are talking about people’s lives, health, and wellbeing, and children’s welfare. That is a point I believe is lost in this legislation: there could potentially be children at risk as a result of this. I need to rephrase that, because I want to make the point, and again, I do not want to be flippant about it, but if children are at risk, they are at risk already, so they are already being abused. What I am saying is that it is allowing those perpetrators to perhaps go undetected. That is the concern. To stamp out this child abuse, you have to be able to come down on the people committing the offence. I feel that legislation of this type will allow those people to commit these offences and go undetected, because the condition will go undetected in the child.
I will go back over some of the points. The no requirement to provide medical records of the partner is a big concern. It is pretty poor medical practice, we believe. Disclose the person’s name. There is no requirement to disclose the person’s name, and that was part of the argument given to me. Maybe in your response, minister, you can clarify that, but the argument to me was that, and I use that example about someone presenting to a doctor and saying: ‘Look, I have had a number of sexual partners. I am married. I do not want anyone to know about it. Can you give me a couple of courses of this medication so I can treat it and stamp it out in my community?’ There does not seem to be any requirement to provide the names of any of those people. This person may not even know that person’s name, so there is clearly a vehicle in this legislation which allows the doctor to prescribe medication, and for that person to dispense that medication to these particular partners.
I am also concerned that, just because someone is too concerned, or too afraid, has cultural issues about turning up to a GP, a male, for example, and having a check-up by a doctor to see if they have a sexually-transmitted disease, or a sexually-transmitted infection, whatever it might be. Just because that person feels uncomfortable about that, or does not want to do that, why does the state intervene with legislation like this? That goes against the grain of the Country Liberals and the opposition. It goes against the grain of individual responsibility. It is dumbing it down to the lowest common denominator once again. That person will not face up to their responsibilities so the state - the Territory - will step in and create legislation to make it easier on those people who do not want to live up to their responsibilities.
If those people have sexually transmitted infections, if those people are putting their community at risk as a result of this type of thing - and we all know the risks with chlamydia - surely that person has a responsibility to themselves and their community. On top of all those other arguments, there is this philosophical problem I have with it and that is a person is, essentially, let of the hook from their civil and social responsibilities to their own community and their own family. The husband does not have to go to the doctor and be checked; the wife can do the work for him - or vice versa. If there is no female doctor, or if there is no male doctor - there are all these excuses as to why someone will not do it. I do not agree with it and we do not agree with it as an opposition. You will find many opposition members, some whom may speak on this bill, will have their own views about that.
I have an issue with the state stepping in and absolving people of their responsibilities. We all have a responsibility to our community, our families, and the health and wellbeing of those. If you have chlamydia, you go to the doctor and get your own prescription and your own course of medication.
The government talks about the wonderful inroads made into community medicine and community healthcare, so there should be no excuse for someone in the Territory not being able to find a GP to prescribe them medication for chlamydia, or a Schedule 4 substance.
The other concern is at this stage it is a Schedule 4 or Schedule 8. A Schedule 8 substance is an opiate; however, a Schedule 4 is a drug available through prescription. In this case, it is indicated by regulations and the regulation is for chlamydia - issuing a prescription to a patient to treat a prescribed medical condition. That could change. Whatever is prescribed by regulation could change. It does not come before this parliament. Therefore a Schedule 4 substance that is only available through a prescription by regulation - that could change; it could be something else. We are then seeing something else prescribed. All of a sudden there is something else out there that the Territory government wants to get on top of, or there is something else out there that people do not want to take responsibility for so we make it easier for them.
The whole thing does not sit well. This whole clause - clause 89(2)(a) (b) and (c) are the parts of this bill we find offensive. There is also subsection (c), which is someone with whom the person is in a sexual relationship. I am unsure if that deals with past sexual partners as well. It says ‘is in a sexual relationship’. What about a past partner? If we are going to address this and you are determined and hell-bent to go down this path, what about previous partners?
I hope I have made my point. There are a number of areas of this bill such as the child protection concern, which I believe is very real; it is glaringly obvious. If there is one child at risk then that is one too many. The cost and the risks of child abuse far outweigh anything else. A child’s welfare has to be at the absolute forefront of this, not someone’s abrogation of their own responsibility. The requirement to provide medical records, such as the partner’s records and the disclosure of the person’s name, does not seem to exist. These are big concerns. Of course, it is poor medical practice. What happens if that person then does have a reaction, as we envisage?
We circulated some amendments last year. I know the minister did not like it. He said I was clutching at straws, or drawing a long bow, or whatever it was - highly unlikely. I know that is the argument fed to me from the briefings by Dr Howard Bath and the like. I do not want to dismiss the good work of Dr Bath, but I am saying if there is the slightest chance, to us it is just not good enough.
I was hoping the member for Nelson might support the opposition’s concerns on this, but I am not going to get into an argy-bargy with him. I know he has done much work on this and spent a fair bit of time weighing up which way he is going. I hope that is how you have come to the conclusion; that you have come to it on your own, member for Nelson, and you have not been coerced by the government. It is their bill. I know you are very keen to support the majority of the government’s bills and I hope you are doing this for the right reasons. I would be very concerned otherwise.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not think this is good practice, or that this really has the health and wellbeing interests of Territorians at heart. I can understand what you are trying to do, minister, but it is not something the opposition will be supporting. If you were to support the amendments we canvassed last year, then we will throw our support behind the bill. You do not need the opposition to pass this bill. You will have the support of the member for Nelson and this bill will go through. It is a shame and it is pretty bad law, if and when this bill actually passes the House.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I listened with interest to the shadow Health minister and I was struck by the fact that we have a legislative instrument in front of this House which is 153 pages long. Of course, we have other legislative instruments that deal with drugs in our community – both licit and illicit – and I reckon if you piled them on top of each other, they would be 600 or 700 pages worth, at least at a Territory level, if you include references to the Poisons and Dangerous Goods Act and all those sorts of things.
Why? Why do we bother with all that legislation? That is the question that leaps out at me. If this stuff does not need to be controlled then, surely, it would be available in the same way that I can buy a box of aspirin from Woolworths? Clearly, it does need to be controlled. A great deal of clinical thought goes into the application of Schedules 1 through to 8, and creating a regimen of the different applications in those schedules. Schedule 4 and Schedule 8 drugs, where they are lawful, require a prescription. That is where my concern lies.
We are reassured by the minister that the only drug that is going to find its way into this policy is Azithromycin, which is generally well tolerated according to the paperwork provided. The most common side effects in patients receiving a single dose regimen of one gram of Azithromycin are related to the gastrointestinal system - diarrhoea or loose stools, nausea, abdominal pain, vomiting and dyspepsia. Patients should be advised to report any severe reactions to the prescribing doctor who will then notify the Therapeutic Goods Administration. So the description of this fairly benign Azithromycin basically says that it can make your digestive tract an unpleasant place to be in the worst case scenario. Of course, it is an antibiotic which is probably why it has found its way into Schedule 4.
You can understand that there is some concern and you have heard the concerns of the shadow ministry in relation to this drug. It is not like we are talking necessarily about fluoride. I mean, why don’t we just whack this in the water supply if it is that good for chlamydia? The reason is because it needs to be controlled. This is about control. All of these legislative instruments are about control: how we control our drugs in the community. Some of them we ban outright; some of them we accept outright, where a five-year-old, if they have enough money can walk into Woolworths and buy a box of aspirin. So we have this whole raft of controls in the process. Schedule 4s and Schedule 8s are the ones that, where they can be lawfully issued, we want to control by virtue of the fact you must front a medical practitioner who can then write out a prescription for you, and that prescription can be filled.
Why would we want a person to front a medical practitioner? Because we want to know who we are prescribing the drugs to. We want to find out about their medical conditions and we want that gatekeeper to be in place to control the drugs. The reassurance is: ‘This is just the one drug. It is only poor, old Azithromycin. Other than mucking around with your intestinal tract, it will not bother you so much’. The point is that in clause 89 of this bill there is no reference to Azithromycin. There is a reference, however, to Schedule 4 and Schedule 8 drugs, and ‘prescribed’ means ‘prescribed by regulation’.
What the minister is asking us to do is to give him a driver’s licence to drive a moped. What he is also asking us to do is that once he has the driver’s licence to drive the moped, he can then at any point readjust the qualification in that driver’s licence to anything that he likes up to and including a Mack truck. This is a case of a politician walking into this House saying: ‘Trust me, this is all for the public good. We are going to allow Azithromycin into the community. We are going to deal with this chlamydia problem. We can do it through tweaking the process, by getting this stuff into the community. That way, partners who are too embarrassed or whatever to front a doctor will be able to get Azithromycin’.
But that is not what the bill says. The bill talks about the issuing of those Schedule 4 or 8 substances. This is the part where I start to get a little concerned because once this bill goes out of this place, it is beyond the control of this place except in one fashion; that when there is an alteration to the regulation, we would be in a position where we could attempt to move a disallowance if we happen to pick it up.
What the minister wants us to do is, essentially, say to doctors that we will allow Azithromycin to find its way into the system. Once we have that then the argument will continue to flow that there will be other diseases we can do this with. That is the part where I am concerned because we as parliament will not have effective control over what happens to this instrument once it leaves this place and that is of concern.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the truth of the matter is that once you have done this there will be enormous pressure on a Health minister to find another disease that is out there that we should address and we should enable this process to work. That means we will be saying: ‘Oh, well, something slightly more challenging; what about syphilis, what about gonorrhoea, what about some other drugs like that?’ The reassurance for Azithromycin is that it is generally well tolerated. That is fine; that is the reassurance we get.
What about drugs for other types of diseases which are not so well tolerated? Then you find yourself in a situation where you have to protect a medical practitioner from liability for their conduct. Surely you would not put in a legislative instrument that you would need to protect the medical practitioner from their conduct? Goodness no, that would not be there at all, oops, oh, that medical practitioner is protected from civil liability. Why would we do that? There is no risk, that is what we are being told, but we are also saying, just in case there is, we are going to protect the doctor from civil liability. And the answer will be from the government: ‘Ah, yes, that is a very common section in legislation where we protect practitioners from civil and criminal liability’. Well, let us see those practitioners stump up and see if they are game to put their careers, their medical reputations and their professional liability insurance on the line, and remove that section, the protection of liability.
If you are so confident, and the medical fraternity is so confident, that this is of such limited risk to the community, remove the section protecting the medical practitioners that participate in this from civil liability. I can tell you, the suggestion from government will be: ‘No, we still have to keep that protection in there’.
Why should I as a legislator find any reassurance in that clause? There is no restriction on what the minister is asking for to be limited to Azithromycin; that is not in the bill. that is in the handout. What is in the bill is a Schedule 4 or a Schedule 8 substance. Basically, the medical profession is saying: ‘Trust me and we will sort it out’, and the minister will provide, at any time, an amendment to the regulations so long as the medical profession can convince the minister it is a good idea. I am unconvinced.
This is particularly aimed at people in sexual relationships. It is talking about STIs in the community, which is in the bill. What about non-STIs. Let us think of other types of drugs that will fall within this harmless category. What about the drug which is generically sold as Valtrex, which I believe is a suppressant for genital herpes? That has to be a fairly benign sort of drug. Is it a Schedule 4 or a Schedule 8? Schedule 4, I think. How long before the minister is passing a regulation in this place saying: ‘Valtrex is fairly harmless so we can add that to the list of drugs scheduled under the system so we can get someone going in dealing with their herpes and those sorts of things’, because that is the intention. That is the intention here, to creep into these drugs. It has been safe over here, we will get into the next level, and we as a parliament will have no effective control other than to keep a very close eye on every instrument that comes into this place, including those omnibus regulations. Then we have to start moving disallowances if we should happen to find what is in the mix.
I do not like losing control of substances we put so much effort into taking control of. There are any number of other drugs which would possibly fall within these categories, and we as legislators bend over backwards to apply controls on these drugs. Now the minister is coming in and saying: ‘Let us slacken the controls off, let us back away a bit’. Why? Because we have the standard argument of this is how you control these diseases in the public domain: ‘If you do this, then you get a better control over the disease and there is less transmission of disease’. I understand the argument, but there are other principles involved than just disease control. Sometimes, some of the professions – and the medical profession is not innocent of this - become so focused on their own professions that they start to abandon other areas, or start to ignore other areas which the community still expects. The community has expectations on the way these drugs are controlled otherwise we would not have hundreds and hundreds of pages of legislation on the control of them.
The government is now saying it will step away from those controls and allow people to say: ‘My spouse, my sexual partner, may have caught a disease from me and they have it. They know I am here but they just do not want to come in. Can I pick up the script for them and everything will be sweetness and light’. Of course, the advice sheet says the medical practitioner should encourage the other partner to come in. At that point, through the normal process of these things, that just becomes a tick. The medical practitioner says: ‘Your partner should really come in’. ‘My partner does not want to’. Tick, I have been there, I have covered that issue. ‘All right, I will organise the prescription for you’. That is what is going to happen in practice and is what, I expect, this minister wants to happen in practice. Just go through the process. Yes, we have to encourage the person to come in but we know they are not really going to do it so let us tick it off.
Then we get to the point of removing the controls. Why we put these controls in place is because we want to protect people. We do not want Schedule 8 available on our shop shelves next to the aspirin and vitamin tablets. We do not want Schedule 4 on the shop shelves next to the vitamin tablets. We want controls. We are now releasing Schedule 4 and Schedule 8 drugs into an uncontrolled environment.
This is the point the shadow minister makes particularly well. What do we know about the sexual partners of these people? Chlamydia is a particular type of disease, but the bill does not say chlamydia. The bill does not necessarily limit itself into the future to Azithromycin. We will find we are going to lose control and allow these drugs into the community. The shadow minister has expressed his concerns and we have heard the response from the department - very unlikely that this is going to occur. Okay, if it is unlikely there are going to be any issues, prove to us that will be the case rather than saying it is probably unlikely to occur. The issues are very real, particularly in the Northern Territory. The rates of sexually transmitted diseases amongst children are well established and we are talking prepubescent children in the Northern Territory.
What I would hate to see – and this is what has been articulated by the shadow minister – is this then becomes a vehicle by which someone fronts at a clinic - and you know how these clinics operate, particularly in the more remote areas, it is bedlam. The medical practitioner is there for one or two days, he is being presented with case after case, someone walks into one of these remote clinics and says: ‘I have this issue. Can you fix it so I can sort it out with the missus?’ It turns out the missus is 12. That person goes home and the father, the brother, says to the 12-year-old: ‘Here you go. This looks after the problem’.
We are being told that is not going to happen, but I am not convinced. That assurance does not convince me. This would work better in Sydney than it would in the uncontrolled environments of some of the more remote places in the Northern Territory, and I would argue it would still not be perfect in Sydney. I do not doubt this operates in other areas of the world. There were references to it working in the United States and there has never been a problem with it, but we are not the United States. What happens in our remote communities does not necessarily follow the United States.
The other side of the argument would then be: it would be better if the 12-year-old was cured anyhow. That is probably true. Surely the underlying message at that point is this then becomes a licence to continue the behaviour. That is not a signal I am comfortable sending, as a person from this House.
If we pass the bill today we lose effective control over what goes on in the departments. Well-meaning and well-intentioned people pursue this policy, and I have no control over the messages which are sent out. I have been concerned in the past that the departments have taken, as a matter of policy, a decision to ignore the laws of the Northern Territory. The most obvious example which springs to mind is the current - as far as I am aware - requirement for a list of required reporting for sexual partners between the ages of 14 and 16, where there is still discretion for doctors - unless that has changed and I am unaware of it. It certainly was the case a couple of years ago. The requirement under the Criminal Code is that it is a crime to have a sexual relationship with a person under the age of 16, yet, the Health Department issues an instruction which is contrary to that point. I can only conclude that the Health Department will set policy parameters which could stray beyond the realm of what we consider lawful. They give me no comfort when they aggressively hold that position - and the government has defended that position. The message I get, as a legislator, is we have to rein this in. They cannot be a law unto themselves; they are not elected – we are.
For that reason, I have concerns about what is intended. I understand why the Health Department makes those determinations, I just do not agree with them. I do not agree with them, not necessarily for health reasons, but for other reasons, not least of which is the public expectations that we maintain some type of standards.
It is the same argument about whether or not to hand out condoms at the BassintheGrass festival - it is the same issue. At what point do you start managing the health messages you send out? In some quarters, people would be saying just dish out condoms willy-nilly, to whoever walks in the gate, every 10-year-old. What type of message is that? What type of message will this be, particularly here in the Northern Territory?
There is not sufficient restraint that I can see in these sections which gives me enough comfort to support the intention that is behind this section. Unfortunately, it has been clearly signalled to this side of the House that an amendment to the bill striking this policy down - and this is a policy – would not be supported by government. That, then, leaves us in the situation in which we so regularly find ourselves with this government. They bring in a wad of legislation or an item of legislation, which is entirely supportable, but for a single issue.
Rather than allowing the majority of that legislation to pass and introduce a separate legislative instrument to deal with this particular issue, the government then hangs us on the horns of a dilemma. Do we resist the overall bill on the grounds of one repugnant component of it to be branded as being Luddites and fools for ignoring the great principles and practices in the Medicines and Poisons and Therapeutic Drugs Bill? I can see the media release going out: ‘Opposition opposes this fine piece of legislation -153 pages of great legislation’. That is how it will go out. Do we stand our ground, dig in our heels and say we oppose this whole bill because the government gives us no choice but to do so?
It is typical of the policy cowardice of this government to do this, and to bury a contentious policy issue like this in a much larger bill. They have done it before, they will do it again, and it demonstrates the contempt with which they deal with these issues in this House, and the contempt with which they treat the greater public when they pump out media releases saying that the Country Liberals and the people who oppose them are a bunch of Luddites for not supporting good legislation. Well, we are not afraid of those tactics, and whilst we fully expect them, we are fully happy to have the debate in public as to why we oppose this legislation.
A control of drugs bill should be about the control of drugs. The sections pertaining, I think in clause 89 in this legislative instrument, is about losing control. It is inconsistent with the philosophy of the control of drugs. It is no small wonder that the AMA has taken the position they have because they think it is bad practice. I and members on this side of the House believe it is bad practice. You cannot abandon good, established practice because you have one cause to pursue. We do not support this concept and consequentially we do not support this bill. As far as I am concerned, this bill represents a thin edge of the wedge because before too long once this one starts operating, you watch: they will be adding to the list. When they start adding to the list they will start to demonstrate the reasons they want to protect people from civil liability.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is not good enough, not good enough for this House, and not good enough for the people of the Northern Territory.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, I too am horrified at the proposed legislation which the government is putting up here. What comes across is a benign bill designed to combat chlamydia which is widespread in our community, and has extraordinary moral and social issues which will impact on our community.
I am no expert in health. I am not a chemist like the member for Johnston, and I am certainly not the Health spokesman on this side of the House. I am only a simple, country boy - there is no doubt about that. But in my simple mind I understand that what the government wants to do here is say: ‘Chlamydia is so widespread let’s try to get the drug to combat it out there in the community as far and widely as possible’. It all sounds good and it might combat chlamydia in the community.
What concerns me, as the member for Port Darwin and the member for Greatorex said, is that what we are legalising - people have said: ‘This already occurs. Doctors give prescriptions and people get those prescriptions and take them home and give them to someone else who suffers similar symptoms’. That is not exactly the legal way of obtaining drugs, and it is not something a government should be encouraging. This bill legalises that practice. As I say, to my simple mind, the way that I understand it is a person can go to a doctor and say: ‘I have picked up this sexual disease; I am quite a promiscuous person. I do not want my wife to find out about it and I do not want my various partners to find out about it. Could you please increase my prescription so that I can take this drug home and secretly drug my wife and secretly drug my various sexual partners?’ That is an abhorrent situation. It adds a whole new meaning to slipping a mickey into a drink.
Goodness me, I cannot understand how a government could possibly think that that is good legislation. What further concerns me is that this legislation is not just restricted to drugs in relation to curing chlamydia. It is about all Schedule 4 drugs. So, somewhere down the track, someone can decide: ‘We will just add another drug to the list. We will make another drug available to the public’. If these drugs were so harmless, as the member for Port Darwin says, why would we not allow them go onto the shelves of Woolies and Coles and every corner store, the same was as you buy aspirins, or Mylanta for an upset stomach, or other forms of health products that you can buy from your corner store or your local supermarket?
If the idea was to get this drug out there as widely spread into the community as was possible, why not stand up and say that that is what we are trying to do? Why require someone to go to a doctor and get a prescription, not only for themselves, but for someone else who has not even fronted the doctor? If it is so highly embarrassing that people are not going to front up to a doctor to get these drugs and we believe in their safety, why not just put them on the shelves of Coles and Woolies? That would be the sensible thing to do. The reason we cannot do that, of course, is that we have in Australia a scheduling of drugs.
I just did a quick search on the Internet and came up with an independent review called The Australian Prescriber. Maybe the member for Johnston has heard of it. It is a newsletter circulated amongst pharmacists and chemists around Australia giving advice on how to issue drugs, and what drugs do, and the like. I imagine it is quite a well-read journal. I came to a page where the summary of the article, at the start of the page, says:
Under their principles it says:
That is a little about scheduling, and a little about why we schedule. It is all about toxicity, and what drugs should be available over the counter and what drugs should not be, and why you should go to a chemist or why you need to go to a doctor. It says a little about scheduling:
Schedule 2, or pharmacy only: Only available from a pharmacy which can be sold from open shelves and advertised.
Schedule 3, or pharmacy only: Only sold by the pharmacists themselves and cannot be advertised except as a generic drug group.
Schedule 4, or prescription only drugs: Only sold on prescription.
That is in relation to its toxicity, how you can sell it, all that sort of stuff. Of course, what the government is saying with this particular Schedule 4 drug that is used to treat chlamydia, is: ‘We do not think it is that dangerous at all. You can go into a doctor, get a prescription from the doctor, and the doctor can prescribe you a drug knowing that you are going to administer it to a person who you think might also have chlamydia’, more than likely a person that you have slept with and that is somehow okay. Furthermore, doctors are told they are not going to be liable for these decisions because that is what the legislation says.
If someone says to the doctor: ‘My wife and several of my partners all have chlamydia. I have it. They are all too embarrassed to talk to you. Please give me a prescription for myself, one for my wife, and one for each of my other sexual partners. I will ensure I go home tonight to my wife, drop it surreptitiously into a bowl of ice cream she is eating after dinner and she will not know she is taking it. When I catch up with my many and varied sexual partners I will also secretly administer the drug to them. Everyone will be cured. There will not be any heartache around and everything will be okay’.
If the wife dies, or one of the partners dies because they have an allergic reaction - their tongue swells up and they choke, whatever the reason and no matter how small, the doctor will not be liable under this legislation. The wife or the sexual partner and their family have no recourse because they have been illegally drugged. The doctor is off the hook. The gentleman who has been leading the promiscuous lifestyle is off the hook. That person’s family is left poor and destitute having seen their mother or father killed by an adverse reaction to a drug they were not even aware was being taken.
That is what this legislation means and I cannot for the life of me understand why the government would be doing this. I understand chlamydia is widespread and we have to deal with it. Goodness me, we deal with AIDS through a public advertising campaign telling people to cover-up and wear a condom. We deal with a whole range of health-related issues through advertising campaigns encouraging people to get involved. I have been to enough prostate cancer groups to understand the messages that are being put out to men: get in there, get a check up and find out if you have prostate problems. It is not that embarrassing. Please do it, it is good for your health. We understand men are particularly embarrassed about prostate checks so we do everything we can to encourage that to occur.
Why can we not do the same in relation to sexually transmitted diseases? Why do we have to legislate for the legalising of doping someone else unbeknownst to them? That seems to be the most extreme measure and I find it alarming that there is a government in Australia even contemplating something like this. It is crazy stuff.
As I say, if this stuff was so safe, if it was so harmless, so benign, why do we not just put it on the shelves of Woolies and Coles and at our corner shop, be done with the doctors, completely absolve them of any liability and make it freely available to anyone who wants it? Goodness me, the government is focused on stopping smoking but you cannot buy remedies over the counter to assist you to stop smoking. You cannot get Zyban from your local corner store. You cannot buy Nicorettes from your local corner store. You have to go into a pharmacy. In the case of Zyban and some other drug treatments you have to see a doctor ...
A member: Champex?
Mr TOLLNER: Champex, I am told. For Champex, you actually have to see a doctor to get a prescription. If smoking is the great killer everyone says, and all of these remedies are so safe, why wouldn’t the government be in here legislating to make them freely available on the shelves of Woolies or Coles or your local corner store? There are 1001 examples where you can think up reasons why government might want to make something freely available. I just cannot, for the life of me, understand why they focused, in this case, on chlamydia. In fact, when you look at the legislation, having spoken to the member for Greatorex, he informs me they have not just focused on this, they are talking about all S4 drugs potentially; they are just talking about this in this legislation.
Why do they just focus on chlamydia? It is rather confusing, and I pray the minister can explain how the legal unknown drugging of someone is good legislation. How you can legislate drugging someone without their knowledge and say that it is good legislation, or even encourage that? As someone said to me today, this stuff already happens. People go to doctors, they get a prescription, they take it home, and their wife is suffering similar issues: ‘Look love, I have just been to the doctor, I have this. Would you like to take it?’ That may well be occurring, but it is not legal. The government is now saying that is legal, and that it is what they deem to be good practice. I will be blowed if I can understand why.
As I said, I am no expert in pharmacy, chemicals, and the like, and I am certainly no expert in health remedies and the like, but I am damn interested in hearing the explanation for this little one from the government: how they can possibly justify this legislation, and how they can possibly justify someone getting a prescription from a doctor, taking it home, and legally handing it to someone else who has not had any medical assessment done on them.
That seems quite a bizarre situation, Madam Deputy Speaker, and something that should be teased out in the committee stage. I just cannot believe that situation is possible in Australia.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Deputy Speaker, I speak in support of this legislation, and I hope I can detail why. I have listened very carefully to what the opposition has said. I believe at the basis of it are genuine concerns that need to be addressed. They are genuine concerns that have been addressed through the committee stage amendment proposed by my colleague. I have to say that some of what has been said here is a bit overdone and overcooked. I will try to address some of the issues in relation to that ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I am not trying to be difficult. The committee stage amendment? Have we been given that?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are not there yet.
Mr ELFERINK: I understand that, but we have not even seen anything circulated yet. Have you circulated something?
Dr BURNS: I thought this had been circulated.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: It has been circulated. I can see it on the Leader of the Opposition’s desk and others.
Mr ELFERINK: No worries, thank you.
Dr BURNS: Member for Port Darwin, I will try to detail why I support this legislation.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is fair to say that chlamydia is almost endemic in Australia. It is a major problem, not only in Australia, but around the world. It represents, in Australia, 84% of all sexually transmitted infections. That is a whopping great percentage of sexually transmitted diseases within Australia. The ABS report says more than 73 000 cases of genital chlamydia are reported per year, and this is significant. Here in the Territory, unfortunately, we have the highest rates of sexually transmitted infections and, also, I understand, we have the highest rate of chlamydia notifications in Australia.
The Northern Territory Disease Control Bulletin of September 2011 records 661 reported cases of chlamydia between 1 April 2011 and 30 June 2011 compared to 628 for the same period in 2010. This is almost endemic in Australia. It is a major problem in the Northern Territory. Chlamydia has profound effects. According to the World Health Organisation, chlamydia is the most common form of urethritis in males; untreated females can result in acute salpingitis, or pelvic inflammatory disease, which is very serious, whose long-term consequences include chronic pain, ectopic pregnancy and infertility. So those are the very serious consequences of pelvic inflammatory disease.
The treatment of females with these conditions costs the health system millions of dollars annually. Also shockingly, or concerningly, newborns of untreated mothers frequently present with chlamydial eye infection within a week of birth, that is chlamydial ophthalmia neonatorum, and they subsequently develop pneumonia. There has been a body of research undertaken at the Menzies School of Health Research on the possible links between chlamydia infection at those stages of life and otitis media.
So these have profound effects within Australia and within the Territory in particular. It is a big issue and one that we need to address with a public health approach. In many public health approaches there are risks. We know that there is opposition in some quarters but I would hope that most members in this place subscribe to immunisation of children. No doubt, and sadly, there are cases in Australia, and some people here may sadly and tragically know of cases themselves, where children have been immunised and have had profound …
Mr Conlan interjecting.
Dr BURNS: This is a serious issue, member for Greatorex. ... have had profound side effects. That is a terrible consequence but it is a public health approach.
As I have said in this House before, I lived through the time when people had polio and when vaccines against polio were introduced into Australia. I can remember mass vaccinations against polio and there are consequences of that. I also know of children I grew up with ...
Mr CONLAN: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The point is that the parents are not taking home the immunisation and immunising their own children ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. Resume your seat
Mr CONLAN: ... a GP is doing it that is the point.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. Resume your seat.
Dr BURNS: I was merely making the point that with public health approaches there are risks, and I was using immunisation as an example of risk in our community. From my book, we have to fall on the side of immunisation. I knew children with polio and the burden that they and their family had to bear through that child having polio. It was a very common disease in Australian society and it had a great effect on our Australian society.
What I am arguing here is that there are risks in terms of public health. There are risks in a whole range of things including common medications that are on supermarket shelves, as people have been talking about, even common pain killers that people take and have side effects. There are very few drugs in existence that do not have side effects. We need to be aware of that.
The member for Greatorex described the development of this measure of drugs being administered through PDPT which, as he said, is that people can receive treatment themselves and also receive, not the drug, but a prescription. This is the important thing that the opposition either has not grasped or is unwilling to talk about: they receive a prescription for their partner with the name of that partner on that prescription, which then has to be dispensed as a Schedule 4 drug. Whether it is in a remote health clinic, as has been alluded to, or in a suburban pharmacy, the person’s details have to be taken, and the regulations under this legislation will specify that the age of the person for whom it is been prescribed will have to be shown. That will happen in remote clinics and it will also happen within that prescription. There is a chain here, from prescriber to the pharmacist who dispenses that medication. Pharmacists, of course, have the information of people who come to have their prescriptions dispensed through the Medicare system.
There are judgments, both within what the doctor does and what the pharmacist does, which are still covered, I would emphasise, by the Care and Protection of Children Act. If there is the slightest doubt, those health professionals, by law, have to mandatorily report any suspicion of child abuse. That is front and centre to what we are talking about here.
Interestingly, the member for Greatorex mentioned the epidemiology, if you like, of chlamydia in our society, saying that it is more likely to be in women who are more mature than children. I forget the exact words he used, but I would have thought if a medication like that is being dispensed for a younger person, the suspicions of the pharmacist, and the doctor who would be prescribing it, would be instantly aroused. Even more so if someone comes into a doctor or a health clinic and says: ‘I am incredibly promiscuous, I have all these partners and they are all infected because of my sexual activity’.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have had enough to do with STD clinics when I was working at the hospital. We worked very closely with Clinic 34, and it was my privilege to know many of the people there and become friendly with them, including Dr Frank Bowden, who is recognised Australia-wide as an expert on sexually-transmitted diseases. I attended many talks given by Dr Bowden and people like Dr Vicki Krause and practitioners in the area. These are people who instantly latch on. If someone says something like that to them, they will certainly be looking very carefully at that person and their sexual contacts, such is their commitment to follow up. I believe that would be sending a bit of a signal if someone did that.
Let’s face it, in this place people have talked about how this is a back door way of getting access to Azithromycin. There is nothing to stop someone going to one doctor and saying, ‘Doctor, I have chlamydia. I do not really know the name of my sexual partner, first name might have been whatever it is, do not know where they live, do not know their second name, can you help me?’ So the doctor writes out the prescription for Azithromycin. What is to stop that person going to another medical practitioner and getting another script for Azithromycin? They could do that today, and do all the things the opposition members are saying that someone is going to do surreptitiously. So there is nothing under current legislation to stop someone from doing that because, unlike pseudoephedrine, opiates and all the rest of those drugs which are scheduled differently to Schedule 4, there is no requirement for records to be kept centrally about the prescribing and dispensing of Schedule 4 drugs in that context. There is nothing to stop it.
Whilst we are speaking of Azithromycin, it is a drug with an extremely low index of harm. Yes, there is a very small risk of harm with Azithromycin, and I come back to the pharmacist and the doctor again. Modern pharmacists, even in the last 10 to 15 years, are very keen to give information to patients – that is part and parcel of their professional job as they dispense. They talk about side effects: if you begin to have a reaction you must stop taking this drug. The research shows people value the information given by pharmacists. They will ring up - I know they ring up. I have been a registered pharmacist in four states in Australia. I graduated in 1969 and know from long experience that people ring up their pharmacist and say: ‘Those tablets the doctor prescribed ...’, because often they do not want to approach the doctor straight off with their problem because they feel the doctor is either too busy or may interpret it as them being critical of the medical practitioner. So, many people, on a confidential basis, approach their pharmacist and say: ‘I have this side effect, I am feeling ill’, and the pharmacist will give them the proper advice as to what they should do. Let us not underestimate the professionalism of our doctors and our pharmacists.
In relation to the AMA, I understand the Health minister had a meeting with the AMA recently. The position of the AMA may well be clarified by what the Health minister has to say about that and I am very interested to hear about that meeting.
The member for Greatorex talked about this being a mechanism for government. We did not sit around the Cabinet table and say: ‘Yes, let’s have Azithromycin being dispensed in this way. Let’s do this’. This comes from advice from people who are medical and public health specialists. It is not something the government has dreamed up, unlike the assertion by the member for Greatorex.
I made the point about it being dispensed through a pharmacist. He talked about the door being ajar; he talked about flying in the face of medical practice, etcetera. I take your concerns and understand that the amendments which are being brought forward endeavour to address those concerns, member for Greatorex.
Originally, as I understand it, clause 89(1) was restricted to Schedule 4 and Schedule 8. Part of what we are amending today clarifies that, first, it is for the treatment of chlamydia through Azithromycin principally, and it does not involve Schedule 8 drugs. Let us leave Schedule 8 drugs out of the equation.
The regulations will specify chlamydia and, in relation to Azithromycin, I know because of the almost, unfortunate, endemic situation with Indigenous kids and otitis media, there has been a great deal of talk over the years about prophylactic use of Azithromycin to treat otitis media. That is also a very important aspect. Azithromycin is a very important drug, medication, whatever you say, in the treatment of these conditions in the Northern Territory.
As I understand it, member for Greatorex, you voiced two concerns. The first one was allowing the doctor to prescribe without seeing the partner; and you raised the question about child sex abuse, and also of side effects. Yes, there are minimal side effects with Azithromycin, you are quite correct; however, I have talked about how both pharmacists and doctors deal with that.
In relation to the partner it has been prescribed for, they have a prescription. The drug is not just given to the person who has come to the doctor. The partner who has not been to see the doctor has to go to a pharmacist and have that dispensed, and there is information there. As I have said before, the regulation will specify that the age of that person has to be recorded. So, I believe there are safeguards there.
The committee stage amendment clarifies it relates to Schedule 4 only and, specifically, for chlamydia. Yes, there is a part in there that does open the way in the future, should there be safe drug treatments for other such conditions, for those to be added. As with all our schedules in our legislation, the advice to schedule things and how they are scheduled comes from medical practitioners and experts. It is not something pharmacists say. Even though I have pharmacy qualifications - my major in Science was in pharmacology and I have lectured in those subjects at a tertiary level - I accept the advice of those health professionals who recommend to Cabinet about the scheduling of drugs. It is not my place to question those things. These are things which are on advice from professionals who work in this area.
I do not think it is something we should politicise, but this parliament is about legislation and people voicing genuine concerns. As I said, in what the member for Greatorex said, he has raised some good questions. He has highlighted some of the risks involved. We need to have a look at those risks and try to balance them against the negative effects of what chlamydia does, the damage it does, and its widespread nature, and the possibility of not doing anything.
I was very interested - you might have heard me saying: ‘Hear, hear!’ to the member for Fong Lim when he was saying he had read the Australian Prescriber which is an excellent publication. I have not been reading it in recent years, but I was an avid reader of it at one stage. Maybe one day I will be an avid reader of it again; it is an excellent and solid publication. The article the member for Fong Lim was reading was about scheduling and the importance of scheduling, and how it works and how it is important to schedule drugs so they are not misused, and they are used properly within our community and society.
I will place on the record that much of, not so much scheduling, but the use of drugs within a society is historical. If we are going to stick to the member for Fong Lim’s argument about anything that is toxic should be scheduled and the increased toxicity means it should become even more unavailable and locked up in a higher grade of schedule, I ask him to consider about tobacco, which is one of the most toxic, damaging drugs in our society.
We know the history of tobacco. It goes back a long way. I think Sir Walter Raleigh went to America and the American Indians had their peace pipe. He took it back to the court in England and everyone thought it was great. For a long while, they thought tobacco smoking was medicinal. Then, Sir Richard Doll in the 1950s did an epidemiological study, which really set the scene to drill down and find out about the toxicity and damage that tobacco does within our community.
I am not standing here today, tobacco zealot that I might be, saying we should schedule tobacco and it should be available on prescription only within our society. Possibly, that is what the member for Fong Lim is suggesting by his strict adherence to ‘the greater the toxicity you do not want it on supermarket shelves, you do not want it freely available, it should be locked up behind that barrier in the pharmacy where only a pharmacist can dispense it on prescription’. Maybe I will have another conversation with the member for Fong Lim over dinner about those comments. I was glad to hear him say that because, following on from his argument, I just ask the question: is he advocating that tobacco be prescription only?
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have much more to go, so I am quite prepared for you to allow me to continue my remarks later.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, you will have the opportunity to continue after Question Time.
Debate suspended.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of government electorate officers participating in their annual seminar. On behalf of honourable members I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Continued from earlier this day.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, we have the minister for Education in continuation.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have about eight minutes in continuation. I will try to pick up where I left off.
The opposition has raised valid concerns. I believe the member for Greatorex reflected those concerns quite well. I would have to say the member for Port Darwin in his offering, and also the member for Fong Lim, overcooked things slightly. The member for Port Darwin talked about the raft of controls over drugs and medications, the voluminous acts that pertain to controls over various medicines and substances within our community, and basically he talked about drugs being lawfully issued.
What I can say, as I said previously, that Azithromycin, which is an antibiotic, will be lawfully issued under the proposals put forward by this government. There is no suggestion that anything unlawful will happen. As I have said before, not only will the prescribing doctor be involved, but also the chemist or the pharmacist who actually dispenses this medication. I also added that part of the regulations surrounding the use of this medication will prescribe it is only pertinent to Azithromycin. It will also require that the age of the person for whom it is being prescribed be entered. So there will be controls. There will be vigilance. I take the opposition’s concerns.
The member for Greatorex raised the issue about whether this might be somehow used to cover up child abuse. He went to lengths to say he did not believe that was the object of government, but he said that could be something that happened as an unintended consequence of this legislation. I believe there are controls around it. We should never underestimate the professionalism and common sense of our medical practitioners and our pharmacists. These are people who deal in these matters all the time. If one of the scenarios raised by the member for Fong Lim, and the member for Port Darwin, if someone waltzes in there and says: ‘I am a very promiscuous person, I need Azithromycin for myself, and I want it for eight or 10 other people’, the alarm bells would be ringing in the doctors’ minds. They are all trained in this area and I believe there would be a lot of scrutiny in that particular matter.
This is all about trying to reduce the effects of chlamydia within our community. I outlined earlier in my speech that chlamydia is, to use a word, almost endemic within Australia; the Northern Territory has the highest rates of chlamydia in Australia. I also outlined the effects of chlamydia on adults, and possibly on the newborn. This is a very important consideration that I believe warrants action.
There was a lot of talk about putting Schedule 4s on shop shelves. Well, we do not do that. No one is suggesting that we are going to put Schedule 4 drugs on shop shelves. What we are saying is that these drugs, which are currently S4, or this drug, which is Azithromycin, have some different controls over it in order to address the very serious issue of widespread chlamydia infection within our community.
The member for Port Darwin raised scenarios in remote clinics. I have spent a fair bit of time in remote clinics. It is a little scary in some ways, but I know what happens in remote clinics, and I tell you what, those nurses, health workers and doctors are very aware of who might have an STI and who their sexual partners are. They have ways and means of finding out, so they are very attuned to what is happening in their own community. I do not think anyone should underestimate that. Nor should anyone ever underestimate their professionalism and confidentiality, because they see and know things on a very confidential basis.
We know now that, through what this government has done, through the Care and Protection of Children amendments that we brought in, that we passed, that all health professionals, if they suspect child abuse, must report it mandatorily. They are professionals and they understand their responsibilities. It was a bit of a battle in this particular regard, as people remember. The AMA had some reservations about mandatory reporting. However, a couple of years on, people have accepted what we proposed as part of that strategy to reduce child sexual abuse within our community.
The member for Fong Lim said he was absolutely horrified by these changes. He was very concerned about them. He talked about it being equivalent to putting S4 drugs, or other drugs, on shelves with proprietary items such as Mylanta. That is not the government’s intentions. We are not putting them on store shelves. We are putting appropriate controls around them.
I have been through his business about The Australian Prescriber. I still have not had an opportunity to speak with the member for Fong Lim about tobacco. We all recognise what a serious, potentially deadly, toxic and dangerous substance tobacco is. I wonder whether he is suggesting tobacco be scheduled and be prescription only. There are some people who recommend that. I am not proposing that today although I am squarely on the record as being an advocate for tobacco controls. It is something, if we are really talking health, that if we could reduce the prevalence of tobacco smoking, particularly amongst Indigenous people, we would have a real reduction in medium- and long-term chronic disease in the Territory.
I commend some of my colleagues, who will remain nameless, who have given up smoking. It is a very hard thing to do, but it is a wonderful example that people can set.
The member for Fong Lim raised scenarios about people getting Azithromycin tablets and powdering them into people’s ice cream. The partner is having the ice cream and: ‘Look at that on the television’ and put the Azithromycin in the ice cream. That is overcooking it a bit. I am saying, member for Greatorex …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I seek an extension of time for the member to complete his remarks pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Did we have the clock running, Mr Clerk?
Dr BURNS: I was keeping my eye on it and it did not seem to move.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, we are happy to accommodate an extension of time without any concern, and we would encourage the minister to complete his remarks.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I thank you for being gracious about that, because there is some confusion about the clock.
Motion agreed to.
Dr BURNS: Trying to distil what is being said here - and I know the member for Nelson has not spoken yet and I spoke with him over the luncheon break - that given some of the concerns of the member for …
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! He was given an extension of 10 minutes. The clock is on the eight minute mark.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is correct; the clock is not on 10. Thank you very much.
Dr BURNS: I might even get 12 out of it – a bonus – but I will finish as soon as I can.
I have listened carefully, and government has listened carefully to sincere concerns voiced by the member for Greatorex.
I know the member for Nelson, I cannot speak for him, generally supports these reforms. He does have some concerns and requires some clarity around some elements. He will talk about that and we will deal with that.
All of us in this House know and appreciate the challenges of sexually transmitted infections in the Territory. We all genuinely want to do something positive about it. We want to see our doctors, nurses and health workers really armed and with as much support as they can get to reduce STIs, particularly chlamydia, in the Territory. I would much rather that we came to a more bipartisan approach to this. We are not going to agree on everything, but if we can come to closer agreement that is better because this is a medical public health issue. We are in this House, we are politicians, we are debating on a political sense, but it would be preferable if we can reach some agreement and we will see how this debate unfolds.
As Leader of Government Business and a former health professional myself - I am wearing my Pharmacy Guild tie today; I did not purposely do that, it was the one I grabbed. I am proud of it. I would like to see us reach general agreement, almost in a bipartisan way, so we can support our health workers to do the job they need to do so.
Madam Speaker, I will finish on that. I support the legislation in general. There needs to be, and there is going to be, some more discussion about the amendment. That will unfold in the debate from here on.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, we have to remember today that we have quite a large bill before us, the Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Bill. I will start some discussion on the whole bill. I am not sure how many people have read the whole bill. The whole bill is still quite an important bill to be debated; we have been referring to one part of it.
This is quite an important change to the legislation in the Northern Territory and, for many people, they have to realise what is in this legislation can affect them in their daily lives. You can have a medical condition, you can be working in the garden, you can be painting the house - sounds like a beer ad - you can be working with animals, or even some people can be trying to look beautiful. This bill covers many of those chemicals that are used in those processes. It is important that people have some understanding that this bill is quite an important bill in total.
It discusses the regulation and sale of products which are classified by a schedule. It mentions who can deliver the goods; and the labelling and storage of such products. It deals with the licensing, registration and authorisation of manufacturers, retailers, and health practitioners. It is interesting to occasionally delve into some literature that a lay person would not normally delve into; that is, the Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Medicines and Poisons No 2, effective date August 2011 from the Australian government. This is the type of information that is used throughout this bill.
When you open the bill you will see it mentions Schedule 3, Schedule 4, Schedule 7, and Schedule 8. From this document, you will understand why they had that scheduling. For instance, Schedule 6 substances are those with a moderate potential for causing harm, the extent of which can be reduced with the use of distinctive packaging with strong warnings and safety directions on the label. Having worked in hardware for a long time, if anyone has worked in the garden or other sections, you will note that certain labels occur on chemicals, and they normally reflect the schedule to which they refer. That is important for people to know, because the control of dangerous chemicals is something the government needs to do for the welfare of its community - whether it is for the person using that particular schedule or chemical, or for the person who might come in contact with it.
This amalgamation, you might say, of two existing bills - the Poisons and Dangerous Drug Act and the Therapeutic Goods and Cosmetics Act - has given us this one bill. It is a comprehensive bill dealing with a range of people, for instance, who are licensed or registered to use these particular medicines. I refer to Part 2.13, Authorisations for possession, supply and use of Schedule 3, 4 and 8 substances. It mentions the authorised health practitioners, pharmacists, and goes on to talk about prescription of interstate prescribers; emergency supply of unrestricted Schedule 4 substances in an emergency; unrestricted Schedule 4 substances for patients in residential care; supplying Schedule 4 substance on a verbal request to authorise the prescriber; a qualified pharmacist who supply and administer; Aboriginal Health Workers; approved ambulance officers; nurses and midwives; dentists and dental therapists; optometrists; and podiatrists. Further on you have veterinarians because this bill is not just about human health, it is about plant health and it is about animal health. It is a very wide bill that covers a whole range of things. Even though we have been talking about a particular issue today I do not think it would be right that we did not at least discussion the bill as a whole and the matters which cover it.
I noticed, which was interesting, the Substances Clinical Advisory Committee. I am interested in the minister giving us a bit more indication of what that particular advisory committee does, its role, who is appointed to it, and how it works in relation to the provision, or the register, or the authorisation, of either people or substances in the Northern Territory.
I thank the government for its briefing. We had quite a long briefing on this particular bill because it is quite substantial.
In relation to the issue being debated this afternoon, sometimes you come across quite difficult issues. There are times when I feel it would be nice to be in a party because you can sit here and someone in the party will get up and spruik, and they probably have not even read the bill because they know someone is going to talk about it, it is party policy, do not worry. In the case of an Independent you have to read it properly on your own and you have to make your own decisions. So, as with all the bills I read before I come here, I try to research them and look at them thoroughly, and I talk to people about them. Then I come up with what I think is the right decision which might not be the right decision for other people but I have to make that decision on my own.
I find it difficult when someone says that I rolled over to the government. The government will tell you there are a number of bills that have not come to this House because I have not rolled over to the government. I can also tell you that there are many bills in this parliament the opposition has supported. So, for me, it is not a game. It is not about me supporting the government just for the sake of an agreement.
This is an important issue and it is an issue that has a certain ethical base to it but it also has a health base. I have my own background, my own religious background. I come from a fairly strict family and some of these issues are fairly difficult at times for me to match up with my beliefs. I am not saying necessarily this one but when you get into these particular issues I find it hard if people question one’s honesty and integrity. When people question that you might have an ulterior motive for what you do, well if I have an ulterior motive it is trying to do the right thing.
The facts are before us that we have an increasing number of people with chlamydia. I have some statistics from the Sexual Health of Australia document and it has some lines of chlamydia by year and sex. Those lines are going up quite substantially in Australia. We can talk about the Territory but we also talk about Australia, and you are looking here at figures - they are a bit hard to read - but for females it is about 300 per 100 000, and males it is about 200 per 100 000 - it might be a little lower. But for both genders it is quite substantial.
Chlamydia is a common sexually transmitted disease and we know that it can cause infertility. It is also a disease that is a reportable disease ...
A member: Mandatory reporting.
Mr WOOD: Yes, but it has another name which I cannot think of – a notifiable disease.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have not just turned up here today as a lay man saying: ‘Big deal, I think we should go down this path’. I have heard what the member for Braitling has said, and I heard that in the previous sittings, but I have not sat down and said: ‘Well, I will just read a few books’. I have talked to the health professionals, because I am not an expert and I do not believe the member for Braitling is an expert – Greatorex, sorry. I remember that great Independent. I have spoken to the professionals. I have spoken to Dr Howard Bath.
I admire Dr Howard Bath. I believe he is one of those great people who contribute to the welfare of young people in the Northern Territory. He is an honest and professional man, and he knows what he is talking about. When he looked at this, he did not believe this bill, as it is, would contribute to more paedophilia. He said it was more likely that a child would come to the attention of a doctor through other suspicions. He is the top fellow in the Northern Territory when it comes to the protection of children. He has been part of a major report to the Northern Territory government about child protection. He has been our Child Commissioner for quite a number of years, and he comes from a background in that in South Australia for many years before that. I trust Dr Bath to give me advice that I can rely on. When he says that, I believe him; he is a professional and, as a lay person, that is what you would be expected to do. Yes, certainly question him, ask him how he comes to that conclusion, but he says that the approach that the member for Greatorex has said is not the case.
Let us have a look at the other side of it. I also met with Dr Nathan Ryder, Sexual Health Physician, and Mr Jamie Broadfoot, Director of Sexual Health and Blood Borne Virus Unit. I visited the Menzies School of Health Research. I met Professor Jonathan Carapetis, the Director; Professor Sven Silburn working on child protection issues and a member of the External Monitoring and Reporting Committee, chaired by Professor Vimpani. I met Professor Phil Giffard, who is working on the research into false positive results in chlamydia diagnosis. I met Professor Bart Currie, assisting Phil Giffard in researching melioidosis. I also met Dr Gurmeet Singh, whose area is sexual abuse research.
I asked them about this particular section of the act. They all said that patient delivered partner therapy for chlamydia is good public health practice. Again, I am not going on my own so-called knowledge because it is limited. I have talked to experts in this field. I believe that is what any member of parliament should do. I do not know how many members of this parliament have talked to those doctors. I do not know how many have talked to Howard Bath. I do not know how many have talked to Dr Nathan Ryder or Mr Jamie Broadfoot. I have, and from listening to what they had to say, I believe that the amendments before us today are good amendments - except I do have some concerns and I will come to that later.
If we look at the details here, this particular process is, I believe, in the minority of cases. Most people will, if they have a check-up, go to a doctor and, in many cases, this section will not be necessary because they will get a prescription and their partner will probably come along too for a prescription. What you are dealing with here - and do not forget we have these high rates of chlamydia we are trying to reduce – is people who come along but cannot get their partners to come along. The idea is: do we try to minimise, by another means, the harm chlamydia does? If a person comes in for treatment for chlamydia and the partner will not come in, that person will be reinfected. You will not get anywhere, and there is a higher risk of that person becoming infertile.
If you cannot convince the partner to come with you then this is an option. The member for Johnston gave us details of what has to be given before the prescription can be given to the other partner. There are some controls in that sense, but you cannot give it to a person who will not identify themselves. According to the member for Johnston, if there is no identification chemists cannot give out another prescription.
I see what you are doing here. We can have quite a simple discussion, but doctors who will be dealing with this and know this is a very sensitive area, will be questioning people. They will not be handing out drugs willy-nilly. First, they will do their best to get the partner to turn up because they want a physical examination to ensure it is chlamydia. Second, where that is not possible, instead of going down the illegal process and getting another prescription from a place up the road, or - what was the other case of if you could get it? Anyway, say you could get it from another doctor you are doing something illegally, whereas if you go down this path there is some tracking of the partner and there is some legality in what is happening. If that does not happen we have the risk of chlamydia continuing with that partner.
I have to weigh up those things; I understand where the member for Greatorex is coming from. These are some of the complex issues you deal with. Do you go down this path, or is this for the better good? They are not easy questions.
I have discussed harm minimisation in parliament before. We have a great deal of harm minimisation in the Territory; for instance: if you drink, don’t drive. Classic. How many people say: ‘Just don’t drink’? A condom. ‘If you are going out one night take a condom’. Do we say: ‘Just don’t have casual sex’? No, no, we know that cannot be promoted. The reality is that people have to take responsibility and they should not be having sex except with one partner. Great! I might have been brought up that way, but that is not the reality of life. I might be old with a few funny teeth, but I understand there are people with different values to mine, and the reality is some of that behaviour is why we have chlamydia.
My understanding is condoms will not protect you from chlamydia. However, I have to decide whether I try to protect many people? A great deal of chlamydia is between the ages of 15 to 25 according to the Sexual Health Australia pamphlet. Do I try, by some mechanism through this House, to allow access to people who need this antibiotic so we can reduce and, hopefully, stop the chance of those people becoming infertile? That is the balance I have to think about.
I am not asking for a carte blanche system of passing out medicines everywhere. I will say now that I cannot support amendment 71.2, clause 89(5)(b) because that leaves it too open. We need to ensure this bill, because it is breaking new ground - and I understand there are other places in the world where this happens. I have spoken to doctors who say this already happens in parts of Australia; it is just not legal, but no one does much about it. There are 36 states in America which have legalised it, and out of 50 states, that is a fair number. I have been to the United States, and there are some fairly God-fearing people in America, I can tell you now. It has been passed in 36 states in America. I am not using that as the main argument. I am saying it is in place in certain parts of Western civilisation, and it is already occurring.
We need to take this slowly. The clauses that are before us today deal with chlamydia because that is the discussion we are having today. As I said, this is something different; we need to take it steadily. If the medical profession wishes to use this clause for another disease then, instead of it going through regulations - which end up somewhere out there and, if you are not quick enough to look at the deemed papers, you will not even have a look at it - then it needs to come back to the parliament. It will also give us time to assess the effectiveness of this.
If you are going to introduce this with the object of reducing chlamydia, then you need to have some fairly good figures right now. If you are going to argue the case that we apply it to something else, I am asking if it worked in the case of chlamydia. Have we reduced the number of people with chlamydia? If you do not have that, then I would not be going one step further. You have to show us that this particular method has been effective.
As I said, I do not believe it is a large section of our society which will need it - and that is the advice I have from other people; that the majority of people will turn up to their doctor with their partner and get prescriptions. However, there is a section of society which will not. Of course, out of that section there is a section that will not give their name and address, so that is not going to happen. But at least we are trying to move forward to do something about a disease which is rising, not only in the Territory, but in Australia. I had a look at this graph here, and it is fairly alarming that it has gone up by about 25% over the last two years.
You have the option of not doing anything, and allowing the existing processes to see whether they can reduce the prevalence of this disease. It is a difficult disease to discuss and there will be people out there who find it embarrassing. It is much harder to get the antibiotics to those people who most need it if they will not come or, if they do come, the partner does not come.
There is no doubt that it is a difficult issue. It is certainly something I have not taken lightly. I have not done it to please the government, because the people I have been speaking to are doctors. I have not been speaking to the pollies about it; I have been speaking to the doctors because they know. Dr Howard Bath is a doctor, as are the doctors at Menzies School of Health Research. I invite people to talk to the people at the Menzies School of Health Research; it is a fantastic research centre.
I understand from what the member for Johnston said, that the AMA supports it, and I am interested to hear some more on that. I do not mind if people disagree with me but, if you start to question my honesty, integrity, and beliefs, then I believe you are very shallow ...
Mr Conlan: Where is that coming from, Gerry? No one questioned that.
Mr WOOD: At the very beginning, member for Greatorex, as I came in here, it was about: ‘Have you rolled over to the government?’ That is not what this is about for me.
Mr Conlan interjecting.
Mr WOOD: No, that is not what this is about for me. This is a difficult issue that has to be approached carefully, and I have gone to the …
Mr Conlan interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Greatorex!
Mr WOOD: I have gone to the government today - listening to your debates by the way; I have not been sitting here scratching my head – and I have a concern about amendment 71.2, clause 89(5)(b). I hope the government thinks about whether we can remove that section of the bill. We have spoken about this section, which is a very important part of the bill. I have gone to the professionals who have advised me it is good general medical practice. If it is good general medical practice, who am I to say it is not?
From a personal point of view, I think there should be more emphasis on people not being promiscuous, getting drunk, or having one night stands. As I said, the world is not the same as what I think it should be. We must keep in touch with reality. We live in a pluralist society and not everyone has the same beliefs as me. I have to look at issues in that light and that is the conclusion I have come to.
We should not forget that this bill covers a vast amount of work which is important not just in the area we are talking about - sexual disease and, in this case, chlamydia - but for a range of points about how we deal with medicines and poisons. We can be a little light on this but for many people this bill is really important. If you are a farmer or a horticulturalist, this bill is important. This bill tells you what you are required to do if you use particular chemicals. Under section 44 on pesticides, it says:
I say this because we have concentrated on this very important part of the bill but there are many other parts of this bill which are not equally important but are important because they affect our daily lives, whether it is through selling methylated spirits, spraying product, cosmetic chemicals, or paint. Much of that is dealt with in this bill. It is a bill which covers many of the things we use in everyday life.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this before us today and I am interested in hearing his comments on all parts of the bill.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Deputy Speaker, the Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Bill is a major public health initiative which will provide a contemporary, flexible framework for promoting and protecting public health in the Northern Territory. This bill will replace the outdated Poisons and Dangerous Drugs Act 1983. It is based on recommendations from the COAG review on medicines and poisons legislation by Rhonda Galbally. It applies nationally, and creates harmonious measures with other Australian jurisdictions and legislation. This will benefit all health professions as, under the national registration scheme, the prescribing privileges in the Northern Territory will be equivalent to other jurisdictions. This means nurse practitioners, eligible midwives, and podiatrists will be authorised to prescribe medicines which will improve access to treatments by the community. Provisions are made within the bill to allow prescribing rights for other health professionals as they receive endorsement from their national boards.
The bill provides for greater flexibility, with the appropriate safeguards, for better care of people with chronic conditions. A wider range of authorisations have been included to address potentially life threatening situations, teaching and research, and restrictions on Schedule 9 prohibited substances. Conditions allowing the possession of Schedule 4 and Schedule 8 drugs such as narcotics and benzodiazepines have been detailed and address the gap between the Misuse of Drugs Act and the current PADDA. These will assist the police in reducing the quantity of these types of medicines being available for sale or diversion.
Powers have been extended to the Chief Health Officer to provide for urgent response to critical situations as they emerge. This includes placing an emergency ban on products that cause a threat to public health, and to gazette emergency authorisations to help practitioners for use of medicine in the event of public health emergencies.
The use of pesticides is controlled by the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act, however, controls over the licensing of pest management technicians are contained within this bill to allow more flexibility for this industry and to bring the Northern Territory into harmony with other jurisdictions. Licences may be approved up to three years. Three-year licences have also been introduced for manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers. Industry and professional standards will be maintained by the introduction of compliance notices and penalties for those who do not comply with a compliance notice. These new measures will support health practitioners and assist others in meeting the challenges of safety in manufacturing, transporting and using medicine and poisons by members of the community throughout the Territory.
Madam Speaker, I thank members for their support of this bill.
I turn to clause 89, which has been debated in this House. I thank the member for Nelson for his contribution, and his research. I know that some of the bills that come to the House are comprehensive and quite technical in details, and you have to look in the right places with the right people.
I also thank the member for Greatorex. Of the three opposition members who spoke today he was the only one who knew what he was talking about. He studied the bill, especially clause 89. I was disappointed to hear the other two speakers who spoke for the sake of speaking rather than making a contribution to the bill. They had not read the bill.
The Territory is not the first jurisdiction in Australia to introduce the PADDA therapy. As I have been advised by the Australasian Society for Infectious Diseases, in March 2011, the Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health Network in New South Wales looked into introducing it, and received guidelines from the Australasian Society for Infectious Diseases for exactly the same practice we are debating here today.
I have to admit that when I first read the bill, especially clause 89, I asked the same question as the member for Greatorex: is this provision going to mask potential paedophiles who abuse children? Is this provision going to cover up a crime committed by a person having sex with a child or abusing a child? I was very concerned that the potential legislation we introduced to this parliament, which may be sound public health strategy and policy, might have some negative effects, especially in areas where we are trying to combat child abuse and reverse the trends throughout Australia.
I consulted with a number of people, including Dr Howard Bath, the Northern Territory Children’s Commissioner; Clare Gardiner-Barnes, Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Health of Children and Families; Dr Nathan Ryder, Sexual Health Physician; Dr Steven Skov, Acting Chief Health Officer; Dr Barbara Paterson; Dr Vicki Krause; Dr Paul Bauert from the Australian Medical Association; Dr David Chapman from the Australian Medical Association; Dr Roy Barker from the Australian Medical Association; and Dr Jamie Broadfoot, Director of Sexual Health and Blood Borne Virus Unit. We also consulted with Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance Northern Territory; the Public Health Association of Australia; the Royal College of Physicians; the Australasian Society for Infectious Diseases; General Practice Network; and the Australasian Chapter of Sexual Health Medicine.
None of these people argue that the bill we present here, and especially clause 89, could potentially create a situation for paedophiles to cover up their crime. They are quite strong in their point that this section will benefit the people, but will not mask sexual abuse under any circumstances.
Before I go there, I would like to clarify that the bill refers to a number of scheduled drugs, but specifically in clause 89, Schedule 4 and Schedule 8 drugs. There was a discussion about the drugs, about Schedule 4. The member for Fong Lim asked why we do not sell them in the supermarket next to aspirin, Panadol and paracetamol. Schedule 4 drugs include antibiotics, and the big argument about the free availability of antibiotics is that potential antibiotic resistance strains of diseases would have a detrimental effect on our health. That is the reason why they are restricted. Schedule 8 drugs are mostly created drugs that can cause an addiction. That is a good reason not to be publically available and to be strictly controlled.
Clause 89 - I will propose an amendment to that because we heard what the member for Greatorex had to say. In a previous draft of the bill in clause 89, the term ‘disease’ was very generic. We have narrowed it specifically to chlamydia. By narrowing it, it not only describes the condition where the specific medicine can be prescribed, but also we have not allowed the prescription of any Schedule 8 drug under clause 89.
We heard about the possibility of an allergic reaction to the medicine. The medicine is well-researched and I looked on the Internet myself. For the many years these drugs have been used only 1% of people have had any allergic reaction and had to interrupt treatment with this drug. That indicates a very good tolerance by people. There are other drugs out there - common drugs people are allergic to like paracetamol, aspirin, and a number of other drugs. Strictly speaking, when you go to a doctor or a pharmacy, they should always ask if you are allergic to particular kinds of drugs. The particular medicine is a safe drug - as a matter of fact, I do not think any drug can be determined ‘safe’. Some people will be allergic to one drug or another. This drug is tolerated very well. It has been used extensively throughout the world and it can treat, in a single dose, the condition that can cause severe problems both to men and women in our community.
This legislation is based on solid, scientific and medical evidence. Who am I to argue with people like Howard Bath, a well-known expert in child protection, or Barbara Paterson, or Vicki Krause, or Paul Bauert? They know more about medicine than I do and I rely on and trust their opinion.
The Public Health Association supports clause 89 as does AMSANT. AMSANT was the peak organisation we entrusted to create the Indigenous child protection group. If there was any doubt about clause 89 being used to cover-up sexual abuse they would be the first ones to argue about it. On the contrary, they support clause 89 as it stands.
I note the concern of the member for Greatorex. He has concerns I had previously, but I was satisfied with the way the medication would be provided.
I also looked at some of the scientific publications and, in 2007, research was undertaken by experts with regard to patients who deliver partner therapy and GPs. Five hundred and twenty five GPs were surveyed and the assessment was that 43% of these GPs at the time were prescribing medication for partners without any legal cover, without any guidelines, and without any requirements. Forty-three percent of these people …
Mr Elferink: Why would we cover for them? That is outrageous conduct.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! You do not have the call, member for Port Darwin.
Mr VATSKALIS: ... were providing medications to partners. We are not introducing the legislation to cover up GPs who do something that is not legal. We are putting in place a mechanism with strict guidelines to instruct GPs on how to do things.
Under our legislation, under the guidelines, if someone presents to a doctor and is diagnosed with chlamydia, the person would be asked if they had had a sexual partner in the past six months. The person provides that information, the GP will ask the name of the person, the age of the person, details of the person, and a file will be created for the sexual partner. If such a file does not exist, a file will be created. The GP will not provide a pill. They will provide a prescription in the name of the partner. That prescription has to be filled in a pharmacy by the partner. When a person brings himself to the GP and advises the GP of the partner, the partner gives the details so the GP will be immediately be aware if the partner is of legal age to be a sexual partner. If not, he is obliged by law to report that to the authorities. If the person turns up to the pharmacy to fill the prescription and the pharmacist realises the person is underage, the pharmacist is obliged, by law, to report the situation to the authorities.
By putting the legislation in place and putting in place guidelines, GPs now have a clear direction and clear pathway on how to proceed with the patient delivered partner therapy, rather than having GPs doing whatever they like, however they like, with no records, and with people putting pills, as the member for Fong Lim said, in the partner’s ice cream - which might happen. I do not know if many people did that.
I note the concerns raised by the member for Greatorex. I also give an opportunity to the members for Fong Lim and Port Darwin, and any other member of the opposition, to have briefings about the particular clause of the legislation and the proposed amendment. Half information is sometimes more dangerous than no information at all.
For this reason, Madam Speaker, I move that the committee stage of the bill be later taken.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Heath): Madam Speaker, as I mentioned before, I would like to give the opportunity to the members opposite for a further briefing. I move that the committee stage of the bill be later taken.
Motion agreed to.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 22 February 2012.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arafura, in continuation. You have 10 minutes remaining.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I continue with a speech of someone I deeply admire who is a principal in my electorate. She wrote this paper on 3 February 2004 and it starts:
You give credit where credit is due, and I give credit to the minister for thinking outside the square, for looking at a way in which we have to get better education outcomes. Yes, we can have all the punitive measures, but if we can build the capacity of our communities, work with our families, because if it is in the interests of our kids, we do have to look at the community development aspects of building the community. Esther and her little team at Gunbalanya, all of the Aboriginal teachers, Raelene Geller, Julie Hagger, and all the Aboriginal teachers who work alongside our fantastic non-Indigenous teachers, Esther has, and she is fortunate to work with a co-principal in Sue Trimble, who has done a fantastic job with …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move that the member be granted an extension of time to complete her remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Thank you, member for Nhulunbuy. I have to get the member for Nhulunbuy and the minister out to Gunbalanya. I am proud of Gunbalanya, and I am proud of those families and that community, and what can be achieved when everyone works together.
Petrol sniffing has been a major issue. Drugs and alcohol are a major issue. The community has been discussing these problems, looking at when there is a captive audience, when all these kids are in the community and they cannot escape, when people are at the community, and the best time in which to do it.
I thank the minister, the department and the Australian Education Union for having the consultation amongst their membership and getting those teachers to agree that there would not be any reduction in their leave, but coming back to school at a time when many teachers go to have Christmas and holidays with their families, which is important too. I went to Gunbalanya when the school opened after the New Year and saw the enthusiasm of the non-Indigenous teachers as well as the Indigenous assistant teachers. It was fantastic to see that, and it stretched right back towards Maningrida. I was surprised to see that Aboriginal teachers from Maningrida had come to Gunbalanya to be part of this great trial.
It certainly worked. When I was talking to the Maningrida Aboriginal assistant teachers, they were all saying they want to pull together this same trial, because the kids are captive in the community. It is the Wet Season, all the rivers are up, the roads are closed and the kids are bored. They were getting restless and there were some problems after Christmas, and early in the New Year, where some of the houses were broken into. So the school opened at a pivotal time, where it re-engaged kids and gave them something to do, and took away the antisocial behaviour or issues that happen when kids are bored.
I was talking to the young kids, particularly secondary kids. There were still parents re-enrolling some of their kids and wanting to have their kids come in. The day I was out there, I am sure it would have been close to 40oC, and many of those kids and their parents wanted to be in the school because it was better to be in the school in the air-conditioning and escape the heat in Kakadu. If you have been to Gunbalanya, the escarpment, that rock retains the heat. It shows if the ducks are lined up you open the school to that community, you get the community to feel they have a sense of ownership of their children’s education.
In our urban schools, if you have an issue with your child’s education standards you have every right to talk to the school and the principal and get that changed. For too long in our communities that has not been the case. Gunbalanya has shown if you empower the community, and give the resources to the school, both can work. This two-year process - I watched Esther driving this process and saw her going around that community in a Toyota with a megaphone calling people to meetings and getting them to sit down. When a child has not attended in that school, she has sat down with the parents and asked: ‘Why has your child not come to school?’ For two-and-a-half years she consistently followed this up.
When I saw her after the New Year she was tired. I always worry for people like Esther because they are becoming a rarity and we need to look after people like her because they become fewer and fewer in our system. Without her and many of the Aboriginal teachers working in partnership with non-Indigenous teachers we would not be seeing the outcomes we are seeing at Gunbalanya and the challenges. Esther knows, when I talk to her on the phone at night, the burden of sustaining those numbers in the school to ensure that every child every day attends school - the government’s policy is getting children to school every day. She knows if they go every day they will get a quality education, just like her education levels, something she was always grateful for. Both her parents saw the advantages of a good education.
The restructure in the department also went some way in assisting in that. One person I should mention who I have not mentioned today is John Bray, Executive Director, West Arnhem College. West Arnhem College oversees Jabiru and Gunbalanya, and John has been instrumental in providing coordination between Jabiru school and Gunbalanya. You have a school on one side of the river that never had any discussions with the school on the other side of the river. Now you have an executive principal who pulled both together and the exchanges that are happening with both of these schools. There are non-Indigenous young people at Jabiru school who are there because their parents are working with Parks Australia or for ERA with the mines who have never been part of an Aboriginal school. To see that exchange happening with both and talking to the young non-Indigenous kids at Jabiru, it is enriching their lives and they see it as an important process in their education. There has been more communication, more opportunities, for all these children to learn from each other and those teachers.
I believe Jabiru and Gunbalanya is an example of the important structural changes that have been made in the Northern Territory in relation to education. If we can continue down this road, that is an investment for the future, in better education outcomes where our children, as Esther says, are already literate in their Aboriginal language in their culture. We need to make them literate and numerate in the Western side because it should not be one without the other. It is about complementing and bringing in both.
Gunbalanya shows - and there are many examples; I know it is not just my electorate. If you look across the bush, yes, there are problems and we can continually talk about it, but there are many positive stories. We need to remain vigilant and work with those schools and those communities, and support principals like Esther to get the outcomes we all need to ensure our kids get a good education.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I also put on record my thanks to Esther at Gunbalanya. As the member for Arafura said, I went with her and had the pleasure and honour of meeting Esther at Gunbalanya. She is a fantastic person and a fantastic teacher, and a leader for her people. Wish her well, member for Arafura, the next time you go out to your electorate.
I contribute to such an important statement on a subject we are all very concerned about, on both sides of the House. We continuously talk about education, the quality of education, and how important education is in a child’s life. I have to congratulate the member for Nelson. He hit the nail on the head yesterday with his contribution, when he said you can have all the technologies, but it is about getting kids to read and write.
I spoke about the missionaries in adjournment. They were people who did much with very few resources and very little money. If you have a look at their history, and the number of people who were educated and are able to communicate in society today, that is the hard work of the churches - whether it was Catholic, Uniting Church, or the Lutherans. That is the contribution those people made.
We have all stressed, over a period of time, how important it is for the community and for parents to ensure their children go to school every day. I congratulate all the teachers and principals in my electorate of Macdonnell because they do a fantastic job during very hard times. In communities, it is really hard to be a teacher, a health worker, a nurse, or a police officer. We have to make that flow of congratulations to these people from the local members in this House in Hansard readily available and send it to them so they can see it.
There is good infrastructure being built at schools. I congratulate the minister on the school at Bonya. That is the school in Bonya in 2012. Bonya has been in existence for 13 or 14 years. Thank you, minister, for putting a school in at Bonya in 2012. It is very important those communities like Bonya have access to education.
One of the things we do not address, when we dress up how good the government is in delivering education to communities, is bullying within the department: bullying within the department, and bullying by certain members of the community. I want to put something on the record because I know the minister will jump up with his famous book, King Brown Country, and talk about Diane de Vere. I have received two e-mails from Diane de Vere that I would like to put on record.
Madam Speaker, the first one is:
Peter Buckskin obviously sent her the information:
There is another e-mail from Diane deVere. It says:
The e-mail from Michael to her then states:
which means ‘old people’:
which means ‘Aboriginal people’:
A member interjecting.
Ms ANDERSON: That is not Alison Anderson; that is your department.
and she apologises for using the word ‘black’:
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I put that on public record. I also seek leave to table this.
Leave granted.
Ms ANDERSON: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I also have a letter from a teacher, a couple who were recruited from Tasmania. It is really nice to get these people in to give opportunities to Aboriginal kids. However, it is very sad when, as a local member, you get letters like this. I take this opportunity to read some of this letter. It is okay for you to stand up, minister, or your government, and say what good things you think you are doing, when in fact there are people on the ground who are telling you that your department is a bully, and that there are certain members of your department who bully them. There are things that do not get out to Aboriginal communities. These people are practically living on a shoestring, they are having items donated to the school, and you only just sent your minister, the Minister for Central Australia, to open this school a couple of months ago. I am talking about the Watarrka School.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to table this letter in full as well, so the minister can have the capacity to understand what these teachers are saying to you. It will be good if other people outside of parliament can sight these letters as well. I believe there is a book being written about you, minister, very soon.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you tabling that document, member for Macdonnell?
Ms ANDERSON: Yes, I will after I have spoken to it. I have asked leave to table it. This is an e-mail which came from Wilma Lambert, the teacher/manager of Lilla School and a co-principal of the Lambert Independent School in Tasmania. I have highlighted some of the things that I want to speak to, and she says:
There are interested groups like Mutitjulu Aboriginal Corporation that actually work with these people, and Kings Canyon Tourism officers, and, of course, Parks and the land council. These people are really interested in closing the gap in Aboriginal education. I believe it is really bad, minister, that you have let down this group of people and given them a false impression of your sincerity towards Indigenous education in the bush.
In another part, she says:
There was another incident where there was a teacher in my electorate at Harts Range on the eastern Plenty who was dismissed. We are in a situation where we are crying out for teachers to come from other places; however, when they come to the Northern Territory we do not treat these people with respect.
The Aboriginal teacher assistant is not happy working at that school because he had a relationship with that young girl who was a non-Indigenous teacher and he is now being punished. It is his community and he has to continually talk to the department about the problem.
Minister, while you beat your chest about the things you do, you have a long way to go because you do not come from the Northern Territory, you are not Aboriginal, and you never will be. You will never understand the problems like we understand the problems. I know it is your job to do that. You are the minister, and you must try to understand it, but you will never have the capacity to understand it, nor will you try to understand. As everyone in this House has said, and everyone all over the Northern Territory know, soon you will be going into the sunset and they do not really have to worry about you. It will be good to see the back of you. Every department you have touched with your old hands has turned to thorns.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I always welcome the opportunity to speak in this House, particularly when it comes to matters of education. I am very passionate about education. It was a job with the Education department that brought me here in 1987. My three children were born in the Northern Territory. I have a daughter who is now at university, but I have two sons who are at high school. I have a vested interest in ensuring my kids have access to a quality education.
When I say that it is not because I believe I can specifically influence it from here; long before I got into this job I always had high expectations about what services were available to my children. Many of my friends are schoolteachers, and I even share a bed with a schoolteacher ...
Mr Tollner: You sly girl!
Ms WALKER: That is all right, he is my husband ...
Mr Tollner: Sorry, sly woman!
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim …
Mr Tollner: I am sorry if I offended you.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: ... can you please ...
Mr Tollner: I withdraw! Okey dokey?
Ms WALKER: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. I did not take any offence from the member for Fong Lim.
We know education is the cornerstone of people’s lives. Whether it is here in the Northern Territory or any other part of Australia or anywhere else in the world, it is access to a quality education which gives people an opportunity to grow and become independent and self-determining individuals with the future in their own hands. Without it, people have limited opportunities.
I have only ever taught in the Northern Territory. When I graduated in Adelaide at the end of 1986, basically, in the Education Department at that time your options were limited. If you wanted to stay in an urban area, there was a rule at that time that all graduating teachers had to serve in remote parts of South Australia, do a certain amount of time out there and then you could apply to come into urban positions. I graduated with a couple of friends and, between the three of us, we all went for interviews and decided if we were going bush we might as well go all the way to the Northern Territory. For me, it is probably the best decision I ever made. I have certainly never looked back. Like so many people in any job coming from south, I came for just two years, and I am very proud to say I have just clocked up 25 years.
When I started teaching here – actually, I am just going to take it back a step. I listened with interest to the contribution of the member for Port Darwin yesterday. He talked about the influence and lasting impressions that our teachers have upon us. I guess in one sense that is one of the reasons I moved into a teaching job. Pathways back then, more than 30 years ago, were more limited when I look at what is available today. Many young women, like me, when we left high school, if we were going into the tertiary area, it was typically nursing or as teachers. There was a handful of women I knew who went on to study in other areas, others went into apprenticeships, typically, such as hairdressing. I was in a small country town, so the retail sector was there as well. Many worked in family businesses. For young fellows, it was apprenticeships, working on the farm, or maybe working in the local bank.
I loved study, and I enjoyed being at school. I went to the local high school in a little town in the mid-north called Clare. Amongst the people who had lasting impressions upon me were two of my history teachers whom I talked about in my maiden speech. They were both, at separate times, Labor candidates in South Australia in what was a very blue ribbon seat. I guess it planted in me, at that time, more a sense of social justice than a sense or any ambition to enter politics. However, I will never forget those two teachers. There are a number of teachers whose names I remember and I can see their faces and I will never forget, but these two individuals made a particular impression upon me. Interestingly, I spoke about this at a Rotary dinner recently in Nhulunbuy. Some people were a bit surprised and afraid that the Education Department in South Australia was a hotbed for politics in schools and trying to influence young people in the school.
Alan Reed was my Year 12 teacher and, at the time, there were a number of different units that teachers could opt to do with their class, as well as core units. One we studied was the history of Aboriginal society in Australia, which was eye-opening for me, and the second unit was the history of the Labor movement. From there, I learnt, in addition to what my mother had taught me, as a strong Labor supporter and a strong supporter of unions, the historical background to that. I believe they were the seeds of social justice for me. I did not leave school having been taught by those teachers thinking: ‘That is it; I want to be a Labor politician’. That is something which happened many years later.
But those teachers do leave lasting impressions upon us. I have students whom I taught more than 20 years ago approach me. I had a young man approach me on Sunday afternoon at the Arnhem Club. I was at a fundraiser for our local surf club and he recognised me, came and shook my hand, and said hello. His name is Richard but I cannot remember his last name. I can still picture him sitting in my class. In some ways he was a reluctant student but, in the end, a successful student. He was never rude. He did the bare minimum to get through. But good on him, he made it through and he works as a contractor. He told me he is making lots of money going to shut downs around the Northern Territory.
The member for Port Darwin talked about some of the teachers who taught him and my ear pricked up because I recognised one of the names. I have heard the minister for Education say that the Northern Territory is a big place, but it is also a very small place and there are not that many of us here, particularly within the Education department, or perhaps across the public service generally. There are names which will ring a bell with people and I recognised when he was talking about Ms Callahan. I thought, hang on, I remember that person. Obviously the member for Port Darwin’s memories of that individual are somewhat negative. I want to put on the record that Gayle Callahan, when I was a neophyte teacher in the Territory, was one of the teachers I looked up to as a mentor. She was an incredibly dedicated woman. I do not know where she is these days. I do not know if she is still in the Northern Territory or if she is still teaching, but there was a group of English teachers in the Northern Territory who were second to none. I know a number of them are still teaching in our schools and pay tribute to that group of women - it was around the days when Vivienne Hayward was the Moderator; she had another position as well that went with it. She was an incredible woman. I believe Vivienne is still in Darwin. Rita Henry, who has recently retired, is another person I really looked up to. Teachers do leave lasting impressions on us.
When I taught for a year at Palmerston High School, or Driver it was then, followed by two years in Katherine and a year out at Nhulunbuy High School, those schools were reasonably well resourced. There were some very good teachers. The Country Liberal Party had invested in those schools and in education. In Katherine in 1989 we moved into a brand new school in Katherine East. The previous one was very old. Katherine was growing with families from RAAF Base Tindal moving into the communities, so there was a huge area of growth in Katherine East.
What I have seen, especially since I have been in this job, and even in the years after I left teaching in Nhulunbuy, is that there has been neglect in our very remote Indigenous schools. In 2001, we inherited a system that was very neglected. The member for Port Darwin called out yesterday that it was not neglected and that is just a furphy. But if it was not denied, why was it that the Country Liberal Party, with no transparency and only by stealth, managed to shut down Dhupuma College just outside of Nhulunbuy at the spot known as Gulkula in the early 1980s? That was a secondary boarding facility which accommodated Indigenous students from Milingimbi, Ramingining, Groote Eylandt and Elcho Island. This was a secondary boarding facility, but it was short lived. It was closed down during a school holiday break with very short notice to students and families. So, when they say we are not telling the truth, they need to look at their own record and history as to what it was they were delivering in the bush. There were 250 people accommodated at Dhupuma College between staff and students, and it was just shut down.
So in 2001 under a Labor government, dealing with that legacy of decades of neglect in our remote areas where, as we have said, and they do not like hearing it, there has been absolute neglect of secondary education for our Indigenous students. It is only since 2001 under a Labor government that we have seen kids in remote areas from our remote Indigenous communities graduate through to Year 12 level. We see that number steadily increasing. We would like to see many more, and that is what we are focused on at the moment.
Let us have a look at our investment, and Labor’s investment, at both the Territory and federal level. We talked about the BER program with $270m invested in infrastructure into the Northern Territory. I have seen the amazing results that has delivered in my electorate, as well as other parts of the Northern Territory. Let us remember that this investment in our schools was about building that infrastructure to make our schools better places, and it was also about keeping people in jobs and keeping the Northern Territory economy ticking over. It was a program that was not supported by members on the other side, or by their colleagues in the federal parliament. What a very short-sighted stand that was.
The Building the Education Revolution program is coming to a close. In fact, one of the last projects is happening in my electorate at the moment. Nhulunbuy Primary School is receiving a BER project. Nhulunbuy Primary School is 40 years old this year, so the infrastructure is quite old. It is getting a significant upgrade to the main assembly area modelled on what I have seen at Millner Primary School. That has been under way for a couple of months now. We are looking forward to seeing that project come to a conclusion within the next four to six weeks. It will make that school a better place, provide an assembly space that has just never been really available at that school. At the same time, that particular project has been undertaken by one of our local contractors in Nhulunbuy, and I am certainly very pleased for them.
The minister gave a list of some of the significant investments in infrastructure, and I am not talking about the BER program now, but I notice that he talked about Tennant Creek High School having received a gym for $3.2m. That project is also coming to an end at the moment. Interestingly, under the years of the CLP, Tennant Creek and Nhulunbuy were the only government high schools in the Northern Territory that did not have these gyms. You cannot help but think that probably had quite a bit to do with the fact that those seats were held for a number of years by Labor and therefore did not see the benefits of the CLP funding.
One of the most important spends that strikes a chord with me is the investment in meeting the needs of special education students, with $11.7m for Nemarluk School at Alawa. Those works are well under way and I really must get out there and have a look. Acacia Hill Special School has $4.7m for its redevelopment. That investment in our kids who have special needs is very important. I am the parent of a special needs child, and whilst my child is mainstreamed, he accesses good support through an ISA, and also has a special place when he needs somewhere to go at Nhulunbuy High School, as do other kids with special needs. Nhulunbuy High School has an excellent annexe with fantastic staff looking after our high needs students. In fact, I invited Tracey Myles from Autism NT to Nhulunbuy last year. It is an organisation that, like many of these NGOs, is strapped for funding. I know it is supported by the proprietor of the Nightcliff Shopping Centre, who provides them office space for free, which is incredibly generous of him. I know through the department of Education that Tracey’s position, which is 30 hours a week although she puts in more than that as well some hours as an administrative person, is met by Student Services from DET.
I have been a member of Autism NT for a number of years. I invited Tracey to Nhulunbuy in May of last year to time with an autism workshop being run under the federal program, Positive Partnerships. That is a federally-funded program with a few million dollars attached to it addressing the needs of autistic kids and their families. I paid Tracey’s airfare and accommodation to come to Nhulunbuy being so far away and with many families who have children on the autism spectrum. Tracey came for two days and a night and was impressed by what she saw at the special annexe at Nhulunbuy High School, not only the infrastructure, but the quality, dedication and the professionalism of the teachers working in that unit and what they are doing for our special needs students.
I cannot highlight enough how important that investment is. This government is about supporting education for all kids in the Territory no matter where they live and we are inclusive insofar as the special needs those kids have and we are doing our utmost to support them as well.
The minister listed a number of new schools we have built - those in the Palmerston area as that area continues to grow and grow. In my electorate, Baniyala Garrangali School has seen an investment of in excess of $3m. It has been a homeland learning centre for a number of years. That community, the largest of the Layna homelands with more than 100 people, has lobbied hard to see a school established there - a full-time school so they have small school status, they have full-time teachers five days a week as part of the spend there. We not only upgraded the existing classrooms but also built a beautiful new school building. The minister and I sat in that building last August during the opening. We built two teacher houses there, and the teachers there are Pat and Wendy Ellis. Pat is the Principal and his wife, Wendy, is also a teacher. They are very dedicated teachers. I have known them for many years and they were the Principal and the Assistant Principal at Nhulunbuy Primary School when my kids were there, and I taught their boys when they were at the high school. We have much to be proud of with the Baniyala Garrangali School. I know it is a source of much pride for the traditional owner, Mr Djambawa Marawili.
We have also seen a significant investment, as the minister said, in the information communication technology to ensure our schools are as modern as any other school. That is a real challenge in the Northern Territory when we have schools that are widespread across some pretty challenging geography. I met with the Principal at Yirrkala Homelands School last week, Haidee Dentith, who oversees that school, and is headquartered in Yirrkala, but looks after a number of homeland learning centres across the Layna Homelands ...
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time for the member for Nhulunbuy to complete her remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms WALKER: Thank you, Madam Speaker and thank you, member for Arafura.
Yirrkala Homelands School has a big project being rolled out this year. They are working closely with the ICT for Learning Unit within DET to have every one of those homeland learning centres hooked up to the Internet through a satellite through Wi-Fi so those schools and those communities are into the 21st century like the rest of us and have access to the Internet. That brings with it many more opportunities for e-learning so it is a real positive.
The minister talked about excellent teachers and principals. Critical to our Smart Territory policy and delivering quality education to get the very best outcomes for kids - because that is what it is all about at the end of the day; delivering the best outcomes for kids - we need excellent teachers, principals, and staff. We know there are many additional staff who work in schools who are not necessarily qualified teachers. We have people who work on guided reading programs, ISAs, and front office ladies who are the people who have the most knowledge of the school. I appreciate all the efforts of our school staff, but especially our teachers and principals. I have been to all of our school principals this year bar one. We have a new principal at Yirrkala School. We were due to meet last week. That has been postponed, but I am sure we will be catching up very soon.
We have talked about the challenges that we have in attracting and retaining teachers in the Northern Territory. The minister said in his statement:
We have a turnover we would like to see reduced, and we are reducing that turnover. It does not happen on its own; it happens through careful planning and strategy. If I look back to my recruitment into the Northern Territory - and I shared this story when I represented the minister at the inaugural conference of NARIS, the National Association of Remote Indigenous Schools, in Alice Springs last year around August/September. This was a group of teachers who all teach in remote Indigenous schools from around different parts of Australia. There was a real sense of energy in that room. It was the first time all of these teachers had been brought together. It is such a sensible thing to do rather than just to sit in the Northern Territory and say: ‘Okay, we have these problems with teacher retention and we have some great ideas about how we want to work in our remote areas. Let us start talking, let us have the dialogue, let us have an association and an active association with other jurisdictions so that we can network and share and work together to resolve some of the issues’.
I talked with teachers about my experience of being recruited into the Territory. I do not want to detract from the officer from the department who interviewed me - she was very helpful, very knowledgeable - but I could not help but feel that my interview was more like a visit to a travel agent. I did have good qualifications and much to offer, and I still hold that to be true. Most of the conversation was about where I would like to go. I said I wanted to come to Darwin and only to Darwin; that I would not look at anywhere else. I was not interested in going remotely and being a high school teacher. At that time, I was, basically, restricted to four main centres - or five if I include Palmerston. She agreed that Darwin was a very good place to come to because it was the gateway to Asia, that is was a great place, a stepping point for holidays, and that Darwin was a very friendly place.
We did not talk so much about what I could offer education, schools, and children but, rather, I was recruited on the strength of someone who was interested in living in the Territory. We have come a long way from there in recognising now that we do not necessarily just want people who want to come to the Territory for a holiday and adventure. We want educators who are passionate about education - I was passionate about education and I still am - we want people who are passionate about education and who are going to stay as well; to try to get a commitment from people.
At Shepherdson College on Elcho Island, under the stewardship of Brian Hughes, the principal, they do not have a great deal of difficulty with recruitment. In fact, Brian Hughes has teachers who want to work there approach him directly at the school saying: ‘I have heard a lot about your school’ ...
Mr Chandler: Great principal.
Ms WALKER: You are right, member for Brennan, he is a great principal. I wish we could clone a couple more of him.
As part of his recruitment process, in narrowing down his selection criteria, he asks people what their commitment is and how many years they are prepared to put in at the school. The next question he asks them is if they are prepared to be involved in some additional study of Yolngu Matha and Yolngu culture. The response people give to that question is what guides him on the sort of people he is looking for at the school.
We know a number of incentives are offered in the Northern Territory, under this government, to make it attractive to people. I have been in Nhulunbuy an awfully long time and study leave has come in since I have been there. Teachers have the opportunity to accumulate x number of points and when you have accumulated so many points for having lived and taught in a remote area, you are entitled to a period of study leave. That scheme, whilst it costs government to allow a teacher to go on leave and bring in a replacement for, perhaps, six months, is mutually beneficial. There is a return on the investment because it gives teachers a break and gives them an opportunity to study. It can be tough for those teachers who are in our really remote schools. They need a break; they need to be able to go away to recharge the batteries.
A couple of teachers approached me at the NARIS Leaders’ Conference and said they enjoyed teaching in place x, y or z in Queensland or Western Australia, but they would really like the opportunity to teach in one of the Territory schools to do something different for a couple of years and then go back to their school. That is one of the objectives at NARIS and we need to continue to look at that.
We are seeing encouraging signs in our investment in teachers, through the incentives which are in place, and that support is showing dividends. We measure those dividends through areas like student outcomes, and we have measurable results with tools like NAPLAN and through our recruitment and retention. Whilst the member for Brennan may beg to differ, we have seen retention of teachers in the Territory improve by 10% from 2010-11, and in our very remote schools we have seen that retention improve by 13.6%.
One of the other things I know is making a difference in my electorate is the homeland learning centres where teachers spend three nights in those communities. It is a tough gig; they are usually spending their time there in swag, camped in a classroom with fairly basic amenities. There are a number of schools in the homeland learning centres built with a combination of BER and Northern Territory government money. We are building additional teaching spaces, because these schools are growing. There is a breezeway in the middle, which is also good covered learning space as well. We have accommodation for teachers across at least four schools in my electorate, in homeland learning centres. We have overnight accommodation for teachers. They can sleep in a bed, with air conditioning, and have access to a kitchen and ablution blocks. These teachers do not do it for the money; they do it because they are dedicated.
Madam Speaker, I have run out of time but I believe we are heading in the right direction. We are doing amazing things in education in the Northern Territory. We will continue to do so, and we will see the measurable results that go with that. I commend the statement to the House.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I thank all members who have contributed to this important debate; nothing could be more important for the Northern Territory. As I said in Question Time, a strong education for a strong future could be a policy name. Maybe the member for Brennan will consider it as the title for his policy. Anyway we will wait for the member for Brennan to announce his policy.
In his offering, he talked about NAPLAN. I am paraphrasing here: he said NAPLAN achievements are below national averages even in provincial schools. I have never shied away from the fact that we are starting from a very low base with our NAPLAN results. It is there for all to see, but I also believe, and we can demonstrate, very significant and positive improvements in most domains of testing with our students. We have implemented a very comprehensive suite of actions around literacy and numeracy. To that end, as I have said a number of times in this House, we have engaged Professor Geoff Masters, who is visiting schools all over the Territory and reporting directly to the CEO of the department of Education and to me. He is also submitting reports, which I have said have been made public, and really point to the need for the department to align action to their strategic plan. I see him as a critical friend - that might be a way to put it - someone who is independent, someone who is expert, and someone who will speak his mind with all that independence and respect he has as a senior educator in Australia.
We have a unique mix of students, and we have the highest proportion of disadvantaged students, including those who are Indigenous or a very mobile student population. We have outstripped the Australian average in improvements in 11 of 12 categories of testing of students sitting NAPLAN for the second time - that is, those who sat in 2009. That is pleasing, but we have a long way to go. I am not saying we have arrived; this will take years for us to move forward.
We have a record budget. I take what the member for Nelson said, and also the member for Macdonnell, that money is not everything. Teachers are the key, and those teachers with enthusiasm and the ability to impart knowledge and have the respect of their students are the type of teachers we want. That is why we are endeavouring to recruit the brightest and best – and retain them.
One area where I believe we can demonstrate improvement but, once again, have a long way to go, is the Northern Territory Certificate of Education and Training. In 2001, there were 25 Indigenous students who attained that particular qualification. In 2011, there were 148.
I took on board what the member for Nelson had to say about his experience of employers saying that students were having difficulty reading and writing. That is a real problem, even though they may have attained their Year 12, and it behoves all of us to ensure the students are up to the right standard. That is why we have included a Certificate of Education and Training where we can get students going down the training pathway as well. That remains one of our challenges.
The member for Brennan mentioned the Gonski review, which is very important, that he acknowledged he is reading. He said he is finding it quite an easy - or accessible might be a word - report to read. I would have to say that I have to read it a number of times and go over it, and really try to appropriate it all. Maybe, member for Macdonnell, it is because I am getting older and I need to have layers of understanding in there. We all get old, member for Macdonnell. I suppose I am your senior in a way, even though I am a silly old fool, you might have said in the paper, but I will come to the paper, probably not in this wrap-up of education. I will speak specifically about that within the adjournments, because I do have a few things to say about it ...
Ms Anderson interjecting.
Dr BURNS: And you do too? Well, that is wonderful. So we can both stay and listen to what each other have to say about it.
This is an important issue. We will be going over the Gonski report very carefully. Schools will not lose a dollar. I am mindful of the non-government sector, and some of the schools, you call them private schools, Essington, St Philips, Palmerston Christian School, etcetera. We see them as an intrinsic part of our education system and we want to help and support those schools.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said positive learning centres are under-resourced and only take 25% of Taminmin students needing the service. She wanted a re-engagement centre in Palmerston. I have received advice from the department that we will be employing three new positive behaviour advisor positions to help schools with extreme behaviour issues and develop whole-of-school approaches to behaviour management. That step grew out of the 11 recommendations of the review carried out last year. I have talked about that in this parliament as well. We will also be looking to extend the capacity of the positive learning centre program. We will be looking at alternative school options, one-on-one literacy and numeracy tutoring, personal development, life skills, and VET. Many of these students may do very well in a VET stream rather than a formal education stream.
The member for Brennan talked about the need for additional professional learning and professional development and for the implementation of the national curriculum. The Centre for School Leadership Learning and Development established in 2001 will ensure these needs are met and support these needs. Last year, the centre developed a range of programs and events designed to improve leadership in teaching in our school including: preparation for school leaders program; school leaders in the making; principal and teacher orientation; development and programs for high-performing principals; coaching programs; Highly Accomplished and Lead Teacher program or HALT; and early career principals program. That centre is collaborating with other jurisdictions, professional associations, government and non-government organisations and universities to develop the highest quality programs and services for Northern Territory teachers and principals.
Given the number of people who have spoken to this statement, I do not have time to address everyone’s contribution, but I thought I would highlight the contribution by the member for Brennan, as shadow.
The Leader of the Opposition asserted there was a lack of cohesion and focus in the way the curriculum is being implemented. That is why, member for Blain, the national curriculum is being implemented. The Howard government talked about it for years and Julie Bishop, at that stage, was the Education minister. However, it is being implemented by the Labor government in Canberra. It is a major undertaking and is being progressively implemented across the country and will ensure consistency. It especially suits transient elements of our population such as Defence Force personnel.
I will say this on the record again, I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that to some degree we may have a cluttered curriculum, and I have told the department I want the decks cleared to a large extent to focus on literacy and numeracy.
The Leader of the Opposition referred to the Singapore curriculum where they did a complete rebuild of the maths curriculum. The Australian curriculum, I would suggest, is contemporary. From memory, the Leader of the Opposition was trying to make the argument that because Gonski said Australia as a whole was slipping on the ladder of OECD countries in subjects like maths and science, and because the Territory is the worst we are going backwards at a faster rate. I would dispute that in that band of students who take those subjects; however, we need to encourage more students to take up maths and science. It is important and our students, if they go to school every day, will have a great education. It is a very important debate and I listened carefully to the Leader of the Opposition.
He said we are all spin: education revolution, digital revolution, he talked about all the revolutions; however, we know enough as local members, particularly with the Building the Education Revolution, that there has been significant infrastructure placed within schools across the Territory. I could go through all the BER projects in the member’s electorate but I will not. He knows only too well that millions upon millions of dollars has been expended in his electorate. Does he also reject the 8000 new computers across the Northern Territory, and a laptop for ever senior year student? I do not think so.
He talked about COGSO and that is important. COGSO came to government and asked for positions. We have stepped up to the plate on that. Their current funding is $258 000 per annum and we put in another $100 000 on top of previous historical funding. The Leader of the Opposition referred to their four-year-old policy and the other policy they have about early childhood, but that does not mention school governance or autonomy. I predict the member for Brennan will come out with his new policy, and he will raise and discuss that issue. I am more than happy to have that debate. COGSO has been allocated $150 000 extra this year and the promise of $150 000 ongoing for two staff - one in Alice Springs and one in Darwin - for school councils training. I am not sure whether you are aware of that, member for Brennan. It will be interesting to see what you have to say about that in your policy.
Many members contributed to the debate and I really appreciate that, and I am grateful to each member who has contributed. Given the time I have, I do not think I can give every member’s contribution justice to the thought and preparation that has been put in.
The Chief Minister talked from the perspective of Chief Minister, and as a parent. He has – not a child - a young man who has moved from high school and beyond that, and two children in school, so he is experiencing the system firsthand. He reiterated that he believes if a child goes to school every day in the Territory, they will receive a first-class education. He also said that the advances we have made as a government in education is, in no small part, due to the reforms and investment made by this government, and the efforts of the successive Education ministers, my predecessors. He talked about transforming education in the bush. There has been much investment in infrastructure and teachers. There has been a great deal of investment in teachers and, as I said previously, we want to employ the brightest and best, and we want to retain them. Importantly, he talked about very good news with Charles Darwin University’s significant increase in enrolments. He commended the work of Barney Glover. All members of this parliament commend Barney Glover and his work as Vice-Chancellor of the university. I am very appreciative, and I commend his work and the development of Charles Darwin University.
The Chief Minister spoke of the Country Liberal Party’s need to deliver their education policy and it needs to have the backing of funding. I raised that issue before with the member for Brennan. He also talked about the success of Clontarf.
The Treasurer talked about education being at the top of our agenda; that we have better schools, more great teachers and programs on par with any in the country. She talked about the Back to School Bonus payment of $75 per student, and that is very important.
I have touched on the issue originally raised by the member for Nelson when he said he is getting feedback about people with NTCE certificates who cannot read or write. I acknowledge that has been an issue and I am not backing away from that. We need to ensure the quality of those graduates who come through with a Northern Territory Certificate of Education and Training now. So, it is a valid issue.
I was a bit bemused I suppose - the member for Port Darwin always comes off left field with a few things. He talked about a teacher - I am not going to say her name – and said she was a monument to beads, unkempt hair, and cheesecloth. I was almost tempted to add stale perfume in there, member for Port Darwin. Then he contrasted her with a teacher, who I will mention, Helen Coburn, who taught English to the member for Port Darwin. The member for Port Darwin is a wordsmith, he is a master of the English language. I do wonder, member for Port Darwin, that you talked in here yesterday about naming public servants and putting them on the spot, yet you named the poor lady in the cheesecloth who was a monument to beads. As I said to you last night, if I was that lady and I heard about it I might be inclined to write and ask for a right of reply as you were not very complimentary. You could have said the same thing and kept the unkempt hair and monument to beads, and added a few other things, without mentioning her name. Maybe you were just using a nom de plume, a name that …
Mr Elferink: No.
Dr BURNS: So the person actually exists, all right. Well, as we often say here, we are responsible for what we say in this place ...
Mr Elferink: I am prepared to be.
Dr BURNS: The member for Barkly, the Minister for Lands and Planning, talked about his long-term experiences as a teacher in the Northern Territory and he drew on that experience. He also made the point that he hopes the CLP education policy is delivered with a bibliography and with acknowledgement to me and to successive Education ministers in the Northern Territory, because I built on the achievements of others. It will be interesting to see how radically the member for Brennan wants to change our education system.
The member for Nelson also mentioned some great schools like Robinson River. There are some great schools in the Territory and it is great to see those schools, particularly those in remote areas with Indigenous kids, with great teachers, great attendance, and great community support.
The member for Fannie Bay talked about his experience growing up and being educated in the Territory. He said you can get a good education in the Territory. That was an important contribution to the debate.
The member for Arafura talked about the cultural aspects of learning and the decision-making process and how, in many instances, Indigenous people feel excluded from the decision-making processes. She commended the principal at Gunbalanya.
The positive part of the member for Macdonnell’s offering was about her meeting with the Gunbalanya principal, and she emphasised how important education is to children. She congratulated principals in her electorate. She raised the issue of bullying within the department and I have copies of the e-mails and the letter - it is an e-mail as well. I will be looking into, and following up on, those matters.
People do have redress through the Public Sector Employment and Management Act if they are being bullied. As Minister for Public Employment, I am happy to take those issues on board and refer them to the commissioner. I do not want to see bullying in the workplace.
I was interested to hear the member for Macdonnell say there was going to be a book written about me. I have already foreshadowed …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I move that the minister be given an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, member for Arafura. That alarmed me a little because I intend to write a book and have said so in this place before. It will be sort of a satirical non-biography and I have already determined the title, member for Macdonnell. It is The Truth is Up For Grabs, Not Even the Dead are Safe. I am a little worried there could be a book in competition. I do not have the distinction you have of having nearly a whole book, King Brown Country, written about you. I am starting to think that maybe I am up there with the member for Macdonnell. It will be interesting to see.
You did say something that I believe was a little unkind, that I might live in the Territory but I will never be Indigenous. I just keep on remembering what you say, member for Macdonnell. You say: ‘There is not a black way, there is not a white way, there is only the right way’. That seems to undercut the spirit of what you have said in this parliament a number of times. I am not Indigenous; I am a human being. I do understand things, many things. I understand what is written in King Brown Country. I understand what I talked about here the other night during adjournment - and I will have a bit more to say when we move into adjournment about that, and I will be listening very carefully. I will leave that for adjournments. I will be very interested to hear what you have to say, member for Macdonnell. You said that I will never understand the problems. I thought that was a bit of a generalisation. I thought that was being a bit unkind, seeing there is not the black way, there is not the white way, there is only the right way.
The member for Nhulunbuy represents a remote electorate, and has also had long-term teaching experience within the Northern Territory, and as parliamentary secretary for Education. She is a very good parliamentary secretary, I might say, Madam Speaker, as she has a wealth of experience, like the member for Barkly, within the system.
I know the Leader of the Opposition had a long teaching career before he came to this parliament. As I understand it, and he may correct me, it was more in the Christian school sector. Before he entered parliament, he rose to the position of principal of a Christian school.
I value the advice and feedback of the members, particularly on this side, who have had experience in the regions and the remote areas, and I am always seeking it in terms of education.
The member for Nhulunbuy talked about the pleasure of students she taught 20 years ago and seeing how they have turned out and the success of their lives.
If could just tell a little anecdote here. My sister was a teacher in the Territory in the 1960s and 1970s. She visited me a couple of years ago and attended a function at Parliament House, where she recognised one of the students she had taught in the remote areas of the Barkly. This particular lady had become a health worker and received an award for her great services as a health worker. It was great to see those two catch up, the bond that existed as a teacher and student, and now 20 or 30 years on, that really was a very special bond. We all remember those teachers who supported us and helped us; we remember them with a lot of affection.
The member for Nhulunbuy also talked about the annexe at Nhulunbuy for special needs students, and her experience with and the challenges of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. That is very challenging for parents, teachers and the school community. We need to work with parents and communities to support those students.
Madam Speaker, I commend the statement to members and to the House. I thank all those who have participated in this debate. Education is, front and centre, one of the major issues for the Northern Territory. Thank you to every member who participated.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I have several things I would like to briefly discuss tonight. The first is the advertising of exploration licence applications in the local newspaper. Some time last year, the government changed the rules and regulations regarding applications for blocks. Previously, companies could apply for the maximum size being 500 graticular blocks. The government changed it to a size of 250 blocks. Industry was not entirely happy with that because if they want the same parcel of land they have to put in more paperwork, and more fees go with that paperwork.
Something must be wrong in the system because in the NT News of 22 February there are 12 applications, three of which are over the 250 blocks that is a requirement under the legislation. I ask the minister for Resources to explain why it is that these applications are over the size. Is the department going to be asking applicants to reduce the application, comply, or split the application? Why advertise something the government cannot grant? I ask the minister and his office to look into that.
I commend the people at the Elizabeth Valley volunteer bush fire brigade. They had their annual general meeting on Sunday, 12 February, and it was well attended. They have elections each year for the committee to oversee the activities of that brigade. Again, Dianne Tynan has been elected as captain. She has been a volunteer fire fighter for some 20 or 30 years. She is an extraordinary woman who gives her time freely and continually. Deputy Captain is Paul Porkeny. The secretary is Jeff Baker, and committee members are Jean Baker, Bob Pitts, Andy Lewsley and Charmaine Tynan, and fire warden is Roy Christiansen.
I also wanted to put on the record that in the last 12 months this brigade of 20 or so volunteers had a total of 972 volunteer hours expended protecting the Elizabeth Valley region and the Noonamah region. They also assisted other brigades. There is a combination of work: they have smoke spotting patrols; controlled burn offs where they help people; attend to wildfires; assist in loading the water bomber when there are incredibly bad fires; check permits for people who want to do their own controlled burning; and help other units under NT Fire Service management and the Bushfires Council. Well done to them.
Sadly, there many fires in the rural area, but it is through the dedication and commitment of these people that we have a safer place to live. Well done to the committee, and I wish them the best for this year.
The third point is, sadly, the Northern Territory has come up very badly in some statistics that have just been released this week. The latest release of the Australian Bureau of Statistics - the national crime victimisation survey conducted in the second half of last year across all the states. Surprise, surprise, the most socially ordered states are South Australia, which is not surprising given it is the state of churches, and the Australian Capital Territory. The most disordered place in the whole of Australia, and I quote:
This is Australian Bureau of Statistics data. It is much the same in regard to noisy and dangerous vehicles as elsewhere in the country, but scores very badly on a swag of other questions. It has double the national average of public drunkenness, and being insulted, pestered or intimidated in the street. I will quote the figures so you can get an understanding. The subject is: people being insulted in the street. In the Northern Territory, 26.7; second place is New South Wales with 13.7 - almost double. Public drunkenness: Northern Territory, 44.1; the next closest is New South Wales, 19.2. Rowdy behaviour: Northern Territory 33.7; the next closest No 2, New South Wales 20.9. Clearly, the second half of last year in which this data was collected, almost four times as many Territorians see public drunkenness in their local areas as a matter of large or moderate concern as Australians as a whole.
What concerns me about these statistics is, clearly, what the government tells us in regard to their policies and programs - they are not working. Territorians have deep concerns in regard to people insulting and pestering them, and also the high level of public drunkenness in our streets across the Northern Territory. That is unacceptable and the government should get on to the Australian Bureau of Statistics data to check this, and they will see that I am telling the truth. It is a disgrace.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will continue with some of the issues that were raised in relation to my agreement with the Chief Minister ...
Ms Anderson: Not that; it is boring.
Mr WOOD: That is always a matter of opinion, member for Macdonnell. There are plenty of boring adjournment debates in this place. I thought I would add to that boringness, if you like, member for Macdonnell.
I want to raise some of the issues on the agreement, after all, it was raised in debate this week about what had and had not been done.
There are a couple of issues about a town planner I asked for to look at the overview of planning in the Darwin area. I am since satisfied that we do have a town planner who has those qualifications, and that town planner has been involved in Weddell, the Greater Darwin Regional Plan, and the Rural Village Plans.
An area difficult to achieve under the agreement has been issues relating to Robertson Barracks traffic. A traffic study has been done by the Litchfield Council to look at the T-intersection at the bend at the eastern end of Brandt Road. This issue will be ongoing, much as I would have liked it to be sorted out, because you have to deal with the Department of Defence. It is not exactly a Northern Territory government issue. There is hope because I know Brigadier Gus McLachlan is supportive of a new entrance from Robertson Barracks onto McMillans Road. There are major issues with the existing entrance from Thorngate Road. If a second entrance could be achieved, that would solve a number of problems - one from the Defence point of view, and also local traffic management through the Knuckeys Lagoon residential area.
Another area agreed to under the agreement was the changes to the Environmental Protection Authority, where they received additional powers and functions. The member for Macdonnell might have been in the Chair at that time when we looked at extra powers for the EPA. That is exactly what happened. They were auditing and reporting on compliance with environmental approvals and licences. They can now investigate and respond to pollution complaints. They can monitor and report on water and air quality across the Territory. They produce regular report cards on the health of our environment. By amending the referrals criteria, they empower the EPA to comment on environmental impact statements for future major developments. That has all been agreed to. That is a major change to the powers of the EPA. That has come from the agreement, and is a positive thing.
I have had a fair bit to do with the EPA in relation to a couple of issues. I mentioned last night the large drain that leads from the Berrimah Business Park into Ironstone and Knuckeys Lagoons. They are investigating that. They have also looked at the flooded blocks which have still not been sorted out on Pelly Road/Lorikeet Court and Madsen Road. I am hoping government will fix this up quickly because it is now 12 months since it occurred.
There is the issue of the radioactive waste depository. People would know my views on this probably vary from the government’s view, because I am not opposed to a radioactive waste facility at Muckaty Station, as long as it passes the environmental impact statement. The government has said it wants a site based on scientific evidence. Whereas I support Muckaty, the government opposes it. We are probably nil all on that particular issue in relation to the agreement.
Container deposit legislation has come in since the beginning of this year and the government had already promised in the previous election that it would introduce a container deposit scheme. My agreement was to give them a bump along. The agreement was about continual commitment to the container deposit scheme. I was trying to make sure it did not waiver from that commitment because I knew the pressure that would come from beverage companies like Lion Nathan, Coca-Cola Amatil, and the Australia Food and Grocery Council. Those companies, as we have seen, put an enormous effort into ensuring the scheme did not get up and running. Thankfully, the scheme is up and running. Although it has only been going for two months, it has been doing well.
I spoke last night about the price increases in beer in the Northern Territory. There have been assertions that price increases have been caused by the container deposit scheme. The figures I showed last night proved that is not the case. Prices have risen because retailers or breweries have increased them. That is something the government has to highlight and publicise, and must show the figures as they are because the container deposit legislation has not been the cause of major increases in beer prices. The maximum would be 20 cents. Anything higher than that and someone is ripping off the system.
Heritage parks was another part of my agreement, and that is an ongoing issue. The Strauss Airstrip is a heritage park which is surrounded by a number of World War II defence facilities - mainly gun emplacements - and they are all heritage listed now. The cricket pitch and the 17 Mile - or Camp Rushmore as it is called - have all been heritage listed. We also have a broad heritage area called the Defence of Darwin Experience which has just been opened, and I have yet to have a look at it. While that is good, we still have further to go. With the 70th Anniversary of the Bombing of Darwin, we have to work off that, look for federal government funds and start to achieve more protection of those areas, especially outside of Darwin – the Strauss, Sattler, Hughes and Livingstone Airstrips, and airstrips further down the track.
There are quite a few other World War II heritage sites around Snake Creek and Adelaide River, and a few spots in between. In Katherine there is Fenton, Long, McDonald and Gorrie. I mentioned before that Larrimah was probably one of the largest towns in the Northern Territory during the war. There is the railway line, and Birdum, and it goes on. We need to invest in the World War II heritage we have and use it to help with the tourist economy in the Northern Territory.
There was the issue of sewerage infrastructure for Coolalinga Howard Springs. This has been difficult because of the high cost involved. I had a number of meetings with Power and Water, Howard Springs and Coolalinga representatives. What eventually came back are some costings. People do not understand that we were trying to get the Howard Springs and Coolalinga Shopping Centres connected to a sewerage pipe from the INPEX plant to Palmerston. It looks like there is a possibility Coolalinga will be joined, at some time in the future, to the proposed sewerage line to Palmerston from the INPEX village. The Power and Water Authority has given an idea of the cost of connecting Howard Springs to that system to all the landowners in that area. It is a fairly substantial cost and, until people can afford it, that side of it is probably not going to happen.
We had an agreement with the government to help fund more capital works at Freds Pass and to add to the operational funds in the reserve. That agreement has happened. I was not involved in the negotiations. The negotiations were done with the Freds Pass Management Board and the government. It will be ongoing for three years. There was capital grant funding of $980 000. So far, the soccer grounds have been upgraded at $230 000. The irrigation has been completed, topsoil has been completed and trees have been planted. I would say, give that another year, and you will have two full-size soccer pitches, and a three-quarter one, which will be really great for Freds Pass.
The Rugby Union field, the home of the Swamp Dogs, is now on its way. They have a few issues as well which I recently mentioned, but they are just about to keep going too. There are a few more projects, one that I know many people are hoping for - that the Rugby League will have lights. I will continue this at another date.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I advise the House about the first Indigenous dentist who will be commencing work in Alice Springs in February 2012. Dr Chantel Thornis a graduate of the University of Western Australia and is the first member of the Noongar people of Western Australia to complete a dentistry qualification. She will be working in Alice Springs.
I advise that a previous patient in RDH donated $10 000 to the cardiac ward, which was used to develop the Cardiac Story DVD. This DVD will assist in educating Indigenous clients on what to expect when they are being treated at Royal Darwin Hospital and Flinders Medical Centre after experiencing a heart attack. They had it translated to Tiwi, Kunwinjku, Murrinpatha, Kriol and Djambarrpuynga Indigenous languages together with English and subtitles for the hearing impaired. It will be launched in the near future.
This month is Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month. Every 11 hours, an Australian woman dies from ovarian cancer, and every day three new women are diagnosed with ovarian cancer. Ovarian cancer is difficult to detect and is often only diagnosed in the late stages when it is difficult to treat. I encourage members of the parliament and the community to raise awareness of the disease by finding out more information on ovarian cancer, hosting an afternoon tea to raise funds, or by purchasing and wearing a ribbon on Teal Day, 29 February 2012.
Madam Speaker, I thank the Cancer Council of the Northern Territory for hosting a fundraiser to held in the main hall on 29 February.
Australia Day is a day when all Australians join together to celebrate our country and our culture. As an Australian by choice, I have to say that I really enjoy celebrating Australia Day. It brings Australians together from many cultures, either born here or migrating here. This year, we enjoyed another fantastic day of celebration. In the Northern Territory, we welcomed more than 140 citizens from 35 countries during eight official ceremonies, with the oldest being 64-years-old and the youngest four-years-old. It was great to see many locals recognised for their community work, and organisations being creative for their community events.
We have just finished celebrating the Chinese New Year. A number of celebrations took place - Chinese-Timorese, the Hakka Association, and the Chung Wah Society. I was very pleased to attend many of them, especially the Chung Wah Society banquet dinner held at the Chung Wah Society’s facilities. It was particularly pleasing to see so many young men, women, boys and girls learning the culture of their forefathers. Some of their forefathers came from China 150 years ago, but they still keep the spirit alive and celebrate it with a great gusto. The Lion Dancers in this year, the Year of the Dragon, danced at the Chung Wah Society. I was very pleased to announce a $50 000 grant to assist them with the repairs for their air-conditioning facilities which are getting old and will need support. Our government is very happy to support ethnic communities throughout the Territory.
The Casuarina Coastal Reserve is the most visited reserve in the Northern Territory. Every year, 750 000 people visit the Casuarina Coastal Reserve. I call upon all Territorians to take the opportunity to complete the community survey form recently sent out by Parks and Wildlife to comment on the Casuarina Coastal Reserve and what they would like to see in that particular reserve. It is unique; it is 1500 ha stretching from Rapid Creek to Buffalo Creek, and includes the coastal waters of Old Man Rock. It also borders Charles Darwin University, Royal Darwin Hospital and Defence land. It has some significant Larrakia sites, and significant native coastal flora and fauna. The reserve needs your assistance to ensure its survival and I call upon you to complete that form and return it to Parks and Wildlife. After all, if we do not comment about our own reserves, who is going to do it? If we do not comment and things do not happen that we want to see, we then have no right to complain.
We see $75 in back to school bonuses again this year. I will not receive it this year because Michael finished Year 12 and I was very pleased when he was accepted into two universities. One was CDU and the other in Perth. However, young families with children in school were very pleased to receive the $75 back to school bonus for their children. It is a huge help, and parents can use the $75 voucher in Term 1 to pay for school uniforms and book packs so children can start the school year with confidence. I have always said if we do not support our young families, and new families and their children, we cannot argue about them sending kids schools to school. That does not happen only in the urban areas, it happens anywhere in the Territory where there are primary and middle schools.
I welcome back to Nakara Primary School Principal Brennan and the staff and students. I have been advised everyone at Nakara school is looking forward to a busy and productive 2012. Nakara had a great start to 2012. I have been advised that enrolments over the school holidays, and the first week of term, resulted in numbers exceeding their prediction. They started the year with 17 primary classes and three preschool classes. A special welcome to five new teaching staff: Hayden Woodroffe, Katherine Nunn, Emma Pick, Kristin Raft, and Sian Edison; two transition assistants, Lou Gordon and Maria Vlamos; and three equity tutors, Donna Roach, Sarah MacDonald, and Yvonne Pratt. Nakara’s after school care is running to capacity with no vacancies for semester one.
I welcome Principal Fathma Mauger and staff and students at Alawa Primary school. Fathma advised Alawa Primary School had a very smooth start to Term 1. Alawa will continue with a strong focus on literacy and numeracy programs again this year. I was very disappointed I could not accept their invitation to read my favourite book at the launch of the International Year of Reading this week. Other commitments and parliament unfortunately interfered. Alawa Primary school has always been a very community-minded school. It is one of the more multicultural schools where Greek descent kids mix with African descent kids and Indigenous kids. It is a very peaceful school and all the kids enjoy learning in a social harmony
Dripstone Middle School Principal Brian, staff and students, started a very smooth 2012 and I was very pleased to see the Dripstone schoolchildren attending the bombing of Darwin commemoration. I was very pleased to take some photographs and commemorate the bombing of Darwin’s 70th Anniversary with them.
It is the beginning of the year, many schools will go back, and I am looking forward to visiting more schools and meeting the new staff and the new students.
I was also very pleased to hear about the first Aboriginal dentist in the Northern Territory and, hopefully, in the next few years we will see the first Aboriginal doctors coming out of the Northern Territory medical school. Grow our own and they will stay here! We have seen that with midwives, nurses, engineers and geologists. It is great to be able to offer these studies in the Northern Territory. It saves money for people who cannot afford to go down south, or who do not want to go down south because they have very strong links with their land and their families. On some occasions they have no alternative but to go down south, like my eldest son did. I would encourage my youngest son to stay in the Northern Territory and study at CDU. However, as you know, teenagers have a mind of their own and know everything. We have been there and done that, so I will let him choose his own future.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Deputy Speaker, I put on record a letter I have received from a former colleague of ours, the former member for Macdonnell, Neil Bell. Neil Bell wrote this letter to the author of King Brown Country, Russell Skelton. I want to put it on the public record:
Dear Mr Skelton
I seek leave to table that.
Leave granted.
Ms ANDERSON: There is also an e-mail that I want to table, and I seek leave to table this e-mail which came from John Gaynor ...
Leave granted.
Ms ANDERSON: … from the Chief Minister’s Office. The Chief Minister at that time was Clare Martin and it was to my electorate officer, the late Rhonda Loades. I will not bother reading it, people can read it themselves.
I also seek leave to table a media release from Mandy Taylor from the Northern Territory government, ‘Police Investigation Reveals No Wrongdoing’. I seek leave to table that as well.
Leave granted.
Ms ANDERSON: With that, I would like to start on my adjournment.
As you well know, the closing days of this parliament have been filled with personal accusations and invective. Tonight, I address this climate and consider the claims raised here about my public life. I shall be brief and restrained in what I say. I begin from the point that this parliament is, or should be, a House of debate, not warfare. In truth, in my time in parliament, there has been very little debate or thought or open-mindedness. There has been a great deal of bitterness and personal dislike, which has stood in the way of good government.
As you are all aware, I have been the subject of a furious and vigorous campaign of personal attacks by my political adversaries. Those attacks have been brought together in a book, offensively titled King Brown Country. That book, full of falsehood and errors, full of unsourced and untrue claims, has been available for almost two years. It is now the member for Johnston’s favourite reading matter – indeed, it is his obsession. I have replied in brief to the book in the media. I have considered taking legal measures against the publisher and the author, but decided that in public life one must accept such blows, hard though they may be. What is harder still is that among the book lies the falsehoods. I have counted up to 70 or so separate errors. There are a good many that come from members of the Northern Territory parliamentary Labor Party. The member for Johnston recycles this material in his adjournment speeches - a perfect cycle.
The facts are these. I was involved in the running of my community, Papunya, for many years until I became the ATSIC Commissioner. Claims about the financial management of Papunya are inaccurate and motivated by malice. There has been a detailed Commonwealth report into the allegations of fraud and bad management in the community. It exonerated me fully, and it has been in the hands of the federal and the Northern Territory officials for years. I again give my personal assurance to this parliament that I have never been involved in corrupt financial practices and have never benefited from any transactions at Papunya involving motor vehicles.
I invite the member for Johnston to repeat these slurs outside the House; I will take him to court. The member for Johnston - let me turn in brief to this bizarre man. In many ways he sums up the last dark 10 years in the Territory. He was brought to power in an election which saw a new chapter begin in our little world. We all hoped there would be revitalisation. Many Aboriginal people thought there would be a new broom. I, like other traditional Aboriginal leaders, was encouraged to run for Labor in that election. I withdrew because of the whispering campaign against me and only ran after the report that cleared me and my community council was completed and its findings made public.
For some years I served in the Northern Territory government. I watched from the government benches when the member for Johnston mocked a victim of child abuse. I wondered at his attitude. I wondered at the Labor Party when I saw the fraud and corruption involved in the SIHIP community housing program. I raise …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! There were no findings of fraud or corruption in SIHIP. That is wrong and it is offensive under Standing Order 62 ...
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: There was no fraud, no corruption in any report found anywhere in SIHIP!
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. I ask you to ...
Ms ANDERSON: Yes, sit down, Delia.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell! You know how to address members. You have the call.
Ms ANDERSON: Okay, yes. Member for Karama, remember that Burnsie said he hates you and your mother too ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, I ask you to address members by their proper title, thank you.
Ms ANDERSON: Okay. As you know I felt I could no longer serve this government. I made my political journey knowing full well what vile hate I would be exposing myself to. I have subsequently been the subject of a bitter and long-lasting campaign against me by politically biased members of the Territory media, and by the strange reporter in Melbourne who has developed an obsession with my story. It is these people who provide the material for the member for Johnston.
I look across at the member for Johnston in his twilight and what do I see? I see a human shell. I am ashamed ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I find that offensive under Standing Order 62. She is describing a member of parliament as a human shell. That is offensive.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker!
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Araluen, you do not have the call! Member for Port Darwin, your point of order?
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Deputy Speaker, any number of epithets and allegations are made by all members of this House, including clowns, grubs, worms, germs, etcetera, etcetera.
Ms Anderson: Madam Deputy Speaker, can you stop the clock?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, I think that it would only be fair that you would be allowed to go on ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please resume your seat. I am not sure there is a point of order ...
Ms Lawrie: I want to speak further to it.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: ... if we could just stop the clock, please.
Ms Lawrie: It does not stop in adjournment.
Ms ANDERSON: Okay, I will just go to the end part ...
Ms Lawrie: I do want to speak ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, please pause.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Deputy Speaker, there is no standing order to stop the clock during adjournments, and you well know that.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is actually the call of the Chair, so I can do that.
Ms Anderson: So, there. Sit down!
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am just going to ...
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Pause, please, and be quiet, member for Araluen! Minister?
Ms LAWRIE: I want to refer to what Madam Speaker said in Question Time in terms of former CLP Speaker Steele ejecting a member from this House for saying the word ‘goose’. To call someone a ‘human shell’ is highly offensive either in or outside this Chamber and would be deemed offensive in normal decent life.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is getting ridiculous. Can you just resume your seat and let me take some advice, please. I am inclined to agree with the minister that this term is offensive.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Macdonnell, I am going to ask you to withdraw that particular term, please.
Ms ANDERSON: I will withdraw that.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Macdonnell. If we could restart the clock, please.
Ms ANDERSON: Okay. In desert society we have special words for such people who have been driven wild by the hate inside their heart. He speaks today not to benefit the members of the Territory community or Territory people, but to hurt and insult those he sees as his enemies. He is a sexist and he is a racist ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Both of those descriptions are offensive under Standing Order 62.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Resume your seat. I ask you to withdraw that, please, member for Macdonnell ...
Mr Elferink: A point of order!
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have ruled on that member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Deputy Speaker, you ought to hear some of the invective that comes from that person that goes unchecked. Madam Deputy Speaker, if you make that ruling ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Resume your seat. Resume your seat! Resume your seat or withdraw!
Mr ELFERINK: ... I will move dissent.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Resume your seat immediately!
Mr ELFERINK: I will move dissent, Madam Deputy Speaker, from your ruling. I ask that you get the Speaker in here. You cannot editorialise from the Chair.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Resume your seat!
___________________
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): I am moving dissent, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not resuming my seat ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Resume your seat!
Mr ELFERINK: ... I am moving dissent from your ruling. Get the Speaker back in here.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Resume your seat! As you know, you need to move your dissent in writing. I do find the words offensive. I had asked the member for Macdonnell to withdraw.
Mr ELFERINK: It is in writing, Madam Deputy Speaker. I ask that you get the Speaker back in here.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sure the Speaker is on her way, member for Port Darwin.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Conlan: Is the Speaker coming in or what?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sure the Speaker is on her way. Member for Macdonnell, you may as well resume your seat while you are waiting for this.
Ms Scrymgour: Is this making up for why you did not have the guts to intervene the other night on her behalf ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I suspect the Speaker is in the dining room. I have sent her a message and I am sure others have as well.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will deal with this matter very quickly.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I move dissent from your ruling. The allegations of racism and sexism are levelled in this House as a matter of debate on a regular basis. If a member is offended there are several vehicles …
Ms Anderson: He laughed at child abuse in this House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Macdonnell!
Mr ELFERINK: ... available to a member to respond to that. As far as I am concerned, all I want this House to do is be able to have members heard without being shut down by government suggestions that descriptions and epithets such as ‘hollow human being’, ‘racist’ and ‘sexist’ are in some way breaches of Standing Orders 60, 61 and 62. Those words contemplated by the standing orders are, in their very nature, expletives and unparliamentary words.
There have been no expletives. There has been nothing in this which is unparliamentary and we do have the right to question the motives, as members have the right to reject that questioning in this House in a free and open debate. An attempt to shut down that debate simply because someone does not like what is being said is not contemplated in the standing orders.
The minister is a big boy and is more than capable of having the capacity to reply to the allegations being levelled against him. I do not doubt for one second that the minister will reply fulsomely, aggressively and wholesomely, and may then choose to engage in some invective of his own. As long as his words are not unparliamentary, the public has the right to know what his opinions are, as they have the right to know what the member for Macdonnell’s opinions are.
Madam Speaker, I ask that the Chair adjudicate fairly and justly with the understanding it is the public which is the final arbiter on the debate in this House and not the Chair itself. I urge, as a consequence, a quality of adjudication which enables members to question the motives of other members unhindered by excessively onerous rulings.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I obviously deeply disagree with the member for Port Darwin. The words ‘racist’ and ‘sexist’, when used in this Chamber …
Ms Anderson: He hates you too!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: ... are used in the context of policy. Whether or not a policy is sexist, whether or not a policy is racist, whether or not the policies of a party - whether it be CLP or ALP - are racist or sexist.
This was clearly directed at an individual member of this Chamber - the member for Macdonnell accusing the member for Johnston. That is clearly fitting well and truly within the standing orders of our debate. I will read out the standing order so there can be no confusion about the wording of that standing order: ‘offensive and unbecoming words towards members’, etcetera ‘to be withdrawn’.
In our Australian society we accept as a norm that being called a racist, or being called sexist, is designed to be offensive to the person and, at the very …
Ms Anderson: Of course it is.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up the interjection from the member for Macdonnell. She just said: ‘Of course it is’.
Ms Anderson: Of course, I meant like it that.
Ms LAWRIE: ‘Of course, I meant it like that’, the member for Macdonnell just interjected.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, cease interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: She is clearly assisting me with the argument that she was being offensive to a member. Not offensive about policies, but directly offensive in words to a member. Admitting offense - she just agreed with that. I did not even get the chance to talk about whether it could be unbecoming, a much lower, much easier, bar to meet ...
Ms ANDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Can I speak to that point of order?
Ms LAWRIE: I just want to ...
Ms ANDERSON: I agree with the Deputy Chief Minister ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, resume your seat. There is no point of order.
Ms LAWRIE: I want to remind members because I know we are in election year and people are going to become more and more testy in this Chamber. I have witnessed debates in his House through the decades, and I continue to be shocked at the unacceptable level of personal …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms Anderson: Fool! Sit down.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell!
Ms LAWRIE: … personal offence …
Ms Anderson: She is a fool.
Mrs Lambley: It comes from your side.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell! Member for Araluen!
Ms LAWRIE: … directed to a member. The reason why we have these standing orders in the first place, hopefully, is to remind members of parliament that our behaviour ought to be somewhat better than what is behaviour in the worst scenarios. The standing orders are there for a reason. There are liberal and strange - removing themselves from accepting the standing orders by members in this Chamber. It demeans the parliament.
When the debate around offensive words commenced, and the adjudicator - and this goes to the issue of fairness of adjudicating. When the debate around offensive words commenced, I reminded the Chair of your own warnings and reminder in Question Time that the former CLP Speaker, Mr Roger Steele, ejected a member from this parliament for a week for the word ‘goose’. It was a reminder to the Chair, during the first call I made on the standing order which was offensive – withdrawn, and the next few offensive words, ‘sexist’ and ‘racist’ appeared. Of course, I sought them to be withdrawn, because it was in the context of a reminder to the Chair, of Madam Speaker’s wise words of warning to us all, I thought, during Question Time.
That is why I believe the Chair was being very fair in her adjudication, because it was base on the reminder from me of Madam Speaker’s warnings of the way Speakers have determined offensive words in this Chamber in the past. The Chair sought advice from the Clerk on the previous offensive words that the Chair then asked be withdrawn. These offensive words followed hot in quick succession, and I stood and sought them to be withdrawn.
Madam Speaker, very clearly, I believe, the Chair sought advice from the Clerk, when I first called the pathway of offensive words that started to come from the member opposite, got the advice it should be withdrawn and, very quickly, offensive words followed. In that context, in that total and combined context, it was a fair adjudication.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I will speak to this motion. As the member for Port Darwin said, I am a big boy, I am ugly, I am old, I can take it, and I have broad shoulders.
The member for Macdonnell, in today’s paper, said I was a raving lunatic and an old fool. I will cop that one on the chin; that is okay. I am old, I do rave a bit. Maybe when the full moon comes out, I might howl at it every now and then.
I say to the member for Macdonnell - I am offended by being called a sexist ...
Mr Elferink: You called her immoral the other day.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Ms Anderson: You can stay offended because I am not withdrawing it.
Madam SPEAKER: The member for Macdonnell will resume her seat.
Dr BURNS: I am offended by being called …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell!
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! On the subject of highly offensive language, I ask the member for Macdonnell to withdraw the terms she just used to address me.
Ms ANDERSON: Okay, I will withdraw ‘sooky’.
Ms WALKER: It was not ‘sooky’ …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Macdonnell, I ask you to leave the Chamber, please ...
Ms ANDERSON: I will. I will.
Madam SPEAKER: … under Standing Order 240A for one hour. Leave the Chamber!
Ms ANDERSON: I will be pleased to.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave the Chamber, member for Macdonnell.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Port Darwin, you are on another warning. Member for Daly, why are you still on your feet? I am on my feet. The Leader of Government Business has the call.
Dr BURNS: Thanks, Madam Speaker. As I said, I have broad shoulders, I can take a great deal, but, I am genuinely offended by, out of the blue, the member for Macdonnell calling me a racist and a sexist. If she had developed an argument and given evidence as to why I should be called that, maybe I would cop it. However, it came out of nowhere as an insult. The member for Macdonnell has left this Chamber. What was said was unfortunate.
In Tuesday’s Adjournment debate I did use this book and the context of this book, which has been on the public record for 10 years. I used it, I thought, in an almost academic way. In an analytical way I used the content of this book, which has never been challenged by the member for Macdonnell in court, in the media, significantly, or in this Chamber. The conclusions I drew from this book did not exceed what was in the narratives in that book.
There is nothing personal in what I said about the member for Macdonnell. Even though the member for Macdonnell has said what she did, I do not feel any personal animus towards the member for Macdonnell. What she said to me was unfortunate. What she said to the member for Nhulunbuy was unfortunate. What has just happened here does not do this parliament any favours.
As the member for Port Darwin says, we are here to have a robust debate. I made a speech once about the member for Katherine, but there was nothing personal in that speech. There was nothing personal about what I had to say about the member for Macdonnell. It is my job as the Leader of Government Business, particularly given the context of the remarks of the member for Macdonnell about Stronger Futures, and the relationship to the governance of stores - to bring this to attention. It is as simple as that. I built a case based on a book which has been in the public domain and has won a Walkley Award. The member for Macdonnell came in here and basically, apropos of nothing, as the Cheryl Crow song says - the member for Greatorex, probably knows - the person sitting over there says he is a sexist and a racist. We need more than that. We need a higher level of debate.
If the member for Macdonnell can demonstrate why I am a sexist and a racist I would be prepared to debate it. However, coming out of nowhere demeans her and this parliament.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the hypocrisy is clear. Whilst one member, the Leader of Government Business, argued that the accusation needed to be substantiated, the Deputy Chief Minister made sure the argument could not be put, and blocked the capacity for the member to substantiate. So you have two conflicting positions. Because you do not like what is being said you block it …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! That is misleading because I let the member for Macdonnell talk through her whole discourse about why she has been misrepresented in the book, etcetera. It was only when she used offensive words that I interrupted.
Mr Elferink: I would have been shut down by now, if I had tried to run that angle.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, you are already on a warning. You will be out the next time you do something like that.
Mr MILLS: Madam Speaker, that was not a point of order. There is a clear separation between the two points of argument being run by the members opposite. At the heart of this is blatant hypocrisy. We have one member, the Deputy Chief Minister, lecturing us about the morals of how we conduct our debates. How dare that occur as a strong point of debate when we can plainly see, and know, in practice that means nothing. Behind the scenes we can clearly see the platform which has been established is plainly a political motivation.
It is plainly hypocritical for the government to now take a high moral position, when they had a completely contrary position at a different point of time, when it suited them politically. There is grave concern about the way in which these matters are being progressed in this Chamber.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member for Port Darwin was talking the other day about the robustness of the debate and how he enjoys it. I have not had a chance to respond to that. There are those who think the Westminster system is a great place because it is an adversarial system and therefore it is a bit like winner takes all. I do not necessarily agree with that. I know the member for Port Darwin and I have different points of view on that matter.
No matter what the history is of what one party said and what another party said, we have today before us an issue of whether we have offensive or unbecoming words. I would probably put it a little different. How would we like to be spoken to like that any time? We can have debate, but do we have to be insulting? Do we have to bully people? Do we have do things that we would not expect people outside this Chamber to do? If I walk down the street and walked up to someone and said: ‘You are sexist and you are racist’, I would probably get my head knocked, I would probably get a bloody nose ...
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Yes, but it is offensive. It is offensive to me if someone walked up and said that to me. That is my personal feeling about those words.
We have been knocked on the head, Madam Speaker, by you for saying ‘fool’, ‘goose’, and ‘hypocrite’. They are pretty mild words if you ask me. Even ‘buggerlugs’ - I could not believe it but that has been ruled out of order.
However, we are talking about two very serious words that have connotations that someone is racially biased and has something, in this case, against women. That is what it responds to. They are fairly offensive words to use.
We have had a pretty good debate about whether King Brown Country is accurate, and the member for Macdonnell responded to it with a letter from Mr Neil Bell; that is fine. That is part of a robust debate too. I do not mind that kind of debate.
This has now, more or less, got down to name calling, and that lowers this place as a place of good debate ...
Mr Elferink: The member for Nhulunbuy last night.
Mr WOOD: Listen, let me have my turn, member for Port Darwin.
I just think we lower respect for people outside. They see this place as a place where people throw insults at one another. You walk out into the main street and ask people what they think of the Commonwealth parliament, and they think they are a bunch of ratbags, because all they see is Question Time, and they think it is a joke. That is a favourite word I hear about parliament: ‘It is a joke’, and this does not contribute to anything more than saying this place is a joke.
Surely we are intelligent enough and mature enough to have a good debate without having to call people names. Calling people names is childish. If you have to go down to that depth in your debate, then you do not have a debate. You should be able to argue your case on the facts that are put forward without calling someone names. That is the sort of stuff I expect in the school yard, not in this place. This is supposed to be a mature House for mature debate.
I believe those words were offensive. They would be offensive to me - that is how I judge that - and I would stand up here and complain. If someone said that to me in the main street, much as I do not believe in violence, I tell you, my blood would be boiling. I think they are offensive. I think we can do better. I do not care about whether one side said this or one side said that. We are dealing with two words that were said five minutes ago. We should deal with that matter now and make a decision on it.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I have to agree with the member for Macdonnell. Those words probably were offensive, and they were precisely designed to be offensive. They were designed to offend you, member for Johnston. That is exactly why they were said in an attempt to push back on the vitriol that you unload on the member for Macdonnell.
I happen to agree with her assertions, those two assertions. I think that never a truer word has been spoken in this House about you. You stoop to levels that I think have never been stooped to in this House before. You have form. We can certainly build a case around your form.
I happen to have here the Burns censure from 2008. I kept it to remind myself of exactly where you are in your form and where you have come from, member for Johnston. I believe you are a misogynist. Is that unparliamentary? I believe you are homophobic. Your attack on the member for Port Darwin ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, are you aware of Standing Order 62?
Mr CONLAN: What is it, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: Offensive or unbecoming words:
etcetera:
Mr Conlan interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Excuse me, member for Greatorex, I am speaking. You do not speak, and in fact you should be sitting down.
Standing Order 63, Speaker to intervene, and this is particularly important:
Standing Order 64, Speaker to Determine:
I remind you, member for Greatorex that in fact yesterday, the member for Araluen stood during Question Time and was offended by the use of the words ‘three stooges’, which I asked the Chief Minister to withdraw. I ask you to compare this with the kinds of comments that have been made tonight and the comments you are making. I ask you to reword your comments and think about it very carefully.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am surprised to learn that a word of the English language is somehow deemed to be unparliamentary and offensive. I might add, the member for Johnston made those, what I call homophobic, allegations in this parliament to a fellow member of parliament. It was made in this House in 2004, I believe it was ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Relevance. The member for Johnston mouthed some words to a member of this parliament - mouthed, not spoke, and apologised publically.
Mr Conlan: So what? It still happened.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Where is the relevance to a debate around ‘sexist’ and ‘racist’ being offensive words?
Mr Conlan: Surely that is not a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is a platform for the Deputy Chief Minister to make a little speech!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, this is a dissent motion about a specific issue. If you could talk to that, please.
Mr CONLAN: I wholeheartedly agree with the assertions made by the member for Macdonnell. I was simply going a little further because this member has form. He asked for us to build a case around those allegations. I am more than happy to use the 15 minutes to build a case and explain to this House exactly why I agree with the member for Macdonnell, and why those words fit him like no other words in the English language possibly do! The man has form. He has had form as long as our arm.
It is perfectly appropriate for me to outline why I feel the member for Macdonnell’s assertions and allegations in this House are quite befitting of the member for Johnston. He seems to have a problem with women - simple as that. He seems to have a problem with powerful women. He is obsessed with the member for Macdonnell ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: Maybe he has a problem with Aboriginal women ...
Members interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 62. I find that highly offensive as a woman, and as an Aboriginal woman. That is highly offensive and ...
Members interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I have worked with the member for Johnston for many years, Madam Speaker ...
Members interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No, I am talking to a point of order ...
Madam SPEAKER: We have someone speaking to a point of order. Resume your seat. Have you nearly finished the point of order?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No, Madam Speaker, I would like …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! For crying out loud!
Madam SPEAKER: This is a point of order. Standing Order 62 is what you are referring to.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Yes, I would like the words he said withdrawn.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Johnston, did you find the comment offensive?
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I implore the other side, let us just move through this and put it to the vote. Let us move on because I do not think any of this is doing this House any favours.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, in response to the member, I agree. I am sad we have arrived at this point because this now high farce. We should just bury this and allow us to speak openly in this House. If members are offended, then they have an opportunity to respond.
Madam SPEAKER: Have you finished your comments, member for Greatorex?
Mr CONLAN: Madam Speaker, I will wrap up those comments.
Madam SPEAKER: Reminding you of the standing orders.
Mr CONLAN: In the spirit of what has just been said, the point has been made - I still firmly believe it. I believe you have form, member for Johnston. We can certainly develop an argument for as long as we want about your form. You are obsessed with that book. You have something against the member for Macdonnell. She deserves better from this parliament. You are doing no one any favours - particularly yourself and your own legacy - by continuing to beat up on a member of this House. I believe she is within her rights to make those allegations; I believe they should stand.
I have made a list as long as this A4 page of paper of comments levelled at us, the opposition, by this government that have been allowed to go through, without asking to withdraw or be overruled by the Speaker - a whole list. I will not go into them now, but they are there.
She is quite right to make those opinions, she should be allowed to make those opinions, and I believe she is on solid ground.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I am astounded by the hypocrisy from the government. I have been a member of parliament for 16 months now. I clearly remember on the first day I stood in this parliament, shortly after giving my maiden speech, the member for Daly interjected and said: ‘So, you think you are not a racist?’ I have been called many names by people from the government, and I do not believe I have ever thrown a name at anyone on the other side of this House.
This is a deliberate attempt by the Deputy Chief Minister to shut down the member for Macdonnell. Clearly, it is a tactic. When you start throwing stones, member for Johnston, you should be able to receive them back at you. This is a case of tit for tat.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, before I put the question, I remind you of the standing orders that I have already read out: Standing Order 62, which is about offensive or unbecoming words; Standing Order 63, The Speaker to intervene; and Standing Order 64, The Speaker to determine.
The question is the motion as moved by the …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Woo, woo, slow down. Madam Speaker, we thank you for your ruling and your attention to this matter. In the interests of good conduct and good partisanship, or bipartisanship in this House, I withdraw the motion.
I seek leave of the Assembly to withdraw the motion of dissent.
Leave granted.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Madam SPEAKER: Do we have anyone else to adjourn tonight?
Member for Arafura, I hope it is not controversial.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, every time I stand up here it is probably controversial, but I want to adjourn on the hypocrisy of tonight. I am not going to get into the name calling, but I believe what we saw tonight was the lowest depths of what this parliament can come to ...
Mr Mills interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Leader of the Opposition, you have taken your side to the bottom of the barrel ...
Mr Mills: Where did it start?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: The hypocrisy of the member for Macdonnell regarding King Brown Country - she gives as good as she gets. She stood here and called a colleague of mine racist! Madam Speaker …
Mr Mills: Oh!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No, no, it is offensive ...
Mr Mills: You have called me a racist.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I tell you it is offensive. The member for Macdonnell needs to look at her own attitude when it comes to …
Mr Mills: You have called me a racist.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, cease interjecting!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: When it comes to racism, her attitude towards urban saviours – a traditional person. You make me sick too, Leader of the Opposition, because you are spineless. The spineless way in which the member for Macdonnell constructed her argument - the hypocrisy she talked about in terms of, that the newspaper ..
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Madam Speaker, in the spirit of things, that would have been offensive if it had come from us. I ask, therefore, that it be withdrawn.
Madam SPEAKER: Are you reflecting on the Chair, Leader of the Opposition?
Mr MILLS: No, I am reflecting on the members opposite who are sheer, plain faced hypocrites. If that word was used to you - I ask them to withdraw it, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arafura, please withdraw!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I withdraw spineless, Leader of the Opposition.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Arafura, can you please remember Standing Order 62. It is not necessary to make unbecoming comments about members.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I withdraw spineless, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Early last week a group called Concerned Australians put out a media release featuring former Family Court Chief Justice, Alistair Nicholson. The media release was critical of consultations conducted in the Territory last year. Nicholson has released transcripts of some of the consultations and says the Commonwealth has been self-servingly selective in its reporting of what was said.
Bizarrely, given the solidarity with Howard and Brough in the consultation-free days of the second half of 2007, the Country Liberals have jumped on the band wagon. They expressed concern about what they call a second intervention and, in a brazen twist which reveals a new dimension to the word hypocrisy, the person from their camp taking the running on this is none other than the member for Macdonnell.
I attended the consultation sessions at Maningrida. The Commonwealth representatives included ministers Macklin and Snowdon. They had heard a number of complaints and criticisms across a range of issues. Some of the venting was along the same lines as what I have been saying about the intervention since 2007, in particular, about the social and economic vandalism of the replacing CDEP employment with Work for the Dole and Newstart welfare.
The people talked about the permits and how they thought the permit system was being reinstated, and CDEP and the Homelands. The member for Macdonnell with her hypocritical stance that she has continually, since 2007, was one of the founders of the intervention - she owns it. She will forever be tainted and defined by it and by the things she said at time, such as sick people and dead people have no rights. Perhaps more importantly as an assessment of the member for Macdonnell’s credibility, she also stands to be judged by what she said in the more recent past. I am referring to her comments reported by the then AAP journalist, Tara Ravens on 6 August 2009 in the lead up to the greatest day in Territory history. Ms Raven said the member for Macdonnell told journalists, and I quote - and it is on the public record member for Macdonnell:
If the member for Macdonnell thinks the Commonwealth should be running the Territory, why is she complaining about the Stronger Futures legislation, and why is she still in this place? The member for Macdonnell should do her constituents and herself a favour and resign and pull away, particularly where she thinks ...
Mr Elferink: I can get my old job back.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Member for Port Darwin, I know you have always longed for that and would give your left arm to go back to that electorate. I have had conversations with the member for Port Darwin where he has often recalled with fondness the electorate of Macdonnell. I am sure he would go back there in a flash because he did enjoy that.
I was listening to the member for Macdonnell’s speech and she talked about a newspaper campaign run against her. That is not true. The member for Macdonnell needs to look at her past and the newspaper campaign she ran on members on this side of the House. I talk from personal experience. I have never taken that up with the member for Macdonnell. I will one day but I will not do it inside this Chamber because this is a member who, again, will not back up what she says. She can stand in coward’s castle. I remember being in the Speaker’s chair the night she launched a cowardly attack on a journalist. She accused this journalist of running this campaign against her, when this very same member runs these same campaigns against other people. The member for Macdonnell always has been a bit of a bully. She uses traditional versus non-traditional, which I find offensive, particularly as an Aboriginal person. She likes to use that because it is a divisive way in which she has been doing it for many years.
I heard the member for Greatorex. The man has form. He is a bully, and he accused government members of reaching across and screeching and saying things. Well, the man is rabid. You only have to look at him, day after day, when we are sitting here listening to him. He makes a good pair with the member for Macdonnell, because they are cut from the same cloth, the hypocrisy of those members, and the selective memories of those members from Central Australia.
The member for Macdonnell should be ashamed of herself. She can throw insults. I was just appalled at the insult, when I heard what she had said to the member for Nhulunbuy across this Chamber, because that is the form of the member for Macdonnell. When she cannot get at you with facts and have a proper debate, she will resort to personal insults. That has been the member for Macdonnell’s form in all the time I have known the member for Macdonnell, and it has not been just when she was elected into this House. I knew the member for Macdonnell when she was in ATSIC and I was working in the health sector. I have also watched the career and the progression of this member. She projects this image that she is a wilting violet. Well, she is no wilting violet and she can certainly stand up and defend herself. But when she defends herself, she has to resort to the petty name calling, which is what she does.
The Leader of the Opposition should be appalled and hang his head in shame because he allowed her rabble to bring this parliament to a low point. The name calling and accusing my colleague, the member for Johnston, of being a racist, I find absolutely offensive. In all the years I have known this man, he is not a racist. He has worked long and hard for Aboriginal people and in those communities. She should apologise. She may not like that, but it is the member for Macdonnell who is bigoted and has a very tunnel vision of her own history.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, now for something completely different. I ask a couple of questions arising from a question I asked during Question Time today. I have to say that I received a somewhat unsatisfactory answer from the Attorney-General. I appreciate that the Leader of Government Business was concerned about matters sub judice, but a matter cannot be sub judice if it is not yet complained about in front of a court. That is first issue I raise.
In any instance, as I said during Question Time, it has come to my attention that NT WorkSafe is about to lodge a complaint against the Northern Territory Fire Service for an incident which occurred, if my memory serves me, in the order of about 12 months ago, in which a training exercise went wrong and a woman was injured, and she suffered paraplegia or quadriplegia, I am not quite sure which. It is well conceivable there were procedures in place, or a lack of procedures in place, which led to that injury. I do not necessarily want to talk about the nature of the events which occurred on that occasion because it will not add to the issue I am trying to raise today.
I am asking if the minister can simply illuminate for this House why a prosecution will be necessary. A prosecution for an injury at that time would come under the work health and safety act of 2007 which was introduced by this government. It had amongst its clauses a fairly superfluous concept which was called enforceable undertakings which, essentially, restated a common law position which exists in any instance. Basically, if you look at how an enforceable undertaking works, the investigating authority, in this case NT WorkSafe, determines to see something rectified. They enter into an agreement with the offending party or the alleged offending party. It would be an offending party because you would have to have an admission for an enforceable undertaking to work, for them to correct their conduct.
The reason I raise this issue is enforceable undertakings - whether you have them in legislation or not it does not matter, you could have an arrangement of a contractual nature or you could simply have the policeman, WorkSafe, say: ‘Get that fixed by next week or we will prosecute you’.
It is my understanding, and my full expectation, that the Fire and Rescue Service will have made strident attempts to correct what occurred which led to that injury. I would be astonished beyond all words if the Fire and Rescue Service had not done so. I would be just as surprised if the minister had not instructed that to occur. This was a tragic and sad incident.
The nature of an offence under WorkSafe legislation is it basically has to allege a form of criminal negligence. I would be very surprised if there was any intent involved in the circumstances of this matter because that would be a criminal offence you would find in the Criminal Code.
However, I then ask the question: if NT WorkSafe is confronted with this situation, and if the requisite work has been done to correct the circumstances that led to this injury, what is the purpose of a prosecution if you are planning to prosecute the Fire and Rescue Service as the defendant?
If you are prosecuting a corporation, you cannot put a corporation or corporate body into gaol so the best you can hope for is a fine. This is similar to the issue I raised when the minister for Natural Resources threatened to prosecute the Darwin Port Corporation. I am sure the Darwin Port Corporation, for its offences, had corrected its conduct, and I believe it has. A prosecution would simply mean that you would have taxpayers’ money spent prosecuting a matter to prosecute a taxpayer-funded organisation to fine that taxpayer-funded organisation to then have that fine paid back into the Central Holding Authority which was basically taxpayers’ money.
I hope some consideration would be given to the principles of the old common law rule that an organisation can fix what it does - and I do not doubt this has been fixed - or the same principle which is captured under these somewhat redundant, but if you like to use them, enforceable undertakings which I think is around section 80 of the old act.
I am interested to hear from the minister whether a prosecution is intended in this instance. If the prosecution is intended, why does the minister think the prosecution is necessary in favour of the enforceable undertaking?
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will be brief. Tonight I acknowledge the passing of Mr Eric George Smitt, and tender my sincere condolences and sympathies to Eric’s family and friends and to all who knew him.
An adventurous and passionate man, there is no doubt Eric lived his life to the fullest, and to borrow from the title of his own book, he had ‘The best time ever’. Eric documented his adventurous and courageous journey in his biography, The Best Time Ever, abridged for the Northern Territory, after realising that he was ‘living in the best time that ever was, or that ever would be in the best country in the world’.
Eric was born in 1923 in Glen Huntly, Victoria, and his early years were tough and hard spent, his family surviving on a meagre World War I pension, and living off the land on a small farm. Eric used to say that it was the hardship he experienced during these years that ’toughened him up’, and prepared him for the very full and adventurous life that he would go on to live.
At the mere age of 14, Eric commenced working for the Postmaster-General in the telegraph section where he became proficient at Morse communication. At the end of World War II, with such sought-after skills, Eric was presented with an opportunity within the Department of Civil Aviation, and it was this opportunity that consequently led Eric to the Northern Territory, to a part of Australia that, unbeknown to him at the time, was the part of Australia he would end up calling home.
In 1949, just after the devastation of the bombing of Darwin, Eric was transferred to Darwin for work, and the following year, in 1950, he relocated again, this time to Katherine, a place he fell in love with. Adventurous and easygoing, Eric felt right at home in Katherine, developing a love for the town, the people, the countryside and the river.
It was in Katherine, the town that Eric loved, that he married Aileen Lawless, in a ceremony attended by all of the locals, the warmth of the people and the spirit of the country firmly embedding itself in them both. Eric, with a strong connection to the country, spent his days walking up through the various gorges and savoured the moments he led visitors up to the sixth gorge to camp under a monolithic rock - a rock that now bears his name, Smitt’s Rock.
In 1956, Eric relocated with his work to Alice Springs, embracing the town with his usual enthusiasm, but this time with his family in tow. It did not take the family long to make new friends but, in 1958 after only two years in Alice Springs, the Schmidts were relocated to Adelaide, which turned out to be short-lived as, after only two years, they were again relocated to the Territory, this time to Darwin.
Eric was glad to be back in the Territory, and it was no secret that he was glad to have the opportunity to once again explore the coast and inland rivers with lifelong friend, Ross Timms, and cast a line or two, or three. Back in the Territory and loving life, Eric and Aileen developed a passion for gemstones, and began exploring the areas rich in agate and amethyst out from Katherine towards Wave Hill, and spent much of their time searching for and collecting precious gems.
In 1964, the position of Regional Communications Supervisor for South Australia and the Northern Territory became available, and it was no surprise that Eric, who was always disciplined, thorough and thoughtful, won the position.
After the destruction and devastation of Cyclone Tracy in 1974, Eric supervised the airport operations and staff requirements for more than 50 personnel at the Darwin Airport, and did whatever he could to assist during such a painful time. In 1977, Eric completed three months as Airport Director at the Darwin Airport before relocating to Papua New Guinea with Aileen, where he would begin his next adventure that would include walking the Kokoda Trail and Bull Dog Track, and climbing Mt Wilhelm, the tallest mountain in Papua New Guinea.
Eric retired in 1981, and spent the following years doing what he loved: working the gem fields in Australia with regular trips back up to paradise, as he called it, bringing him back to the land, the bush, the wildlife, and the Territory he loved. Eric and his family lived in, or visited, the Territory every single year since 1949, with the exception of four years. So, it was only fitting that Eric finally moved back to Darwin to live, and he spent his last 10 years with his family in the Territory, enjoying the part of Australia he always called home.
Eric is survived by his wife, Aileen, and children, Ronald, Lindsay, Peter and Gayle. I am sure all members will join with me today in sending our profound condolences to Eric’s family. While it is an occasion of sadness today, as we remember and pay tribute to Eric Smitt, it is also an occasion to celebrate the life of the truly spirited and colourful man. In his biography, The Best Time Ever, Eric wrote: ‘There is still so much time to live that I have difficulty sacrificing a moment’. Eric never sacrificed a moment, having lived the best time ever.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will adjourn on the incredible events that relate to the 70th Anniversary and Commemoration of the Bombing of Darwin, and those links to what the Northern Territory government has created for the Northern Territory - that is the Defence of Darwin Experience, as part of the Darwin Military Museum.
To the department of Natural Resources and Sport, particular thanks go to Hugo Leschen, Darlene Lyon, Michelle Grantham and their incredible team. To the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory, thanks to Pierre Arpin, the Director, with particular mention of Michelle Smith and Jarred Archibald, who worked so hard in an incredibly short period of time on the content for the Defence of Darwin Experience. To the NT Libraries and NT Archives staff for their invaluable research work which contributed to a range of things from the Defence of Darwin Experience and the new Maritime Union of Australia Wharfies memorial at Stokes Hill Wharf, to the iPad app for the Defence of Darwin Experience. What an incredible high-tech expos of modern museums that has provided.
Thanks to the Heritage Division, creators of the Administrator’s gift to President Barack Obama, the plaque on the plinth. Thanks also to the Department of Construction and Infrastructure for bringing the building in on time, even through the Wet Season. The weekly CE meetings were a pleasure; everyone worked as a team, led by the CEO, Al Wagner and a particular mention of the Project Manager, Mark Dodt and his team for an outstanding project - one of many the Department of Construction and Infrastructure delivers on behalf of the Northern Territory government.
The Department of Correctional Services provided a great team of workers for the Defence of Darwin Experience, some of whom have been offered full-time employment once they are released. Corrections also assisted the City of Darwin with the cleaning of the memorials and plaques prior to the anniversary.
Lands and Planning’s Transport Division provided buses for the many veterans to attend the range of functions and activities, including the trip to the Adelaide River War Cemetery.
To the City of Darwin’s team, who we work with closely - it was a pleasure to work with the City of Darwin team and the Northern Territory government, working together, meeting regularly for months on end to ensure there was great cooperation and synergy in bringing the whole range of activities together.
To the speakers at the Families Function – Mr Bill Risk, Mr Don Christopherson, Mrs Wendy James, our previous Administrator Austin Asche and that wonderful MC, Charlie King - this has been a sensational project for the Northern Territory and leaves an outstanding legacy which is not only a story that is unique to the Territory, but it is a unique Australian story, if not a unique global story. What all these people have done, coming together in the design and construction the 70th Anniversary Commemoration, is told this story to the world and it will not be forgotten.
The Chief Minister, among others, through tireless work, has made sure that the Bombing of Darwin has been included in the national curriculum and through the efforts of many Territorians it has been also included in our calendar as a National Day of Observance.
I place on the public record, a mate of mine, a colleague and an incredible, dynamic Territorian who worked through this from the start to finish, Alan James. AJ, as he is known in Suite 1, works with Arts and Museums and brings an interesting perspective to government and government delivery throughout the community. If you get to know Alan James, you will know of his very interesting and diverse background. He is a born and bred Territorian, but one of his interesting phases in a life and career was founding manager of the band Yothu Yindi. If you ever get the chance, get him to tell you some stories of touring the world with a band from the member for Nhulunbuy’s country; she would know the families well. AJ took those guys around the world more than once, and the stories are sensational, fabulous and also hilarious.
He brings this unique private sector sort of focus to government, and he took on this project with true gusto and determination and, at times, was singlehandedly holding all these major organisations together. He works under pressure with a smile on his face. He is not shy of long hours, and he has the Territory at the forefront of his work and of his dedication.
He certainly can reflect with his family, a long-standing Territory family, on this project. He can tell the stories to his children and to his grandchildren, and generations beyond, because he has a very strong connection with the bombing story through his mother, who spoke brilliantly at the Families Function. It was a truly inspiring story for not only old Darwin families, but also all the new Territorians and all our visitors to get that true perspective on what this event really did.
AJ, I cannot say enough about your involvement and the lessons that we have all learnt along the way. I hope you will continue working with us, because you are a very important member of the team. You have created a massive impression on this project that was not only challenging in terms of the Arts and Museums perspective, but also challenging in terms of delivering a state-of-the-art piece of public infrastructure that will go on for generations in what I consider to be still a frontier town.
I thank the RAAA, the Royal Australian Artillery Association of Australia. It was a pleasure to work with those Territorians who took on the project, being long-term Territorians committed to the site on East Point, the Darwin Military Museum. They took on the project with a lot of nerves, but being fine Territorians, and a lot of military strategists amongst them, they worked with government and with the City of Darwin, and we achieved these outcomes together. The wonderful thing about the RAAA is that now government has created a good governance model where they will go on to manage this facility as part of the Darwin Military Museum. I know, from their smiles and from their accolades of government over the weekend of the 70th Anniversary of the Commemoration of the Bombing of Darwin, that they are absolutely thrilled to add this incredible state-of-the-art, high tech, world-class, Defence of Darwin Experience to their whole museum package. I know they already have plans to continue developing it and to continue telling this wonderful Territory story.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise you of the presence in the gallery of the Gifted and Talented Class from Moil Primary School, accompanied by Ms Natalie Parkes and Mrs Samantha Saynor. On behalf of honourable members I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
TABLED PAPER
Pairing Arrangement – Members for Nightcliff and Fong Lim
Pairing Arrangement – Members for Nightcliff and Fong Lim
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have before me a document relating to pairs for me and the member for Fong Lim from 10.15 am today until noon. I thank the member for Fong Lim for that.
Mr Tollner: It is my pleasure, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr Tollner: Anything I can do to help.
Madam SPEAKER: I will remember that, member for Fong Lim.
Mr Tollner: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
BUILDING AMENDMENT (DISABILITY ACCESS AND OTHER MATTERS) BILL
(Serial 202)
(Serial 202)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr McCARTHY (Construction): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Building Act to provide for two different matters. The first matter relates to miscellaneous housekeeping matters. The second matter is in response to the commencement of the Commonwealth Disability Access to Premises Buildings Standards 2010. Since the commencement of the significant reforms to the Building Act in 2006 the act has been tested and it has become apparent that a number of minor housekeeping amendments are required.
Some of those housekeeping matters were included in the Building Amendment (Registration and Other Matters) Bill 2011 introduced in the Legislative Assembly on 23 November 2011. That bill relates to registration requirements for builders and the residential building consumer package.
The three remaining housekeeping matters in this bill are to allow the Practitioners Board to impose conditions on an applicant’s registration; to allow for an extension to the building contractor’s registration as a one-off to spread out the common date for registration to assist with processing registrations; and to provide appeal rights to the Building Appeals Board for applicants seeking accreditation for building products and construction methods from the Building Advisory Committee.
The functions and powers of the Building Practitioners Board include considering applications for registration as a building practitioner. If the applicant is considered fit and proper for registration and has met the qualification and experience requirements the board must register the person. On occasion, the Practitioners Board is required to consider an application where a person may meet most but not all of the requirements relating to experience. Currently, the act does not enable the board to place conditions on a practitioner’s registration which would enable registration, subject to particular conditions.
The bill will insert a provision to enable the board to impose conditions on the registration of a practitioner as the board considers appropriate. The conditions, however, must not be inconsistent with the act, regulations or a ministerial determination. The provision also specifies an offence of up to 40 penalty units for a breach of a condition of registration. This was considered necessary on the basis of advice that the existing offences against compliance with registration requirements in section 22 would not extend to a breach of a condition.
To ensure that all practitioners work within the scope of their registration, including any conditions, the bill also inserts a provision requiring the board to make an entry in the register of all conditions imposed on a practitioner’s registration.
The second housekeeping matter relates to the common date for renewal for some building contractors. Immediately before the commencement of legislation that introduced the registration of building contractors on 3 July 2006, a high number of applications were processed. The common registration date for those contractors was 3 July 2006, and the duration of registration for building contractors continues for two years.
Due to that common registration date, the extension of transitional arrangements that occurred, and the subsequent first registrations, a large number of registered builders seek renewal between July to December every two years. Specifically, within the five months from July to November in 2012, 60% of renewals for building contractors within a 24-month cycle will be processed. The five months from July to November constitute only 20% of time in that 24-month cycle. In terms of volume, that is 526 applications out of a total of 857 current building contractor registrations being processed in a short time frame.
To address the problems associated with processing large volumes of applications within a short time frame, as a one-off, this bill will amend existing section 24D to enable the regulations to extend the registration period beyond two years for building contractors who were first registered between 1 July 2006 and 30 June 2007. It is intended that regulations will specify that the extension will be to the builder’s birthday or, if there are two nominees for a corporation, the nominee whose birthday first occurs. New registrations will continue to have the renewal date as the date of first registration.
The third housekeeping matter relates to the process of accreditation of building products, construction methods, designs, components or systems by the Building Advisory Committee. There is currently power in the Building Act at section 53 that allows such accreditation, although there is no defined process and no associated appeal rights. The accreditations granted are included in a register referred to as the Northern Territory Deemed to Comply Manual.
The function of assessing and granting approval for accreditation has been the subject of legal advice. Legal advice is that a right of appeal to the Appeals Board should exist, and the bill corrects this anomaly through an amendment to existing section 19.
The bill also makes some minor changes to the head of power in section 53 to enable the regulations to set out a defined process for the application of products for accreditation. Once the regulations have been prepared, industry will have an opportunity to comment on the proposed process, including any proposed fees that may be prescribed by regulation.
The commencement of the Commonwealth Standards occurred on 1 May 2011 to coincide with the commencement of the 2011 edition of the Building Code of Australia. The Commonwealth Standards is a legislative instrument made under the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992. The standards contain both administrative and technical provisions. The Building Code of Australia is the relevant standard for building work adopted in each jurisdiction in Australia and contains only technical requirements.
Each state and territory provides for the administrative aspects of adopting those technical standards through relevant building control legislation. The 2011 edition of the Building Code of Australia incorporated new access provisions that replicate the technical requirements set out in the Commonwealth Standards. To ensure the administrative provisions of the Commonwealth Standards are given effect, each jurisdiction was to consider amending its respective building control legislation to replicate those provisions contained in Parts 1 to 4 of the standards.
Non-compliance with the standards can result in a complaint to the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Commissioner and could also result in a claim of unlawful discrimination in a federal court. Section 32 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 provides that it is unlawful to contravene the disability standards. A complete defence under the standards is compliance with the technical provisions which are the same technical requirements relating to disability access in the Building Code of Australia. If compliance with those requirements would impose unjustifiable hardship, the Commonwealth Standards permit a modification or departure from compliance to the extent that it would not involve unjustifiable hardship. The standards set out what a federal court may consider when determining whether compliance would involve unjustifiable hardship at Part 4.1. One of the matters a federal court will consider is any decisions made by a state or territory panel established to make recommendations on building access matters.
The bill inserts 129F and 129G in the act to enable an owner or lessee to apply to the Building Appeals Board for a decision that compliance with the disability access provisions in the Building Code of Australia would impose unjustifiable hardship. This will enable those applicants to proceed with building work where there is a modification or departure from full compliance with the access provisions in the Building Code of Australia.
To determine these applications, the bill inserts clause 129H which requires a Building Appeals Board to consider the same matters set out in 4.1 of the standards. In addition to providing for access modification decisions, the bill inserts 129D and 129E to enable the Building Appeals Board to make decisions about alternative solutions. Alternative solutions are a feature of both the Commonwealth Standards and the Building Code of Australia. Those documents contain performance requirements which may be met by using the deem to satisfy provisions or by using an alternative solution that is at least equivalent.
The deem to satisfy provisions contain technical measurements, calculations, and other quantifiable measures. By complying with those provisions, a person can be sure they have met the relevant performance requirements and, accordingly, it is an absolute defence to a claim under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992. To allow for innovative building solutions, the performance requirements may also be met if an alternative solution is at least equivalent to the deem to satisfy provisions and, therefore, complies with the performance requirements.
Currently, building certifiers may consider whether an alternative solution meets the performance requirements of the Building Code of Australia. It is not proposed that it be mandatory for the Building Appeals Board to consider alternative solutions relating to disability access. A certifier will still retain the ability to consider an application for an alternative solution. However, the certifier or owner may choose to apply to the board for an opinion for a proposed alternative solution for a disability access provision.
It is intended that for disability access decisions, the Building Appeals Board be constituted in accordance with the national protocol on disabled access. The protocol provides that where a body is established to consider access-related matters, the membership should include a sufficient number of people with relevant expertise. It also specifies that the body must include at least one person competent in access or, where the body consists of more than three people, at least one-third of those members must be competent in access matters.
The administrative provisions of the standards also allow for some concessions relating to lessees and existing lifts and toilets. It is intended that the regulations will incorporate those concessions. The regulations will also provide for fees payable for applications to the board relating to alternative solutions and access modification decisions. Regulations will also set out requirements for notifications on building and occupancy permits for building work that features an alternative solution, or has been the subject of an access modification decision that has permitted modified compliance with the disability access provisions.
Victoria has made legislative provision for the consideration of unjustifiable hardship applications vested in its Building Appeals Board, and had an existing provision for the consideration of alternative solutions. The response to the Commonwealth standards in this bill was modelled on the relevant provisions in the Victorian Building Act.
It is expected that this bill will facilitate consistent decision-making between the Northern Territory building control system and the Federal Court under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, where modified compliance with the disability access provisions on the basis of unjustifiable hardship is sought. It will also enable the consideration of alternative solutions in relation to disability access provisions. This will mean greater certainty for industry stakeholders, which was one of the main objectives of the Commonwealth standards.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
MEDICINES, POISONS AND THERAPEUTIC GOODS BILL
(Serial 180)
(Serial 180)
Continued from 20 October 2011.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Deputy Speaker, I notice this bill was delayed. I guess it was because of negotiations with the Independent member for Nelson who was waivering at one stage about some of the concerns raised by the opposition with regard to this bill. However, the slick negotiators that you are, you have him across the line. It looks like this bill will pass with the assistance of the member for Nelson, which is deeply disturbing to the opposition, largely due to some particular clauses which I know the minister is aware of. Our position really has not changed on those.
We, largely, support the bill - most parts of the bill, say 99%. The objectives of the bill are to promote and protect public health and safety by minimising - and I could list a couple of those points here which were provided to me in a briefing - the accidental and deliberate poisoning by regulated substances; misadventures by poisoning by regulated substances; the manufacture of substances of abuse and the diversion for abuse of substances and abuse; and harm from therapeutic goods, etcetera. The thrust of the bill generally has the support of the opposition.
The area that we are concerned about, and it struck me straight away during the briefing, is clause 89, Issuing prescription to a patient. I can outline that for the House:
(1) An authorised prescriber commits an offence if the prescriber:
(a) issues a prescription for the supply of a Schedule 4 or 8 substance for administering to a person (the patient) for the patient's therapeutic use or treating a medical condition of the patient; and
- (b) gives the prescription to a person (the recipient) other than:
- (i) the patient; or
- (ii) a carer of the patient; or
- (iii) a guardian of the patient; or
- (iv) a prescribed person.
There is a maximum penalty of 100 units.
Subsection (1) does not apply if the patient is a partner of the recipient and the substance is for treating a prescribed medical condition of the partner, and the prescribed medical condition applies to the issue of the prescription.
Essentially, the prescribed medical condition in this case is chlamydia. We all know how widespread that is across the Northern Territory. Over the years, governments of all persuasions have been at pains to reduce this condition across the Territory. This government believes this is a mechanism which will go a long way in reducing that.
Essentially, it is extended partner therapy - that is what they call it in the United States - or patient delivered partner therapy, or PDPT. In other words, someone can go to a physician and say: ‘I have chlamydia’, or be diagnosed with chlamydia and say: ‘My partner, therefore, would have chlamydia but does not want to come to the doctor so would you provide me the medication so I can dispense it to him or her?’ That raises a number of concerns, not only the fact that someone could be receiving medication without their knowledge - there is no real protection in here for the patient who might be receiving this medication. There are plenty of protections for the authorised prescriber, that is the GP who might be issuing the prescription or issuing the drugs, but not for the person who might be taking it - particularly without their knowledge. That raises a number of concerns.
Also there is the issue that stuck out alarmingly to me of child protection. We have had a couple of briefings with a few people who have tried to reassure us that it is very rare that such a situation would arise where a person would be able to cover up child abuse by providing a child with prescription medication for chlamydia. The answers I have received to those concerns are that it is very rare that this sort of thing would happen; it is very unlikely that this sort of thing would happen; that child abusers or such offenders would not go to such lengths to cover up child abuse; or in these circumstances it does not really fit the profile of a child abuser. It is all a bit nebulous; it is all maybe not, or we do not really think it would happen.
It is not substantial enough for me and, indeed, for the opposition to sign off on the clause. In our view, the door is being left ajar ever so slightly. Maybe you are right, minister, and maybe Dr Howard Bath is correct, that maybe it is a rare occurrence, or maybe it is highly unlikely. However, that does not actually categorically rule out the possibility and, as a result, this particular clause cannot have the support of the opposition.
You have a look at the situation with child abuse across the Northern Territory: to suggest it is bad would be putting it lightly. I do not suggest for a second that this government condones anything such as child abuse, or you would be even trying to facilitate it. I have to say though that your efforts with regard to child protection in the Northern Territory have been far from exemplary.
There are a number of outstanding notifications; we have had a couple of reports. The member for Araluen has raised a number of concerns about what is unfolding across the Northern Territory, particularly in remote communities, with regard to child abuse. It is something that is with us and it is not diminishing at what we would say is an acceptable rate. We certainly cannot support a clause in a bill that potentially leaves the door ajar for a perpetrator to commit child abuse and get away with it.
That is the point. To me, it is glaringly obvious. Are we the only ones in this Chamber who see it? I thought the member for Nelson might come onboard with this. He sought advice, and he has had meetings and briefings. He has spoken to doctors and to people across the Territory, and presumably across the country, about this sort of thing. Again, the same response: it is highly unlikely; I doubt it would happen. That is just not good enough for us. Anything that leaves the slightest possibility for child abuse to take place is not good enough.
I am not surprised that the government is prepared to dismiss these concerns. Your record has not been good. We have had a couple of pretty damning reports, substantial reports. The Little Children are Sacred report and the Growing them strong, together report both highlight serious flaws in the child protection policies of the Northern Territory Labor government, highlighting your appalling record. I am not surprised that this sort of thing is dismissed as ‘it is unlikely it would happen’. I do not for a second think the Northern Territory Labor Party would condone such behaviour, but you do not seem to want to go to any length to shut it down. In fact, I would even suggest that there are potential cover-ups in this area. We have seen it - maybe not a cover-up, but just a denial. That is what this is about here: it is unlikely that it would happen; it is very rare; it does not fit the profile of a paedophile; look, just let it go through because we might be curing chlamydia or helping stamp out chlamydia across the Northern Territory in remote communities and that far outweighs anything else.
Well, we do not take that view at all; in fact, we take the opposite view. If one child’s welfare is put at risk that is enough for us to say no way, and that is exactly what we were saying.
I am surprised the member for Nelson has come on board. He will have his reasons and I am not going to launch into a personal attack against the member for Nelson. We have spoken at length and he heard the concerns. Member for Nelson, I am somewhat surprised you are allowing the passage of this bill. We circulated some amendments which were quite reasonable and I thought the arguments we put forward with regard to this stacked up. I thought it was an absolute no-brainer and perhaps it was an omission. During the briefing I asked about this and was not met with much of a confident response. That is what leads me to think it was an omission or oversight.
I was told, again, it is unlikely - not a very satisfactory answer. I was told that chlamydia is only manifests in older women - post-adolescent women, not young women of 14, 15, 16. It is generally found in women in their late teens and early 20s. That is extraordinary in itself because, while some of the statistics might point to that, it is saying too bad if those younger women are contracting it - which they are. We have a number of reports about child sexual abuse, sexually transmitted diseases and sexually transmitted infections in young women across the Northern Territory. To say: ‘Well, it does not really happen with people that age’ - is it an omission, or is it a denial, or is it because you have spent so long working on this bill?
I recognise the minister and his team have spent a long time working on this and, largely, this bill has our support. Ninety nine percent of this bill has the opposition’s support. It is, largely, a pretty good bill and well overdue. We need to bring ourselves in line with the rest of the country and bring ourselves into the 21st century with this. However, I have the feeling it was a bit of a gotcha and I was not trying to be a smart alec in the briefing. I saw the slide come up on the projector and then I was told this is what this particular clause was about. The first thing I asked was about child abuse, which is when I got the: ‘Oh, it does not really happen. It only affects certain ages’. It was probably an over-reaction to something which is going to do much good in the communities.
It may do a lot of good in the communities for people who have contracted chlamydia, but it is not going to do much good to a child who has been sexually abused as the perpetrator is able to, under this legislation, go to a doctor to receive a prescription for the medication and, then, legally give it to that child. I understand that the Care and Protection of Children Act also comes into play, but that still means that the person is able to provide that medication to that child. That, to me, is a glaringly obvious cause of concern. When I raised it with my shadow Cabinet colleagues they were outraged. They said: ‘You are kidding!’ It took a bit of explaining as to what exactly was taking place here. There were concerns – and some of the other members will speak on this – about the partner being able to deliver the patient therapy, and the whole concept surrounding that. That goes a bit against the grain as well. This sort of thing does not take place in other jurisdictions across Australia.
I know the argument has been that a large number, not quite 50%, of the states in the United States have signed off on this kind of thing …
Mr Elferink: In California, no doubt.
Mr CONLAN: There is list of them here. Nevertheless, just because it is done in America does not necessarily mean it is great practice in Australia.
I can understand what the government is trying to do. However, I do not think this is the way to go. We do not think, as an opposition, this is the appropriate way; it goes against the grain. The big concern is that you can, essentially, slip something into someone’s drink or into their Cornflakes. We have raised that and it might be a flippant way to articulate our concerns, but it is a genuine concern. I know the argument you cannot stop anyone doing that anyway. Many of us are on medication. We might be able to do that, in any case, but this is actually providing a legislative instrument for that to happen.
There are the concerns with regard to disclosing people’s names to the physician, and also patient records. It is very important to note that, if someone presents to a doctor and says – and this was an example given to me during the briefing – ‘I have chlamydia, I have the symptoms’, and the doctor diagnoses that person with chlamydia, and that person - in this case, say, a female – says: ‘I am married, but I have also had a couple of other sexual partners. I do not want my husband or anyone to know about his sort of thing’, the doctor will be able to provide enough doses for those partners as well. The husband, the partner in the first instance, and any other sexual partners this person may have had - say there are two or three - even just the one, the original partner still is not recorded as having chlamydia.
Where do those statistics go? If we have one or two, does that mean there are another two people who have been given medication for chlamydia, and that those particular instances have not been recorded with regard to STI statistics? That is a concern because how do we know how widespread whatever it is, is? How are we ever going to be able to get on top of this sort of thing if we do not have reliable data? There is a concern also that it is just about compiling reliable data around this sort of stuff.
I mentioned that we have no protections for the person receiving the drug or prescription which may cause adverse reactions. The whole practice of giving someone a course of medication without any understanding of that person’s medical history, or if that person is allergic to something, flies in the face of common sense. It flies in the face of medical practice as well. I have spoken to the Australian Medical Association. I know that the government does not often like the Australian Medical Association, and sometimes they can be a bee in everyone’s bonnet. Nevertheless, they are GPs and medical practitioners. The first thing that was said to me was it does not sound like sound medical practice to dispense medication to someone you have no understanding or record of their medical history. Not only the dispenser but also the person who is prescribing the medication has no record or no indication of that person’s medical history. That does not sound like very good medical practice.
If we can find a way around that, then all well and good, but there is no way around that in this legislation. All it does is absolve the prescriber of any civil liability if there is an issue or an adverse reaction, perhaps a fatal reaction. Again, it is a case of it is highly unlikely that someone will have such a reaction to a course of medication to deal with chlamydia – well, maybe. Just like it is perhaps highly unlikely that a child sex offender will be requesting a course of medication for chlamydia to cover up child sexual abuse which he perpetrated, or maybe that is highly unlikely. I do not necessarily think that it is actually highly unlikely particularly in the climate in the Northern Territory with regard to child sexual abuse and how rampant it is across the Territory. Nevertheless, if it is highly unlikely that is one thing, but the fact is that it is not totally impossible. It is not impossible, but there is still a chance, a slight chance, that this sort of thing can take place.
There is a slight chance that someone can have an allergic reaction, a reaction of sorts to this medication. In fact, it even says in the draft guidelines for PDPT:
- Side effects: slightly upset stomach, diarrhoea, dizziness, yeast infections, allergic reactions. At the risk of an allergic reaction to this medication is very low.
But that is still not ruling it out. There is still a risk of an allergic reaction to this medication and to me that is not good enough.
Why are we legislating for something that is 90% or 95%? We need to be 100% sure that if we are going to go down this path, and we are going to allow this practice to take place, we are going to pass a law in this House and we are going to legislate that those people who are on the receiving end of this legislation are protected, that we have done everything possible to ensure their safety and wellbeing. I do not believe that is taking place. This is not concrete, minister.
The fact that there is a very low risk of an allergic reaction to this type of thing does not pass the Country Liberal’s test. Clearly, we have the health and wellbeing of Territorians put on a much higher peg than the Northern Territory Labor government.
This is glaringly obvious to us all. I believe the member for Nelson recognised some of this. He will have his reasons, and no doubt he will outline them shortly, as to why he has supported this, despite these concerns. I believe these are genuine concerns ...
A member: And real concerns.
Mr CONLAN: Yes, and real concerns. We are talking about people’s lives, health, and wellbeing, and children’s welfare. That is a point I believe is lost in this legislation: there could potentially be children at risk as a result of this. I need to rephrase that, because I want to make the point, and again, I do not want to be flippant about it, but if children are at risk, they are at risk already, so they are already being abused. What I am saying is that it is allowing those perpetrators to perhaps go undetected. That is the concern. To stamp out this child abuse, you have to be able to come down on the people committing the offence. I feel that legislation of this type will allow those people to commit these offences and go undetected, because the condition will go undetected in the child.
I will go back over some of the points. The no requirement to provide medical records of the partner is a big concern. It is pretty poor medical practice, we believe. Disclose the person’s name. There is no requirement to disclose the person’s name, and that was part of the argument given to me. Maybe in your response, minister, you can clarify that, but the argument to me was that, and I use that example about someone presenting to a doctor and saying: ‘Look, I have had a number of sexual partners. I am married. I do not want anyone to know about it. Can you give me a couple of courses of this medication so I can treat it and stamp it out in my community?’ There does not seem to be any requirement to provide the names of any of those people. This person may not even know that person’s name, so there is clearly a vehicle in this legislation which allows the doctor to prescribe medication, and for that person to dispense that medication to these particular partners.
I am also concerned that, just because someone is too concerned, or too afraid, has cultural issues about turning up to a GP, a male, for example, and having a check-up by a doctor to see if they have a sexually-transmitted disease, or a sexually-transmitted infection, whatever it might be. Just because that person feels uncomfortable about that, or does not want to do that, why does the state intervene with legislation like this? That goes against the grain of the Country Liberals and the opposition. It goes against the grain of individual responsibility. It is dumbing it down to the lowest common denominator once again. That person will not face up to their responsibilities so the state - the Territory - will step in and create legislation to make it easier on those people who do not want to live up to their responsibilities.
If those people have sexually transmitted infections, if those people are putting their community at risk as a result of this type of thing - and we all know the risks with chlamydia - surely that person has a responsibility to themselves and their community. On top of all those other arguments, there is this philosophical problem I have with it and that is a person is, essentially, let of the hook from their civil and social responsibilities to their own community and their own family. The husband does not have to go to the doctor and be checked; the wife can do the work for him - or vice versa. If there is no female doctor, or if there is no male doctor - there are all these excuses as to why someone will not do it. I do not agree with it and we do not agree with it as an opposition. You will find many opposition members, some whom may speak on this bill, will have their own views about that.
I have an issue with the state stepping in and absolving people of their responsibilities. We all have a responsibility to our community, our families, and the health and wellbeing of those. If you have chlamydia, you go to the doctor and get your own prescription and your own course of medication.
The government talks about the wonderful inroads made into community medicine and community healthcare, so there should be no excuse for someone in the Territory not being able to find a GP to prescribe them medication for chlamydia, or a Schedule 4 substance.
The other concern is at this stage it is a Schedule 4 or Schedule 8. A Schedule 8 substance is an opiate; however, a Schedule 4 is a drug available through prescription. In this case, it is indicated by regulations and the regulation is for chlamydia - issuing a prescription to a patient to treat a prescribed medical condition. That could change. Whatever is prescribed by regulation could change. It does not come before this parliament. Therefore a Schedule 4 substance that is only available through a prescription by regulation - that could change; it could be something else. We are then seeing something else prescribed. All of a sudden there is something else out there that the Territory government wants to get on top of, or there is something else out there that people do not want to take responsibility for so we make it easier for them.
The whole thing does not sit well. This whole clause - clause 89(2)(a) (b) and (c) are the parts of this bill we find offensive. There is also subsection (c), which is someone with whom the person is in a sexual relationship. I am unsure if that deals with past sexual partners as well. It says ‘is in a sexual relationship’. What about a past partner? If we are going to address this and you are determined and hell-bent to go down this path, what about previous partners?
I hope I have made my point. There are a number of areas of this bill such as the child protection concern, which I believe is very real; it is glaringly obvious. If there is one child at risk then that is one too many. The cost and the risks of child abuse far outweigh anything else. A child’s welfare has to be at the absolute forefront of this, not someone’s abrogation of their own responsibility. The requirement to provide medical records, such as the partner’s records and the disclosure of the person’s name, does not seem to exist. These are big concerns. Of course, it is poor medical practice. What happens if that person then does have a reaction, as we envisage?
We circulated some amendments last year. I know the minister did not like it. He said I was clutching at straws, or drawing a long bow, or whatever it was - highly unlikely. I know that is the argument fed to me from the briefings by Dr Howard Bath and the like. I do not want to dismiss the good work of Dr Bath, but I am saying if there is the slightest chance, to us it is just not good enough.
I was hoping the member for Nelson might support the opposition’s concerns on this, but I am not going to get into an argy-bargy with him. I know he has done much work on this and spent a fair bit of time weighing up which way he is going. I hope that is how you have come to the conclusion; that you have come to it on your own, member for Nelson, and you have not been coerced by the government. It is their bill. I know you are very keen to support the majority of the government’s bills and I hope you are doing this for the right reasons. I would be very concerned otherwise.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not think this is good practice, or that this really has the health and wellbeing interests of Territorians at heart. I can understand what you are trying to do, minister, but it is not something the opposition will be supporting. If you were to support the amendments we canvassed last year, then we will throw our support behind the bill. You do not need the opposition to pass this bill. You will have the support of the member for Nelson and this bill will go through. It is a shame and it is pretty bad law, if and when this bill actually passes the House.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I listened with interest to the shadow Health minister and I was struck by the fact that we have a legislative instrument in front of this House which is 153 pages long. Of course, we have other legislative instruments that deal with drugs in our community – both licit and illicit – and I reckon if you piled them on top of each other, they would be 600 or 700 pages worth, at least at a Territory level, if you include references to the Poisons and Dangerous Goods Act and all those sorts of things.
Why? Why do we bother with all that legislation? That is the question that leaps out at me. If this stuff does not need to be controlled then, surely, it would be available in the same way that I can buy a box of aspirin from Woolworths? Clearly, it does need to be controlled. A great deal of clinical thought goes into the application of Schedules 1 through to 8, and creating a regimen of the different applications in those schedules. Schedule 4 and Schedule 8 drugs, where they are lawful, require a prescription. That is where my concern lies.
We are reassured by the minister that the only drug that is going to find its way into this policy is Azithromycin, which is generally well tolerated according to the paperwork provided. The most common side effects in patients receiving a single dose regimen of one gram of Azithromycin are related to the gastrointestinal system - diarrhoea or loose stools, nausea, abdominal pain, vomiting and dyspepsia. Patients should be advised to report any severe reactions to the prescribing doctor who will then notify the Therapeutic Goods Administration. So the description of this fairly benign Azithromycin basically says that it can make your digestive tract an unpleasant place to be in the worst case scenario. Of course, it is an antibiotic which is probably why it has found its way into Schedule 4.
You can understand that there is some concern and you have heard the concerns of the shadow ministry in relation to this drug. It is not like we are talking necessarily about fluoride. I mean, why don’t we just whack this in the water supply if it is that good for chlamydia? The reason is because it needs to be controlled. This is about control. All of these legislative instruments are about control: how we control our drugs in the community. Some of them we ban outright; some of them we accept outright, where a five-year-old, if they have enough money can walk into Woolworths and buy a box of aspirin. So we have this whole raft of controls in the process. Schedule 4s and Schedule 8s are the ones that, where they can be lawfully issued, we want to control by virtue of the fact you must front a medical practitioner who can then write out a prescription for you, and that prescription can be filled.
Why would we want a person to front a medical practitioner? Because we want to know who we are prescribing the drugs to. We want to find out about their medical conditions and we want that gatekeeper to be in place to control the drugs. The reassurance is: ‘This is just the one drug. It is only poor, old Azithromycin. Other than mucking around with your intestinal tract, it will not bother you so much’. The point is that in clause 89 of this bill there is no reference to Azithromycin. There is a reference, however, to Schedule 4 and Schedule 8 drugs, and ‘prescribed’ means ‘prescribed by regulation’.
What the minister is asking us to do is to give him a driver’s licence to drive a moped. What he is also asking us to do is that once he has the driver’s licence to drive the moped, he can then at any point readjust the qualification in that driver’s licence to anything that he likes up to and including a Mack truck. This is a case of a politician walking into this House saying: ‘Trust me, this is all for the public good. We are going to allow Azithromycin into the community. We are going to deal with this chlamydia problem. We can do it through tweaking the process, by getting this stuff into the community. That way, partners who are too embarrassed or whatever to front a doctor will be able to get Azithromycin’.
But that is not what the bill says. The bill talks about the issuing of those Schedule 4 or 8 substances. This is the part where I start to get a little concerned because once this bill goes out of this place, it is beyond the control of this place except in one fashion; that when there is an alteration to the regulation, we would be in a position where we could attempt to move a disallowance if we happen to pick it up.
What the minister wants us to do is, essentially, say to doctors that we will allow Azithromycin to find its way into the system. Once we have that then the argument will continue to flow that there will be other diseases we can do this with. That is the part where I am concerned because we as parliament will not have effective control over what happens to this instrument once it leaves this place and that is of concern.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the truth of the matter is that once you have done this there will be enormous pressure on a Health minister to find another disease that is out there that we should address and we should enable this process to work. That means we will be saying: ‘Oh, well, something slightly more challenging; what about syphilis, what about gonorrhoea, what about some other drugs like that?’ The reassurance for Azithromycin is that it is generally well tolerated. That is fine; that is the reassurance we get.
What about drugs for other types of diseases which are not so well tolerated? Then you find yourself in a situation where you have to protect a medical practitioner from liability for their conduct. Surely you would not put in a legislative instrument that you would need to protect the medical practitioner from their conduct? Goodness no, that would not be there at all, oops, oh, that medical practitioner is protected from civil liability. Why would we do that? There is no risk, that is what we are being told, but we are also saying, just in case there is, we are going to protect the doctor from civil liability. And the answer will be from the government: ‘Ah, yes, that is a very common section in legislation where we protect practitioners from civil and criminal liability’. Well, let us see those practitioners stump up and see if they are game to put their careers, their medical reputations and their professional liability insurance on the line, and remove that section, the protection of liability.
If you are so confident, and the medical fraternity is so confident, that this is of such limited risk to the community, remove the section protecting the medical practitioners that participate in this from civil liability. I can tell you, the suggestion from government will be: ‘No, we still have to keep that protection in there’.
Why should I as a legislator find any reassurance in that clause? There is no restriction on what the minister is asking for to be limited to Azithromycin; that is not in the bill. that is in the handout. What is in the bill is a Schedule 4 or a Schedule 8 substance. Basically, the medical profession is saying: ‘Trust me and we will sort it out’, and the minister will provide, at any time, an amendment to the regulations so long as the medical profession can convince the minister it is a good idea. I am unconvinced.
This is particularly aimed at people in sexual relationships. It is talking about STIs in the community, which is in the bill. What about non-STIs. Let us think of other types of drugs that will fall within this harmless category. What about the drug which is generically sold as Valtrex, which I believe is a suppressant for genital herpes? That has to be a fairly benign sort of drug. Is it a Schedule 4 or a Schedule 8? Schedule 4, I think. How long before the minister is passing a regulation in this place saying: ‘Valtrex is fairly harmless so we can add that to the list of drugs scheduled under the system so we can get someone going in dealing with their herpes and those sorts of things’, because that is the intention. That is the intention here, to creep into these drugs. It has been safe over here, we will get into the next level, and we as a parliament will have no effective control other than to keep a very close eye on every instrument that comes into this place, including those omnibus regulations. Then we have to start moving disallowances if we should happen to find what is in the mix.
I do not like losing control of substances we put so much effort into taking control of. There are any number of other drugs which would possibly fall within these categories, and we as legislators bend over backwards to apply controls on these drugs. Now the minister is coming in and saying: ‘Let us slacken the controls off, let us back away a bit’. Why? Because we have the standard argument of this is how you control these diseases in the public domain: ‘If you do this, then you get a better control over the disease and there is less transmission of disease’. I understand the argument, but there are other principles involved than just disease control. Sometimes, some of the professions – and the medical profession is not innocent of this - become so focused on their own professions that they start to abandon other areas, or start to ignore other areas which the community still expects. The community has expectations on the way these drugs are controlled otherwise we would not have hundreds and hundreds of pages of legislation on the control of them.
The government is now saying it will step away from those controls and allow people to say: ‘My spouse, my sexual partner, may have caught a disease from me and they have it. They know I am here but they just do not want to come in. Can I pick up the script for them and everything will be sweetness and light’. Of course, the advice sheet says the medical practitioner should encourage the other partner to come in. At that point, through the normal process of these things, that just becomes a tick. The medical practitioner says: ‘Your partner should really come in’. ‘My partner does not want to’. Tick, I have been there, I have covered that issue. ‘All right, I will organise the prescription for you’. That is what is going to happen in practice and is what, I expect, this minister wants to happen in practice. Just go through the process. Yes, we have to encourage the person to come in but we know they are not really going to do it so let us tick it off.
Then we get to the point of removing the controls. Why we put these controls in place is because we want to protect people. We do not want Schedule 8 available on our shop shelves next to the aspirin and vitamin tablets. We do not want Schedule 4 on the shop shelves next to the vitamin tablets. We want controls. We are now releasing Schedule 4 and Schedule 8 drugs into an uncontrolled environment.
This is the point the shadow minister makes particularly well. What do we know about the sexual partners of these people? Chlamydia is a particular type of disease, but the bill does not say chlamydia. The bill does not necessarily limit itself into the future to Azithromycin. We will find we are going to lose control and allow these drugs into the community. The shadow minister has expressed his concerns and we have heard the response from the department - very unlikely that this is going to occur. Okay, if it is unlikely there are going to be any issues, prove to us that will be the case rather than saying it is probably unlikely to occur. The issues are very real, particularly in the Northern Territory. The rates of sexually transmitted diseases amongst children are well established and we are talking prepubescent children in the Northern Territory.
What I would hate to see – and this is what has been articulated by the shadow minister – is this then becomes a vehicle by which someone fronts at a clinic - and you know how these clinics operate, particularly in the more remote areas, it is bedlam. The medical practitioner is there for one or two days, he is being presented with case after case, someone walks into one of these remote clinics and says: ‘I have this issue. Can you fix it so I can sort it out with the missus?’ It turns out the missus is 12. That person goes home and the father, the brother, says to the 12-year-old: ‘Here you go. This looks after the problem’.
We are being told that is not going to happen, but I am not convinced. That assurance does not convince me. This would work better in Sydney than it would in the uncontrolled environments of some of the more remote places in the Northern Territory, and I would argue it would still not be perfect in Sydney. I do not doubt this operates in other areas of the world. There were references to it working in the United States and there has never been a problem with it, but we are not the United States. What happens in our remote communities does not necessarily follow the United States.
The other side of the argument would then be: it would be better if the 12-year-old was cured anyhow. That is probably true. Surely the underlying message at that point is this then becomes a licence to continue the behaviour. That is not a signal I am comfortable sending, as a person from this House.
If we pass the bill today we lose effective control over what goes on in the departments. Well-meaning and well-intentioned people pursue this policy, and I have no control over the messages which are sent out. I have been concerned in the past that the departments have taken, as a matter of policy, a decision to ignore the laws of the Northern Territory. The most obvious example which springs to mind is the current - as far as I am aware - requirement for a list of required reporting for sexual partners between the ages of 14 and 16, where there is still discretion for doctors - unless that has changed and I am unaware of it. It certainly was the case a couple of years ago. The requirement under the Criminal Code is that it is a crime to have a sexual relationship with a person under the age of 16, yet, the Health Department issues an instruction which is contrary to that point. I can only conclude that the Health Department will set policy parameters which could stray beyond the realm of what we consider lawful. They give me no comfort when they aggressively hold that position - and the government has defended that position. The message I get, as a legislator, is we have to rein this in. They cannot be a law unto themselves; they are not elected – we are.
For that reason, I have concerns about what is intended. I understand why the Health Department makes those determinations, I just do not agree with them. I do not agree with them, not necessarily for health reasons, but for other reasons, not least of which is the public expectations that we maintain some type of standards.
It is the same argument about whether or not to hand out condoms at the BassintheGrass festival - it is the same issue. At what point do you start managing the health messages you send out? In some quarters, people would be saying just dish out condoms willy-nilly, to whoever walks in the gate, every 10-year-old. What type of message is that? What type of message will this be, particularly here in the Northern Territory?
There is not sufficient restraint that I can see in these sections which gives me enough comfort to support the intention that is behind this section. Unfortunately, it has been clearly signalled to this side of the House that an amendment to the bill striking this policy down - and this is a policy – would not be supported by government. That, then, leaves us in the situation in which we so regularly find ourselves with this government. They bring in a wad of legislation or an item of legislation, which is entirely supportable, but for a single issue.
Rather than allowing the majority of that legislation to pass and introduce a separate legislative instrument to deal with this particular issue, the government then hangs us on the horns of a dilemma. Do we resist the overall bill on the grounds of one repugnant component of it to be branded as being Luddites and fools for ignoring the great principles and practices in the Medicines and Poisons and Therapeutic Drugs Bill? I can see the media release going out: ‘Opposition opposes this fine piece of legislation -153 pages of great legislation’. That is how it will go out. Do we stand our ground, dig in our heels and say we oppose this whole bill because the government gives us no choice but to do so?
It is typical of the policy cowardice of this government to do this, and to bury a contentious policy issue like this in a much larger bill. They have done it before, they will do it again, and it demonstrates the contempt with which they deal with these issues in this House, and the contempt with which they treat the greater public when they pump out media releases saying that the Country Liberals and the people who oppose them are a bunch of Luddites for not supporting good legislation. Well, we are not afraid of those tactics, and whilst we fully expect them, we are fully happy to have the debate in public as to why we oppose this legislation.
A control of drugs bill should be about the control of drugs. The sections pertaining, I think in clause 89 in this legislative instrument, is about losing control. It is inconsistent with the philosophy of the control of drugs. It is no small wonder that the AMA has taken the position they have because they think it is bad practice. I and members on this side of the House believe it is bad practice. You cannot abandon good, established practice because you have one cause to pursue. We do not support this concept and consequentially we do not support this bill. As far as I am concerned, this bill represents a thin edge of the wedge because before too long once this one starts operating, you watch: they will be adding to the list. When they start adding to the list they will start to demonstrate the reasons they want to protect people from civil liability.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is not good enough, not good enough for this House, and not good enough for the people of the Northern Territory.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, I too am horrified at the proposed legislation which the government is putting up here. What comes across is a benign bill designed to combat chlamydia which is widespread in our community, and has extraordinary moral and social issues which will impact on our community.
I am no expert in health. I am not a chemist like the member for Johnston, and I am certainly not the Health spokesman on this side of the House. I am only a simple, country boy - there is no doubt about that. But in my simple mind I understand that what the government wants to do here is say: ‘Chlamydia is so widespread let’s try to get the drug to combat it out there in the community as far and widely as possible’. It all sounds good and it might combat chlamydia in the community.
What concerns me, as the member for Port Darwin and the member for Greatorex said, is that what we are legalising - people have said: ‘This already occurs. Doctors give prescriptions and people get those prescriptions and take them home and give them to someone else who suffers similar symptoms’. That is not exactly the legal way of obtaining drugs, and it is not something a government should be encouraging. This bill legalises that practice. As I say, to my simple mind, the way that I understand it is a person can go to a doctor and say: ‘I have picked up this sexual disease; I am quite a promiscuous person. I do not want my wife to find out about it and I do not want my various partners to find out about it. Could you please increase my prescription so that I can take this drug home and secretly drug my wife and secretly drug my various sexual partners?’ That is an abhorrent situation. It adds a whole new meaning to slipping a mickey into a drink.
Goodness me, I cannot understand how a government could possibly think that that is good legislation. What further concerns me is that this legislation is not just restricted to drugs in relation to curing chlamydia. It is about all Schedule 4 drugs. So, somewhere down the track, someone can decide: ‘We will just add another drug to the list. We will make another drug available to the public’. If these drugs were so harmless, as the member for Port Darwin says, why would we not allow them go onto the shelves of Woolies and Coles and every corner store, the same was as you buy aspirins, or Mylanta for an upset stomach, or other forms of health products that you can buy from your corner store or your local supermarket?
If the idea was to get this drug out there as widely spread into the community as was possible, why not stand up and say that that is what we are trying to do? Why require someone to go to a doctor and get a prescription, not only for themselves, but for someone else who has not even fronted the doctor? If it is so highly embarrassing that people are not going to front up to a doctor to get these drugs and we believe in their safety, why not just put them on the shelves of Coles and Woolies? That would be the sensible thing to do. The reason we cannot do that, of course, is that we have in Australia a scheduling of drugs.
I just did a quick search on the Internet and came up with an independent review called The Australian Prescriber. Maybe the member for Johnston has heard of it. It is a newsletter circulated amongst pharmacists and chemists around Australia giving advice on how to issue drugs, and what drugs do, and the like. I imagine it is quite a well-read journal. I came to a page where the summary of the article, at the start of the page, says:
- The availability of potentially dangerous drugs and chemicals needs to be restricted to enable their safe and effective use. Scheduling is the legal process used to achieve this. Schedules increase from 2-9 in increasing order of restriction. Scheduling in Australia is legally a State matter, but all States now adhere closely, or entirely, to the Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Drugs and Poisons. Changes to schedules are made by the National Drugs and Poisons Schedule Committee. Current pressures to make drugs more available to the public must ensure that they continue to be used as safely and effectively as possible.
Under their principles it says:
- Toxicity is the keystone of scheduling. Medicines are inherently toxic which will cause harm in some circumstances. Drugs should only be used when the likely benefits to be gained outweigh the possible toxic effects.
That is a little about scheduling, and a little about why we schedule. It is all about toxicity, and what drugs should be available over the counter and what drugs should not be, and why you should go to a chemist or why you need to go to a doctor. It says a little about scheduling:
Schedule 2, or pharmacy only: Only available from a pharmacy which can be sold from open shelves and advertised.
Schedule 3, or pharmacy only: Only sold by the pharmacists themselves and cannot be advertised except as a generic drug group.
Schedule 4, or prescription only drugs: Only sold on prescription.
That is in relation to its toxicity, how you can sell it, all that sort of stuff. Of course, what the government is saying with this particular Schedule 4 drug that is used to treat chlamydia, is: ‘We do not think it is that dangerous at all. You can go into a doctor, get a prescription from the doctor, and the doctor can prescribe you a drug knowing that you are going to administer it to a person who you think might also have chlamydia’, more than likely a person that you have slept with and that is somehow okay. Furthermore, doctors are told they are not going to be liable for these decisions because that is what the legislation says.
If someone says to the doctor: ‘My wife and several of my partners all have chlamydia. I have it. They are all too embarrassed to talk to you. Please give me a prescription for myself, one for my wife, and one for each of my other sexual partners. I will ensure I go home tonight to my wife, drop it surreptitiously into a bowl of ice cream she is eating after dinner and she will not know she is taking it. When I catch up with my many and varied sexual partners I will also secretly administer the drug to them. Everyone will be cured. There will not be any heartache around and everything will be okay’.
If the wife dies, or one of the partners dies because they have an allergic reaction - their tongue swells up and they choke, whatever the reason and no matter how small, the doctor will not be liable under this legislation. The wife or the sexual partner and their family have no recourse because they have been illegally drugged. The doctor is off the hook. The gentleman who has been leading the promiscuous lifestyle is off the hook. That person’s family is left poor and destitute having seen their mother or father killed by an adverse reaction to a drug they were not even aware was being taken.
That is what this legislation means and I cannot for the life of me understand why the government would be doing this. I understand chlamydia is widespread and we have to deal with it. Goodness me, we deal with AIDS through a public advertising campaign telling people to cover-up and wear a condom. We deal with a whole range of health-related issues through advertising campaigns encouraging people to get involved. I have been to enough prostate cancer groups to understand the messages that are being put out to men: get in there, get a check up and find out if you have prostate problems. It is not that embarrassing. Please do it, it is good for your health. We understand men are particularly embarrassed about prostate checks so we do everything we can to encourage that to occur.
Why can we not do the same in relation to sexually transmitted diseases? Why do we have to legislate for the legalising of doping someone else unbeknownst to them? That seems to be the most extreme measure and I find it alarming that there is a government in Australia even contemplating something like this. It is crazy stuff.
As I say, if this stuff was so safe, if it was so harmless, so benign, why do we not just put it on the shelves of Woolies and Coles and at our corner shop, be done with the doctors, completely absolve them of any liability and make it freely available to anyone who wants it? Goodness me, the government is focused on stopping smoking but you cannot buy remedies over the counter to assist you to stop smoking. You cannot get Zyban from your local corner store. You cannot buy Nicorettes from your local corner store. You have to go into a pharmacy. In the case of Zyban and some other drug treatments you have to see a doctor ...
A member: Champex?
Mr TOLLNER: Champex, I am told. For Champex, you actually have to see a doctor to get a prescription. If smoking is the great killer everyone says, and all of these remedies are so safe, why wouldn’t the government be in here legislating to make them freely available on the shelves of Woolies or Coles or your local corner store? There are 1001 examples where you can think up reasons why government might want to make something freely available. I just cannot, for the life of me, understand why they focused, in this case, on chlamydia. In fact, when you look at the legislation, having spoken to the member for Greatorex, he informs me they have not just focused on this, they are talking about all S4 drugs potentially; they are just talking about this in this legislation.
Why do they just focus on chlamydia? It is rather confusing, and I pray the minister can explain how the legal unknown drugging of someone is good legislation. How you can legislate drugging someone without their knowledge and say that it is good legislation, or even encourage that? As someone said to me today, this stuff already happens. People go to doctors, they get a prescription, they take it home, and their wife is suffering similar issues: ‘Look love, I have just been to the doctor, I have this. Would you like to take it?’ That may well be occurring, but it is not legal. The government is now saying that is legal, and that it is what they deem to be good practice. I will be blowed if I can understand why.
As I said, I am no expert in pharmacy, chemicals, and the like, and I am certainly no expert in health remedies and the like, but I am damn interested in hearing the explanation for this little one from the government: how they can possibly justify this legislation, and how they can possibly justify someone getting a prescription from a doctor, taking it home, and legally handing it to someone else who has not had any medical assessment done on them.
That seems quite a bizarre situation, Madam Deputy Speaker, and something that should be teased out in the committee stage. I just cannot believe that situation is possible in Australia.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Deputy Speaker, I speak in support of this legislation, and I hope I can detail why. I have listened very carefully to what the opposition has said. I believe at the basis of it are genuine concerns that need to be addressed. They are genuine concerns that have been addressed through the committee stage amendment proposed by my colleague. I have to say that some of what has been said here is a bit overdone and overcooked. I will try to address some of the issues in relation to that ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I am not trying to be difficult. The committee stage amendment? Have we been given that?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are not there yet.
Mr ELFERINK: I understand that, but we have not even seen anything circulated yet. Have you circulated something?
Dr BURNS: I thought this had been circulated.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: It has been circulated. I can see it on the Leader of the Opposition’s desk and others.
Mr ELFERINK: No worries, thank you.
Dr BURNS: Member for Port Darwin, I will try to detail why I support this legislation.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is fair to say that chlamydia is almost endemic in Australia. It is a major problem, not only in Australia, but around the world. It represents, in Australia, 84% of all sexually transmitted infections. That is a whopping great percentage of sexually transmitted diseases within Australia. The ABS report says more than 73 000 cases of genital chlamydia are reported per year, and this is significant. Here in the Territory, unfortunately, we have the highest rates of sexually transmitted infections and, also, I understand, we have the highest rate of chlamydia notifications in Australia.
The Northern Territory Disease Control Bulletin of September 2011 records 661 reported cases of chlamydia between 1 April 2011 and 30 June 2011 compared to 628 for the same period in 2010. This is almost endemic in Australia. It is a major problem in the Northern Territory. Chlamydia has profound effects. According to the World Health Organisation, chlamydia is the most common form of urethritis in males; untreated females can result in acute salpingitis, or pelvic inflammatory disease, which is very serious, whose long-term consequences include chronic pain, ectopic pregnancy and infertility. So those are the very serious consequences of pelvic inflammatory disease.
The treatment of females with these conditions costs the health system millions of dollars annually. Also shockingly, or concerningly, newborns of untreated mothers frequently present with chlamydial eye infection within a week of birth, that is chlamydial ophthalmia neonatorum, and they subsequently develop pneumonia. There has been a body of research undertaken at the Menzies School of Health Research on the possible links between chlamydia infection at those stages of life and otitis media.
So these have profound effects within Australia and within the Territory in particular. It is a big issue and one that we need to address with a public health approach. In many public health approaches there are risks. We know that there is opposition in some quarters but I would hope that most members in this place subscribe to immunisation of children. No doubt, and sadly, there are cases in Australia, and some people here may sadly and tragically know of cases themselves, where children have been immunised and have had profound …
Mr Conlan interjecting.
Dr BURNS: This is a serious issue, member for Greatorex. ... have had profound side effects. That is a terrible consequence but it is a public health approach.
As I have said in this House before, I lived through the time when people had polio and when vaccines against polio were introduced into Australia. I can remember mass vaccinations against polio and there are consequences of that. I also know of children I grew up with ...
Mr CONLAN: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The point is that the parents are not taking home the immunisation and immunising their own children ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. Resume your seat
Mr CONLAN: ... a GP is doing it that is the point.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. Resume your seat.
Dr BURNS: I was merely making the point that with public health approaches there are risks, and I was using immunisation as an example of risk in our community. From my book, we have to fall on the side of immunisation. I knew children with polio and the burden that they and their family had to bear through that child having polio. It was a very common disease in Australian society and it had a great effect on our Australian society.
What I am arguing here is that there are risks in terms of public health. There are risks in a whole range of things including common medications that are on supermarket shelves, as people have been talking about, even common pain killers that people take and have side effects. There are very few drugs in existence that do not have side effects. We need to be aware of that.
The member for Greatorex described the development of this measure of drugs being administered through PDPT which, as he said, is that people can receive treatment themselves and also receive, not the drug, but a prescription. This is the important thing that the opposition either has not grasped or is unwilling to talk about: they receive a prescription for their partner with the name of that partner on that prescription, which then has to be dispensed as a Schedule 4 drug. Whether it is in a remote health clinic, as has been alluded to, or in a suburban pharmacy, the person’s details have to be taken, and the regulations under this legislation will specify that the age of the person for whom it is been prescribed will have to be shown. That will happen in remote clinics and it will also happen within that prescription. There is a chain here, from prescriber to the pharmacist who dispenses that medication. Pharmacists, of course, have the information of people who come to have their prescriptions dispensed through the Medicare system.
There are judgments, both within what the doctor does and what the pharmacist does, which are still covered, I would emphasise, by the Care and Protection of Children Act. If there is the slightest doubt, those health professionals, by law, have to mandatorily report any suspicion of child abuse. That is front and centre to what we are talking about here.
Interestingly, the member for Greatorex mentioned the epidemiology, if you like, of chlamydia in our society, saying that it is more likely to be in women who are more mature than children. I forget the exact words he used, but I would have thought if a medication like that is being dispensed for a younger person, the suspicions of the pharmacist, and the doctor who would be prescribing it, would be instantly aroused. Even more so if someone comes into a doctor or a health clinic and says: ‘I am incredibly promiscuous, I have all these partners and they are all infected because of my sexual activity’.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have had enough to do with STD clinics when I was working at the hospital. We worked very closely with Clinic 34, and it was my privilege to know many of the people there and become friendly with them, including Dr Frank Bowden, who is recognised Australia-wide as an expert on sexually-transmitted diseases. I attended many talks given by Dr Bowden and people like Dr Vicki Krause and practitioners in the area. These are people who instantly latch on. If someone says something like that to them, they will certainly be looking very carefully at that person and their sexual contacts, such is their commitment to follow up. I believe that would be sending a bit of a signal if someone did that.
Let’s face it, in this place people have talked about how this is a back door way of getting access to Azithromycin. There is nothing to stop someone going to one doctor and saying, ‘Doctor, I have chlamydia. I do not really know the name of my sexual partner, first name might have been whatever it is, do not know where they live, do not know their second name, can you help me?’ So the doctor writes out the prescription for Azithromycin. What is to stop that person going to another medical practitioner and getting another script for Azithromycin? They could do that today, and do all the things the opposition members are saying that someone is going to do surreptitiously. So there is nothing under current legislation to stop someone from doing that because, unlike pseudoephedrine, opiates and all the rest of those drugs which are scheduled differently to Schedule 4, there is no requirement for records to be kept centrally about the prescribing and dispensing of Schedule 4 drugs in that context. There is nothing to stop it.
Whilst we are speaking of Azithromycin, it is a drug with an extremely low index of harm. Yes, there is a very small risk of harm with Azithromycin, and I come back to the pharmacist and the doctor again. Modern pharmacists, even in the last 10 to 15 years, are very keen to give information to patients – that is part and parcel of their professional job as they dispense. They talk about side effects: if you begin to have a reaction you must stop taking this drug. The research shows people value the information given by pharmacists. They will ring up - I know they ring up. I have been a registered pharmacist in four states in Australia. I graduated in 1969 and know from long experience that people ring up their pharmacist and say: ‘Those tablets the doctor prescribed ...’, because often they do not want to approach the doctor straight off with their problem because they feel the doctor is either too busy or may interpret it as them being critical of the medical practitioner. So, many people, on a confidential basis, approach their pharmacist and say: ‘I have this side effect, I am feeling ill’, and the pharmacist will give them the proper advice as to what they should do. Let us not underestimate the professionalism of our doctors and our pharmacists.
In relation to the AMA, I understand the Health minister had a meeting with the AMA recently. The position of the AMA may well be clarified by what the Health minister has to say about that and I am very interested to hear about that meeting.
The member for Greatorex talked about this being a mechanism for government. We did not sit around the Cabinet table and say: ‘Yes, let’s have Azithromycin being dispensed in this way. Let’s do this’. This comes from advice from people who are medical and public health specialists. It is not something the government has dreamed up, unlike the assertion by the member for Greatorex.
I made the point about it being dispensed through a pharmacist. He talked about the door being ajar; he talked about flying in the face of medical practice, etcetera. I take your concerns and understand that the amendments which are being brought forward endeavour to address those concerns, member for Greatorex.
Originally, as I understand it, clause 89(1) was restricted to Schedule 4 and Schedule 8. Part of what we are amending today clarifies that, first, it is for the treatment of chlamydia through Azithromycin principally, and it does not involve Schedule 8 drugs. Let us leave Schedule 8 drugs out of the equation.
The regulations will specify chlamydia and, in relation to Azithromycin, I know because of the almost, unfortunate, endemic situation with Indigenous kids and otitis media, there has been a great deal of talk over the years about prophylactic use of Azithromycin to treat otitis media. That is also a very important aspect. Azithromycin is a very important drug, medication, whatever you say, in the treatment of these conditions in the Northern Territory.
As I understand it, member for Greatorex, you voiced two concerns. The first one was allowing the doctor to prescribe without seeing the partner; and you raised the question about child sex abuse, and also of side effects. Yes, there are minimal side effects with Azithromycin, you are quite correct; however, I have talked about how both pharmacists and doctors deal with that.
In relation to the partner it has been prescribed for, they have a prescription. The drug is not just given to the person who has come to the doctor. The partner who has not been to see the doctor has to go to a pharmacist and have that dispensed, and there is information there. As I have said before, the regulation will specify that the age of that person has to be recorded. So, I believe there are safeguards there.
The committee stage amendment clarifies it relates to Schedule 4 only and, specifically, for chlamydia. Yes, there is a part in there that does open the way in the future, should there be safe drug treatments for other such conditions, for those to be added. As with all our schedules in our legislation, the advice to schedule things and how they are scheduled comes from medical practitioners and experts. It is not something pharmacists say. Even though I have pharmacy qualifications - my major in Science was in pharmacology and I have lectured in those subjects at a tertiary level - I accept the advice of those health professionals who recommend to Cabinet about the scheduling of drugs. It is not my place to question those things. These are things which are on advice from professionals who work in this area.
I do not think it is something we should politicise, but this parliament is about legislation and people voicing genuine concerns. As I said, in what the member for Greatorex said, he has raised some good questions. He has highlighted some of the risks involved. We need to have a look at those risks and try to balance them against the negative effects of what chlamydia does, the damage it does, and its widespread nature, and the possibility of not doing anything.
I was very interested - you might have heard me saying: ‘Hear, hear!’ to the member for Fong Lim when he was saying he had read the Australian Prescriber which is an excellent publication. I have not been reading it in recent years, but I was an avid reader of it at one stage. Maybe one day I will be an avid reader of it again; it is an excellent and solid publication. The article the member for Fong Lim was reading was about scheduling and the importance of scheduling, and how it works and how it is important to schedule drugs so they are not misused, and they are used properly within our community and society.
I will place on the record that much of, not so much scheduling, but the use of drugs within a society is historical. If we are going to stick to the member for Fong Lim’s argument about anything that is toxic should be scheduled and the increased toxicity means it should become even more unavailable and locked up in a higher grade of schedule, I ask him to consider about tobacco, which is one of the most toxic, damaging drugs in our society.
We know the history of tobacco. It goes back a long way. I think Sir Walter Raleigh went to America and the American Indians had their peace pipe. He took it back to the court in England and everyone thought it was great. For a long while, they thought tobacco smoking was medicinal. Then, Sir Richard Doll in the 1950s did an epidemiological study, which really set the scene to drill down and find out about the toxicity and damage that tobacco does within our community.
I am not standing here today, tobacco zealot that I might be, saying we should schedule tobacco and it should be available on prescription only within our society. Possibly, that is what the member for Fong Lim is suggesting by his strict adherence to ‘the greater the toxicity you do not want it on supermarket shelves, you do not want it freely available, it should be locked up behind that barrier in the pharmacy where only a pharmacist can dispense it on prescription’. Maybe I will have another conversation with the member for Fong Lim over dinner about those comments. I was glad to hear him say that because, following on from his argument, I just ask the question: is he advocating that tobacco be prescription only?
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have much more to go, so I am quite prepared for you to allow me to continue my remarks later.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, you will have the opportunity to continue after Question Time.
Debate suspended.
VISITORS
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of government electorate officers participating in their annual seminar. On behalf of honourable members I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
MEDICINES, POISONS AND THERAPEUTIC GOODS BILL
(Serial 180)
(Serial 180)
Continued from earlier this day.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, we have the minister for Education in continuation.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have about eight minutes in continuation. I will try to pick up where I left off.
The opposition has raised valid concerns. I believe the member for Greatorex reflected those concerns quite well. I would have to say the member for Port Darwin in his offering, and also the member for Fong Lim, overcooked things slightly. The member for Port Darwin talked about the raft of controls over drugs and medications, the voluminous acts that pertain to controls over various medicines and substances within our community, and basically he talked about drugs being lawfully issued.
What I can say, as I said previously, that Azithromycin, which is an antibiotic, will be lawfully issued under the proposals put forward by this government. There is no suggestion that anything unlawful will happen. As I have said before, not only will the prescribing doctor be involved, but also the chemist or the pharmacist who actually dispenses this medication. I also added that part of the regulations surrounding the use of this medication will prescribe it is only pertinent to Azithromycin. It will also require that the age of the person for whom it is being prescribed be entered. So there will be controls. There will be vigilance. I take the opposition’s concerns.
The member for Greatorex raised the issue about whether this might be somehow used to cover up child abuse. He went to lengths to say he did not believe that was the object of government, but he said that could be something that happened as an unintended consequence of this legislation. I believe there are controls around it. We should never underestimate the professionalism and common sense of our medical practitioners and our pharmacists. These are people who deal in these matters all the time. If one of the scenarios raised by the member for Fong Lim, and the member for Port Darwin, if someone waltzes in there and says: ‘I am a very promiscuous person, I need Azithromycin for myself, and I want it for eight or 10 other people’, the alarm bells would be ringing in the doctors’ minds. They are all trained in this area and I believe there would be a lot of scrutiny in that particular matter.
This is all about trying to reduce the effects of chlamydia within our community. I outlined earlier in my speech that chlamydia is, to use a word, almost endemic within Australia; the Northern Territory has the highest rates of chlamydia in Australia. I also outlined the effects of chlamydia on adults, and possibly on the newborn. This is a very important consideration that I believe warrants action.
There was a lot of talk about putting Schedule 4s on shop shelves. Well, we do not do that. No one is suggesting that we are going to put Schedule 4 drugs on shop shelves. What we are saying is that these drugs, which are currently S4, or this drug, which is Azithromycin, have some different controls over it in order to address the very serious issue of widespread chlamydia infection within our community.
The member for Port Darwin raised scenarios in remote clinics. I have spent a fair bit of time in remote clinics. It is a little scary in some ways, but I know what happens in remote clinics, and I tell you what, those nurses, health workers and doctors are very aware of who might have an STI and who their sexual partners are. They have ways and means of finding out, so they are very attuned to what is happening in their own community. I do not think anyone should underestimate that. Nor should anyone ever underestimate their professionalism and confidentiality, because they see and know things on a very confidential basis.
We know now that, through what this government has done, through the Care and Protection of Children amendments that we brought in, that we passed, that all health professionals, if they suspect child abuse, must report it mandatorily. They are professionals and they understand their responsibilities. It was a bit of a battle in this particular regard, as people remember. The AMA had some reservations about mandatory reporting. However, a couple of years on, people have accepted what we proposed as part of that strategy to reduce child sexual abuse within our community.
The member for Fong Lim said he was absolutely horrified by these changes. He was very concerned about them. He talked about it being equivalent to putting S4 drugs, or other drugs, on shelves with proprietary items such as Mylanta. That is not the government’s intentions. We are not putting them on store shelves. We are putting appropriate controls around them.
I have been through his business about The Australian Prescriber. I still have not had an opportunity to speak with the member for Fong Lim about tobacco. We all recognise what a serious, potentially deadly, toxic and dangerous substance tobacco is. I wonder whether he is suggesting tobacco be scheduled and be prescription only. There are some people who recommend that. I am not proposing that today although I am squarely on the record as being an advocate for tobacco controls. It is something, if we are really talking health, that if we could reduce the prevalence of tobacco smoking, particularly amongst Indigenous people, we would have a real reduction in medium- and long-term chronic disease in the Territory.
I commend some of my colleagues, who will remain nameless, who have given up smoking. It is a very hard thing to do, but it is a wonderful example that people can set.
The member for Fong Lim raised scenarios about people getting Azithromycin tablets and powdering them into people’s ice cream. The partner is having the ice cream and: ‘Look at that on the television’ and put the Azithromycin in the ice cream. That is overcooking it a bit. I am saying, member for Greatorex …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I seek an extension of time for the member to complete his remarks pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Did we have the clock running, Mr Clerk?
Dr BURNS: I was keeping my eye on it and it did not seem to move.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, we are happy to accommodate an extension of time without any concern, and we would encourage the minister to complete his remarks.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I thank you for being gracious about that, because there is some confusion about the clock.
Motion agreed to.
Dr BURNS: Trying to distil what is being said here - and I know the member for Nelson has not spoken yet and I spoke with him over the luncheon break - that given some of the concerns of the member for …
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! He was given an extension of 10 minutes. The clock is on the eight minute mark.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is correct; the clock is not on 10. Thank you very much.
Dr BURNS: I might even get 12 out of it – a bonus – but I will finish as soon as I can.
I have listened carefully, and government has listened carefully to sincere concerns voiced by the member for Greatorex.
I know the member for Nelson, I cannot speak for him, generally supports these reforms. He does have some concerns and requires some clarity around some elements. He will talk about that and we will deal with that.
All of us in this House know and appreciate the challenges of sexually transmitted infections in the Territory. We all genuinely want to do something positive about it. We want to see our doctors, nurses and health workers really armed and with as much support as they can get to reduce STIs, particularly chlamydia, in the Territory. I would much rather that we came to a more bipartisan approach to this. We are not going to agree on everything, but if we can come to closer agreement that is better because this is a medical public health issue. We are in this House, we are politicians, we are debating on a political sense, but it would be preferable if we can reach some agreement and we will see how this debate unfolds.
As Leader of Government Business and a former health professional myself - I am wearing my Pharmacy Guild tie today; I did not purposely do that, it was the one I grabbed. I am proud of it. I would like to see us reach general agreement, almost in a bipartisan way, so we can support our health workers to do the job they need to do so.
Madam Speaker, I will finish on that. I support the legislation in general. There needs to be, and there is going to be, some more discussion about the amendment. That will unfold in the debate from here on.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, we have to remember today that we have quite a large bill before us, the Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Bill. I will start some discussion on the whole bill. I am not sure how many people have read the whole bill. The whole bill is still quite an important bill to be debated; we have been referring to one part of it.
This is quite an important change to the legislation in the Northern Territory and, for many people, they have to realise what is in this legislation can affect them in their daily lives. You can have a medical condition, you can be working in the garden, you can be painting the house - sounds like a beer ad - you can be working with animals, or even some people can be trying to look beautiful. This bill covers many of those chemicals that are used in those processes. It is important that people have some understanding that this bill is quite an important bill in total.
It discusses the regulation and sale of products which are classified by a schedule. It mentions who can deliver the goods; and the labelling and storage of such products. It deals with the licensing, registration and authorisation of manufacturers, retailers, and health practitioners. It is interesting to occasionally delve into some literature that a lay person would not normally delve into; that is, the Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Medicines and Poisons No 2, effective date August 2011 from the Australian government. This is the type of information that is used throughout this bill.
When you open the bill you will see it mentions Schedule 3, Schedule 4, Schedule 7, and Schedule 8. From this document, you will understand why they had that scheduling. For instance, Schedule 6 substances are those with a moderate potential for causing harm, the extent of which can be reduced with the use of distinctive packaging with strong warnings and safety directions on the label. Having worked in hardware for a long time, if anyone has worked in the garden or other sections, you will note that certain labels occur on chemicals, and they normally reflect the schedule to which they refer. That is important for people to know, because the control of dangerous chemicals is something the government needs to do for the welfare of its community - whether it is for the person using that particular schedule or chemical, or for the person who might come in contact with it.
This amalgamation, you might say, of two existing bills - the Poisons and Dangerous Drug Act and the Therapeutic Goods and Cosmetics Act - has given us this one bill. It is a comprehensive bill dealing with a range of people, for instance, who are licensed or registered to use these particular medicines. I refer to Part 2.13, Authorisations for possession, supply and use of Schedule 3, 4 and 8 substances. It mentions the authorised health practitioners, pharmacists, and goes on to talk about prescription of interstate prescribers; emergency supply of unrestricted Schedule 4 substances in an emergency; unrestricted Schedule 4 substances for patients in residential care; supplying Schedule 4 substance on a verbal request to authorise the prescriber; a qualified pharmacist who supply and administer; Aboriginal Health Workers; approved ambulance officers; nurses and midwives; dentists and dental therapists; optometrists; and podiatrists. Further on you have veterinarians because this bill is not just about human health, it is about plant health and it is about animal health. It is a very wide bill that covers a whole range of things. Even though we have been talking about a particular issue today I do not think it would be right that we did not at least discussion the bill as a whole and the matters which cover it.
I noticed, which was interesting, the Substances Clinical Advisory Committee. I am interested in the minister giving us a bit more indication of what that particular advisory committee does, its role, who is appointed to it, and how it works in relation to the provision, or the register, or the authorisation, of either people or substances in the Northern Territory.
I thank the government for its briefing. We had quite a long briefing on this particular bill because it is quite substantial.
In relation to the issue being debated this afternoon, sometimes you come across quite difficult issues. There are times when I feel it would be nice to be in a party because you can sit here and someone in the party will get up and spruik, and they probably have not even read the bill because they know someone is going to talk about it, it is party policy, do not worry. In the case of an Independent you have to read it properly on your own and you have to make your own decisions. So, as with all the bills I read before I come here, I try to research them and look at them thoroughly, and I talk to people about them. Then I come up with what I think is the right decision which might not be the right decision for other people but I have to make that decision on my own.
I find it difficult when someone says that I rolled over to the government. The government will tell you there are a number of bills that have not come to this House because I have not rolled over to the government. I can also tell you that there are many bills in this parliament the opposition has supported. So, for me, it is not a game. It is not about me supporting the government just for the sake of an agreement.
This is an important issue and it is an issue that has a certain ethical base to it but it also has a health base. I have my own background, my own religious background. I come from a fairly strict family and some of these issues are fairly difficult at times for me to match up with my beliefs. I am not saying necessarily this one but when you get into these particular issues I find it hard if people question one’s honesty and integrity. When people question that you might have an ulterior motive for what you do, well if I have an ulterior motive it is trying to do the right thing.
The facts are before us that we have an increasing number of people with chlamydia. I have some statistics from the Sexual Health of Australia document and it has some lines of chlamydia by year and sex. Those lines are going up quite substantially in Australia. We can talk about the Territory but we also talk about Australia, and you are looking here at figures - they are a bit hard to read - but for females it is about 300 per 100 000, and males it is about 200 per 100 000 - it might be a little lower. But for both genders it is quite substantial.
Chlamydia is a common sexually transmitted disease and we know that it can cause infertility. It is also a disease that is a reportable disease ...
A member: Mandatory reporting.
Mr WOOD: Yes, but it has another name which I cannot think of – a notifiable disease.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have not just turned up here today as a lay man saying: ‘Big deal, I think we should go down this path’. I have heard what the member for Braitling has said, and I heard that in the previous sittings, but I have not sat down and said: ‘Well, I will just read a few books’. I have talked to the health professionals, because I am not an expert and I do not believe the member for Braitling is an expert – Greatorex, sorry. I remember that great Independent. I have spoken to the professionals. I have spoken to Dr Howard Bath.
I admire Dr Howard Bath. I believe he is one of those great people who contribute to the welfare of young people in the Northern Territory. He is an honest and professional man, and he knows what he is talking about. When he looked at this, he did not believe this bill, as it is, would contribute to more paedophilia. He said it was more likely that a child would come to the attention of a doctor through other suspicions. He is the top fellow in the Northern Territory when it comes to the protection of children. He has been part of a major report to the Northern Territory government about child protection. He has been our Child Commissioner for quite a number of years, and he comes from a background in that in South Australia for many years before that. I trust Dr Bath to give me advice that I can rely on. When he says that, I believe him; he is a professional and, as a lay person, that is what you would be expected to do. Yes, certainly question him, ask him how he comes to that conclusion, but he says that the approach that the member for Greatorex has said is not the case.
Let us have a look at the other side of it. I also met with Dr Nathan Ryder, Sexual Health Physician, and Mr Jamie Broadfoot, Director of Sexual Health and Blood Borne Virus Unit. I visited the Menzies School of Health Research. I met Professor Jonathan Carapetis, the Director; Professor Sven Silburn working on child protection issues and a member of the External Monitoring and Reporting Committee, chaired by Professor Vimpani. I met Professor Phil Giffard, who is working on the research into false positive results in chlamydia diagnosis. I met Professor Bart Currie, assisting Phil Giffard in researching melioidosis. I also met Dr Gurmeet Singh, whose area is sexual abuse research.
I asked them about this particular section of the act. They all said that patient delivered partner therapy for chlamydia is good public health practice. Again, I am not going on my own so-called knowledge because it is limited. I have talked to experts in this field. I believe that is what any member of parliament should do. I do not know how many members of this parliament have talked to those doctors. I do not know how many have talked to Howard Bath. I do not know how many have talked to Dr Nathan Ryder or Mr Jamie Broadfoot. I have, and from listening to what they had to say, I believe that the amendments before us today are good amendments - except I do have some concerns and I will come to that later.
If we look at the details here, this particular process is, I believe, in the minority of cases. Most people will, if they have a check-up, go to a doctor and, in many cases, this section will not be necessary because they will get a prescription and their partner will probably come along too for a prescription. What you are dealing with here - and do not forget we have these high rates of chlamydia we are trying to reduce – is people who come along but cannot get their partners to come along. The idea is: do we try to minimise, by another means, the harm chlamydia does? If a person comes in for treatment for chlamydia and the partner will not come in, that person will be reinfected. You will not get anywhere, and there is a higher risk of that person becoming infertile.
If you cannot convince the partner to come with you then this is an option. The member for Johnston gave us details of what has to be given before the prescription can be given to the other partner. There are some controls in that sense, but you cannot give it to a person who will not identify themselves. According to the member for Johnston, if there is no identification chemists cannot give out another prescription.
I see what you are doing here. We can have quite a simple discussion, but doctors who will be dealing with this and know this is a very sensitive area, will be questioning people. They will not be handing out drugs willy-nilly. First, they will do their best to get the partner to turn up because they want a physical examination to ensure it is chlamydia. Second, where that is not possible, instead of going down the illegal process and getting another prescription from a place up the road, or - what was the other case of if you could get it? Anyway, say you could get it from another doctor you are doing something illegally, whereas if you go down this path there is some tracking of the partner and there is some legality in what is happening. If that does not happen we have the risk of chlamydia continuing with that partner.
I have to weigh up those things; I understand where the member for Greatorex is coming from. These are some of the complex issues you deal with. Do you go down this path, or is this for the better good? They are not easy questions.
I have discussed harm minimisation in parliament before. We have a great deal of harm minimisation in the Territory; for instance: if you drink, don’t drive. Classic. How many people say: ‘Just don’t drink’? A condom. ‘If you are going out one night take a condom’. Do we say: ‘Just don’t have casual sex’? No, no, we know that cannot be promoted. The reality is that people have to take responsibility and they should not be having sex except with one partner. Great! I might have been brought up that way, but that is not the reality of life. I might be old with a few funny teeth, but I understand there are people with different values to mine, and the reality is some of that behaviour is why we have chlamydia.
My understanding is condoms will not protect you from chlamydia. However, I have to decide whether I try to protect many people? A great deal of chlamydia is between the ages of 15 to 25 according to the Sexual Health Australia pamphlet. Do I try, by some mechanism through this House, to allow access to people who need this antibiotic so we can reduce and, hopefully, stop the chance of those people becoming infertile? That is the balance I have to think about.
I am not asking for a carte blanche system of passing out medicines everywhere. I will say now that I cannot support amendment 71.2, clause 89(5)(b) because that leaves it too open. We need to ensure this bill, because it is breaking new ground - and I understand there are other places in the world where this happens. I have spoken to doctors who say this already happens in parts of Australia; it is just not legal, but no one does much about it. There are 36 states in America which have legalised it, and out of 50 states, that is a fair number. I have been to the United States, and there are some fairly God-fearing people in America, I can tell you now. It has been passed in 36 states in America. I am not using that as the main argument. I am saying it is in place in certain parts of Western civilisation, and it is already occurring.
We need to take this slowly. The clauses that are before us today deal with chlamydia because that is the discussion we are having today. As I said, this is something different; we need to take it steadily. If the medical profession wishes to use this clause for another disease then, instead of it going through regulations - which end up somewhere out there and, if you are not quick enough to look at the deemed papers, you will not even have a look at it - then it needs to come back to the parliament. It will also give us time to assess the effectiveness of this.
If you are going to introduce this with the object of reducing chlamydia, then you need to have some fairly good figures right now. If you are going to argue the case that we apply it to something else, I am asking if it worked in the case of chlamydia. Have we reduced the number of people with chlamydia? If you do not have that, then I would not be going one step further. You have to show us that this particular method has been effective.
As I said, I do not believe it is a large section of our society which will need it - and that is the advice I have from other people; that the majority of people will turn up to their doctor with their partner and get prescriptions. However, there is a section of society which will not. Of course, out of that section there is a section that will not give their name and address, so that is not going to happen. But at least we are trying to move forward to do something about a disease which is rising, not only in the Territory, but in Australia. I had a look at this graph here, and it is fairly alarming that it has gone up by about 25% over the last two years.
You have the option of not doing anything, and allowing the existing processes to see whether they can reduce the prevalence of this disease. It is a difficult disease to discuss and there will be people out there who find it embarrassing. It is much harder to get the antibiotics to those people who most need it if they will not come or, if they do come, the partner does not come.
There is no doubt that it is a difficult issue. It is certainly something I have not taken lightly. I have not done it to please the government, because the people I have been speaking to are doctors. I have not been speaking to the pollies about it; I have been speaking to the doctors because they know. Dr Howard Bath is a doctor, as are the doctors at Menzies School of Health Research. I invite people to talk to the people at the Menzies School of Health Research; it is a fantastic research centre.
I understand from what the member for Johnston said, that the AMA supports it, and I am interested to hear some more on that. I do not mind if people disagree with me but, if you start to question my honesty, integrity, and beliefs, then I believe you are very shallow ...
Mr Conlan: Where is that coming from, Gerry? No one questioned that.
Mr WOOD: At the very beginning, member for Greatorex, as I came in here, it was about: ‘Have you rolled over to the government?’ That is not what this is about for me.
Mr Conlan interjecting.
Mr WOOD: No, that is not what this is about for me. This is a difficult issue that has to be approached carefully, and I have gone to the …
Mr Conlan interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Greatorex!
Mr WOOD: I have gone to the government today - listening to your debates by the way; I have not been sitting here scratching my head – and I have a concern about amendment 71.2, clause 89(5)(b). I hope the government thinks about whether we can remove that section of the bill. We have spoken about this section, which is a very important part of the bill. I have gone to the professionals who have advised me it is good general medical practice. If it is good general medical practice, who am I to say it is not?
From a personal point of view, I think there should be more emphasis on people not being promiscuous, getting drunk, or having one night stands. As I said, the world is not the same as what I think it should be. We must keep in touch with reality. We live in a pluralist society and not everyone has the same beliefs as me. I have to look at issues in that light and that is the conclusion I have come to.
We should not forget that this bill covers a vast amount of work which is important not just in the area we are talking about - sexual disease and, in this case, chlamydia - but for a range of points about how we deal with medicines and poisons. We can be a little light on this but for many people this bill is really important. If you are a farmer or a horticulturalist, this bill is important. This bill tells you what you are required to do if you use particular chemicals. Under section 44 on pesticides, it says:
A person must not use a pesticide in carrying out pest control operations for fee or reward unless …
I say this because we have concentrated on this very important part of the bill but there are many other parts of this bill which are not equally important but are important because they affect our daily lives, whether it is through selling methylated spirits, spraying product, cosmetic chemicals, or paint. Much of that is dealt with in this bill. It is a bill which covers many of the things we use in everyday life.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this before us today and I am interested in hearing his comments on all parts of the bill.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Deputy Speaker, the Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Bill is a major public health initiative which will provide a contemporary, flexible framework for promoting and protecting public health in the Northern Territory. This bill will replace the outdated Poisons and Dangerous Drugs Act 1983. It is based on recommendations from the COAG review on medicines and poisons legislation by Rhonda Galbally. It applies nationally, and creates harmonious measures with other Australian jurisdictions and legislation. This will benefit all health professions as, under the national registration scheme, the prescribing privileges in the Northern Territory will be equivalent to other jurisdictions. This means nurse practitioners, eligible midwives, and podiatrists will be authorised to prescribe medicines which will improve access to treatments by the community. Provisions are made within the bill to allow prescribing rights for other health professionals as they receive endorsement from their national boards.
The bill provides for greater flexibility, with the appropriate safeguards, for better care of people with chronic conditions. A wider range of authorisations have been included to address potentially life threatening situations, teaching and research, and restrictions on Schedule 9 prohibited substances. Conditions allowing the possession of Schedule 4 and Schedule 8 drugs such as narcotics and benzodiazepines have been detailed and address the gap between the Misuse of Drugs Act and the current PADDA. These will assist the police in reducing the quantity of these types of medicines being available for sale or diversion.
Powers have been extended to the Chief Health Officer to provide for urgent response to critical situations as they emerge. This includes placing an emergency ban on products that cause a threat to public health, and to gazette emergency authorisations to help practitioners for use of medicine in the event of public health emergencies.
The use of pesticides is controlled by the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act, however, controls over the licensing of pest management technicians are contained within this bill to allow more flexibility for this industry and to bring the Northern Territory into harmony with other jurisdictions. Licences may be approved up to three years. Three-year licences have also been introduced for manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers. Industry and professional standards will be maintained by the introduction of compliance notices and penalties for those who do not comply with a compliance notice. These new measures will support health practitioners and assist others in meeting the challenges of safety in manufacturing, transporting and using medicine and poisons by members of the community throughout the Territory.
Madam Speaker, I thank members for their support of this bill.
I turn to clause 89, which has been debated in this House. I thank the member for Nelson for his contribution, and his research. I know that some of the bills that come to the House are comprehensive and quite technical in details, and you have to look in the right places with the right people.
I also thank the member for Greatorex. Of the three opposition members who spoke today he was the only one who knew what he was talking about. He studied the bill, especially clause 89. I was disappointed to hear the other two speakers who spoke for the sake of speaking rather than making a contribution to the bill. They had not read the bill.
The Territory is not the first jurisdiction in Australia to introduce the PADDA therapy. As I have been advised by the Australasian Society for Infectious Diseases, in March 2011, the Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health Network in New South Wales looked into introducing it, and received guidelines from the Australasian Society for Infectious Diseases for exactly the same practice we are debating here today.
I have to admit that when I first read the bill, especially clause 89, I asked the same question as the member for Greatorex: is this provision going to mask potential paedophiles who abuse children? Is this provision going to cover up a crime committed by a person having sex with a child or abusing a child? I was very concerned that the potential legislation we introduced to this parliament, which may be sound public health strategy and policy, might have some negative effects, especially in areas where we are trying to combat child abuse and reverse the trends throughout Australia.
I consulted with a number of people, including Dr Howard Bath, the Northern Territory Children’s Commissioner; Clare Gardiner-Barnes, Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Health of Children and Families; Dr Nathan Ryder, Sexual Health Physician; Dr Steven Skov, Acting Chief Health Officer; Dr Barbara Paterson; Dr Vicki Krause; Dr Paul Bauert from the Australian Medical Association; Dr David Chapman from the Australian Medical Association; Dr Roy Barker from the Australian Medical Association; and Dr Jamie Broadfoot, Director of Sexual Health and Blood Borne Virus Unit. We also consulted with Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance Northern Territory; the Public Health Association of Australia; the Royal College of Physicians; the Australasian Society for Infectious Diseases; General Practice Network; and the Australasian Chapter of Sexual Health Medicine.
None of these people argue that the bill we present here, and especially clause 89, could potentially create a situation for paedophiles to cover up their crime. They are quite strong in their point that this section will benefit the people, but will not mask sexual abuse under any circumstances.
Before I go there, I would like to clarify that the bill refers to a number of scheduled drugs, but specifically in clause 89, Schedule 4 and Schedule 8 drugs. There was a discussion about the drugs, about Schedule 4. The member for Fong Lim asked why we do not sell them in the supermarket next to aspirin, Panadol and paracetamol. Schedule 4 drugs include antibiotics, and the big argument about the free availability of antibiotics is that potential antibiotic resistance strains of diseases would have a detrimental effect on our health. That is the reason why they are restricted. Schedule 8 drugs are mostly created drugs that can cause an addiction. That is a good reason not to be publically available and to be strictly controlled.
Clause 89 - I will propose an amendment to that because we heard what the member for Greatorex had to say. In a previous draft of the bill in clause 89, the term ‘disease’ was very generic. We have narrowed it specifically to chlamydia. By narrowing it, it not only describes the condition where the specific medicine can be prescribed, but also we have not allowed the prescription of any Schedule 8 drug under clause 89.
We heard about the possibility of an allergic reaction to the medicine. The medicine is well-researched and I looked on the Internet myself. For the many years these drugs have been used only 1% of people have had any allergic reaction and had to interrupt treatment with this drug. That indicates a very good tolerance by people. There are other drugs out there - common drugs people are allergic to like paracetamol, aspirin, and a number of other drugs. Strictly speaking, when you go to a doctor or a pharmacy, they should always ask if you are allergic to particular kinds of drugs. The particular medicine is a safe drug - as a matter of fact, I do not think any drug can be determined ‘safe’. Some people will be allergic to one drug or another. This drug is tolerated very well. It has been used extensively throughout the world and it can treat, in a single dose, the condition that can cause severe problems both to men and women in our community.
This legislation is based on solid, scientific and medical evidence. Who am I to argue with people like Howard Bath, a well-known expert in child protection, or Barbara Paterson, or Vicki Krause, or Paul Bauert? They know more about medicine than I do and I rely on and trust their opinion.
The Public Health Association supports clause 89 as does AMSANT. AMSANT was the peak organisation we entrusted to create the Indigenous child protection group. If there was any doubt about clause 89 being used to cover-up sexual abuse they would be the first ones to argue about it. On the contrary, they support clause 89 as it stands.
I note the concern of the member for Greatorex. He has concerns I had previously, but I was satisfied with the way the medication would be provided.
I also looked at some of the scientific publications and, in 2007, research was undertaken by experts with regard to patients who deliver partner therapy and GPs. Five hundred and twenty five GPs were surveyed and the assessment was that 43% of these GPs at the time were prescribing medication for partners without any legal cover, without any guidelines, and without any requirements. Forty-three percent of these people …
Mr Elferink: Why would we cover for them? That is outrageous conduct.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! You do not have the call, member for Port Darwin.
Mr VATSKALIS: ... were providing medications to partners. We are not introducing the legislation to cover up GPs who do something that is not legal. We are putting in place a mechanism with strict guidelines to instruct GPs on how to do things.
Under our legislation, under the guidelines, if someone presents to a doctor and is diagnosed with chlamydia, the person would be asked if they had had a sexual partner in the past six months. The person provides that information, the GP will ask the name of the person, the age of the person, details of the person, and a file will be created for the sexual partner. If such a file does not exist, a file will be created. The GP will not provide a pill. They will provide a prescription in the name of the partner. That prescription has to be filled in a pharmacy by the partner. When a person brings himself to the GP and advises the GP of the partner, the partner gives the details so the GP will be immediately be aware if the partner is of legal age to be a sexual partner. If not, he is obliged by law to report that to the authorities. If the person turns up to the pharmacy to fill the prescription and the pharmacist realises the person is underage, the pharmacist is obliged, by law, to report the situation to the authorities.
By putting the legislation in place and putting in place guidelines, GPs now have a clear direction and clear pathway on how to proceed with the patient delivered partner therapy, rather than having GPs doing whatever they like, however they like, with no records, and with people putting pills, as the member for Fong Lim said, in the partner’s ice cream - which might happen. I do not know if many people did that.
I note the concerns raised by the member for Greatorex. I also give an opportunity to the members for Fong Lim and Port Darwin, and any other member of the opposition, to have briefings about the particular clause of the legislation and the proposed amendment. Half information is sometimes more dangerous than no information at all.
For this reason, Madam Speaker, I move that the committee stage of the bill be later taken.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Heath): Madam Speaker, as I mentioned before, I would like to give the opportunity to the members opposite for a further briefing. I move that the committee stage of the bill be later taken.
Motion agreed to.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Note Statement – Education - Investing In Our Future
Note Statement – Education - Investing In Our Future
Continued from 22 February 2012.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arafura, in continuation. You have 10 minutes remaining.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I continue with a speech of someone I deeply admire who is a principal in my electorate. She wrote this paper on 3 February 2004 and it starts:
- In Australia today the language of power is English, and herein lies the key to Aboriginal people successfully being able to present their issues and concerns to the wider Australian forum. At this time, there are too few speaking for too many. The representation of Aboriginal issues rarely, if ever, encompasses the viewpoint of Aboriginal people in remote areas. If this is to change and Aboriginal people are to become recognised in Australian society and truly represented in decision-making organisations, the first essential tool the people must be equipped with is competency and confidence in written and spoken English.
Note that I distinguish English literacy because what needs to be clearly understood is that Aboriginal people are perfectly literate and numerate in their own ways. Likewise, they are capable and confident in their self-governance. We are talking about a culture that has clear roles and responsibilities in governance for thousands of years. The difference now is that in order to be full participants in the dominant society, we acknowledge the need to develop a new literacy. However, this must be a genuine two-way street. It must be realised that Aboriginal culture and value has much to offer and, rather than throwing out the old to bring in the new, a combination that builds on the values and skills that Aboriginal people possess will be much more effective.
- Western values, beliefs, and knowledge have been enshrined in school curricula and practices since the introduction of a Western education system, and the challenge facing schools is to provide an inclusive education that adapts these elements while still recognising and valuing Aboriginal cultural knowledge. This will lead to long-needed conceptual renewal of the school system that will be more effective in addressing the goals of Aboriginal people, including self-governance and improved educational outcomes.
- Therefore, the importance of improving literacy and numeracy in English is to allow Aboriginal people to speak for themselves rather than through others, and to gain the confidence to present their own concerns.
The imposition of a western education system and the lack of mutual value placed on both western and Aboriginal education has resulted in a rift between many schools in the communities they serve. The school is often seen as quite separate and community members feel no sense of ownership over the education their children are receiving. This results in poor community and parental support of education in general, and a lack of encouragement for the children.
This barrier must be broken down. The distance between community and school must be narrowed to encourage the growth of a genuine educational partnership. I believe, as a senior community member as well as the school Principal, I am able to foster a collaborative, coexistence between the school and its community so the school is seen as an extension of the community.
Support from parents and community members will help improve retention rates and subsequent outcome improvements in all areas. One of the guiding questions I was asked was if community leaders have the education levels necessary for adequate government? The answer is an unequivocal yes. As I said before, our culture has governed itself for millenia. However, what is really being asked is if western education levels are sufficient to allow effective management in a western model of governance?
Certainly amongst the adults there is a wide variety of English literacy levels, but I think there are even bigger issues that need to be dealt with, and many of these are cultural. Aboriginal meetings are well organised with everyone knowing their place in proceedings and having the confidence to place their opinions in a traditionally appropriate manner. What has happened in communities, and is still happening, is the imposition of a government system that is foreign to most Aboriginal people. The structure of formal meetings, the administrative requirements and the formal decision-making process makes many people feel uncomfortable; it saps their confidence, often leaving them dissatisfied with the outcomes. It also challenges traditional values and relationship hierarchies by forcing new roles on some people.
It is essential that community schools adopt workable and inclusive programs that enable students and communities to maintain the intricate balance between school and community, culture and knowledge. A truly collaborative approach to these issues will allow a traditionally proud people to maintain their pride as their voices are heard.
The issues facing Indigenous education are complex with many dependent variables. The issue is far from the simplistic view of improved literacy and numeracy outcomes. Nor can the issues be dealt with one at a time. Because of the close interrelationships a cohesive approach must be taken which acknowledges how each element will impact on the others. This is a challenge which must be faced head-on, because I firmly believe that education has an essential role to play in the desperately needed improvements to life and governance in Aboriginal communities.
You give credit where credit is due, and I give credit to the minister for thinking outside the square, for looking at a way in which we have to get better education outcomes. Yes, we can have all the punitive measures, but if we can build the capacity of our communities, work with our families, because if it is in the interests of our kids, we do have to look at the community development aspects of building the community. Esther and her little team at Gunbalanya, all of the Aboriginal teachers, Raelene Geller, Julie Hagger, and all the Aboriginal teachers who work alongside our fantastic non-Indigenous teachers, Esther has, and she is fortunate to work with a co-principal in Sue Trimble, who has done a fantastic job with …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move that the member be granted an extension of time to complete her remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Thank you, member for Nhulunbuy. I have to get the member for Nhulunbuy and the minister out to Gunbalanya. I am proud of Gunbalanya, and I am proud of those families and that community, and what can be achieved when everyone works together.
Petrol sniffing has been a major issue. Drugs and alcohol are a major issue. The community has been discussing these problems, looking at when there is a captive audience, when all these kids are in the community and they cannot escape, when people are at the community, and the best time in which to do it.
I thank the minister, the department and the Australian Education Union for having the consultation amongst their membership and getting those teachers to agree that there would not be any reduction in their leave, but coming back to school at a time when many teachers go to have Christmas and holidays with their families, which is important too. I went to Gunbalanya when the school opened after the New Year and saw the enthusiasm of the non-Indigenous teachers as well as the Indigenous assistant teachers. It was fantastic to see that, and it stretched right back towards Maningrida. I was surprised to see that Aboriginal teachers from Maningrida had come to Gunbalanya to be part of this great trial.
It certainly worked. When I was talking to the Maningrida Aboriginal assistant teachers, they were all saying they want to pull together this same trial, because the kids are captive in the community. It is the Wet Season, all the rivers are up, the roads are closed and the kids are bored. They were getting restless and there were some problems after Christmas, and early in the New Year, where some of the houses were broken into. So the school opened at a pivotal time, where it re-engaged kids and gave them something to do, and took away the antisocial behaviour or issues that happen when kids are bored.
I was talking to the young kids, particularly secondary kids. There were still parents re-enrolling some of their kids and wanting to have their kids come in. The day I was out there, I am sure it would have been close to 40oC, and many of those kids and their parents wanted to be in the school because it was better to be in the school in the air-conditioning and escape the heat in Kakadu. If you have been to Gunbalanya, the escarpment, that rock retains the heat. It shows if the ducks are lined up you open the school to that community, you get the community to feel they have a sense of ownership of their children’s education.
In our urban schools, if you have an issue with your child’s education standards you have every right to talk to the school and the principal and get that changed. For too long in our communities that has not been the case. Gunbalanya has shown if you empower the community, and give the resources to the school, both can work. This two-year process - I watched Esther driving this process and saw her going around that community in a Toyota with a megaphone calling people to meetings and getting them to sit down. When a child has not attended in that school, she has sat down with the parents and asked: ‘Why has your child not come to school?’ For two-and-a-half years she consistently followed this up.
When I saw her after the New Year she was tired. I always worry for people like Esther because they are becoming a rarity and we need to look after people like her because they become fewer and fewer in our system. Without her and many of the Aboriginal teachers working in partnership with non-Indigenous teachers we would not be seeing the outcomes we are seeing at Gunbalanya and the challenges. Esther knows, when I talk to her on the phone at night, the burden of sustaining those numbers in the school to ensure that every child every day attends school - the government’s policy is getting children to school every day. She knows if they go every day they will get a quality education, just like her education levels, something she was always grateful for. Both her parents saw the advantages of a good education.
The restructure in the department also went some way in assisting in that. One person I should mention who I have not mentioned today is John Bray, Executive Director, West Arnhem College. West Arnhem College oversees Jabiru and Gunbalanya, and John has been instrumental in providing coordination between Jabiru school and Gunbalanya. You have a school on one side of the river that never had any discussions with the school on the other side of the river. Now you have an executive principal who pulled both together and the exchanges that are happening with both of these schools. There are non-Indigenous young people at Jabiru school who are there because their parents are working with Parks Australia or for ERA with the mines who have never been part of an Aboriginal school. To see that exchange happening with both and talking to the young non-Indigenous kids at Jabiru, it is enriching their lives and they see it as an important process in their education. There has been more communication, more opportunities, for all these children to learn from each other and those teachers.
I believe Jabiru and Gunbalanya is an example of the important structural changes that have been made in the Northern Territory in relation to education. If we can continue down this road, that is an investment for the future, in better education outcomes where our children, as Esther says, are already literate in their Aboriginal language in their culture. We need to make them literate and numerate in the Western side because it should not be one without the other. It is about complementing and bringing in both.
Gunbalanya shows - and there are many examples; I know it is not just my electorate. If you look across the bush, yes, there are problems and we can continually talk about it, but there are many positive stories. We need to remain vigilant and work with those schools and those communities, and support principals like Esther to get the outcomes we all need to ensure our kids get a good education.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I also put on record my thanks to Esther at Gunbalanya. As the member for Arafura said, I went with her and had the pleasure and honour of meeting Esther at Gunbalanya. She is a fantastic person and a fantastic teacher, and a leader for her people. Wish her well, member for Arafura, the next time you go out to your electorate.
I contribute to such an important statement on a subject we are all very concerned about, on both sides of the House. We continuously talk about education, the quality of education, and how important education is in a child’s life. I have to congratulate the member for Nelson. He hit the nail on the head yesterday with his contribution, when he said you can have all the technologies, but it is about getting kids to read and write.
I spoke about the missionaries in adjournment. They were people who did much with very few resources and very little money. If you have a look at their history, and the number of people who were educated and are able to communicate in society today, that is the hard work of the churches - whether it was Catholic, Uniting Church, or the Lutherans. That is the contribution those people made.
We have all stressed, over a period of time, how important it is for the community and for parents to ensure their children go to school every day. I congratulate all the teachers and principals in my electorate of Macdonnell because they do a fantastic job during very hard times. In communities, it is really hard to be a teacher, a health worker, a nurse, or a police officer. We have to make that flow of congratulations to these people from the local members in this House in Hansard readily available and send it to them so they can see it.
There is good infrastructure being built at schools. I congratulate the minister on the school at Bonya. That is the school in Bonya in 2012. Bonya has been in existence for 13 or 14 years. Thank you, minister, for putting a school in at Bonya in 2012. It is very important those communities like Bonya have access to education.
One of the things we do not address, when we dress up how good the government is in delivering education to communities, is bullying within the department: bullying within the department, and bullying by certain members of the community. I want to put something on the record because I know the minister will jump up with his famous book, King Brown Country, and talk about Diane de Vere. I have received two e-mails from Diane de Vere that I would like to put on record.
Madam Speaker, the first one is:
- Dear Alison
So good to catch up - please keep contact - hope to connect in Melbourne [also Puntjina] in a couple of weeks …
I am working on my spiders web - the Lone Ranger. If you can get information re the number of principals employed at Papunya since 2001 when I was removed by the department it would be useful - also if you could give me Geoff Hulcombe’s e-mail would be good. I listened to your and Nicholas’s presentation at the Hawke Institute ...
Peter Buckskin obviously sent her the information:
- ... and was deeply moved - I feel I am carrying some important evidence that supports the sentiments and unites the layers of Indigenous leadership represented at this forum and exposes the failure of dominant society. Nicholas’s article in Friday’s Australian was timely and gave me strength as one who also understands the ancient runic language of ancient times.
I will forward some e-mails to you soon and would like feedback - re book-restorative action re Minimum Requirement Document …
- ... as a master educator and teacher have strategically developed from the action research that you fully supported at Papunya and has been developed with Noel Pearson – the Aurukun Youth Strategy Cape York and in Victoria.
There is another e-mail from Diane deVere. It says:
- Dear Alison
If possible could you give me some feedback on something of concern to me. I was sent an e-mail about retired teachers interested in being volunteer tutors for the month of June - see below.
- Greetings All, if you are a retired teacher and are interested in assisting in a literacy program for Aboriginal children in Papunya for a month ( air fares and accommodation provided) in May30 – June 24, 2 teachers are being sought by Ralph Watkins. (Details below) It would be a great opportunity for anyone keen to experience life in the outback, assist Aboriginal children with reading and learn about Aboriginal culture.
The e-mail from Michael to her then states:
- I had hoped to visit Papunya around June to catch up with Ulkamun tjuta ...
which means ‘old people’:
- ... and community - maybe over sports weekend to meet with old friends. So I made some inquiries out of curiosity and my interest in education Anangu Tjuta …
which means ‘Aboriginal people’:
- ... and national efforts to close the gap. The fellow I spoke with was very keen for me to be involved due to my knowledge of ESL methodologies and knowing families -relationships relationships etc - …
He replied ‘Hi Diane, lovely to chat to you a few minutes ago. It has boosted my enthusiasm even further. I think it will be perfect to have you along as it will give more legitimacy to the 2 teams following in Aug/Sept. and you will give more confidence especially to the others in the June team, as well as enabling them to interact more with the Papunya folk.’
- I told him I was not sure if the whole month would work for me and I said I would think about it and get back to him - I intended to speak with Kapunani to get advice,
- I then received an e-mail on the 8th of April that has caused me considerable concern [see below]:
- Hi Diane, Alice Springs Central Office is vetting all the tutors on our program and I have been informed that you are not to be considered as a participant. My apologies for this. Thanks anyway for your interest.
A member interjecting.
Ms ANDERSON: That is not Alison Anderson; that is your department.
- Ralph, could you let me know if the Community has instructed the AS Central Office to ban me from the school and such programs or is this the NT Education Department acting alone. It is one thing to be ‘Black ...
and she apologises for using the word ‘black’:
- ... Listed’ and discriminated against as an employee another for this to carry over for 10 years - when one is offering expertise in a voluntary capacity as part of a genuine initiative to empower students through literacy learning.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I put that on public record. I also seek leave to table this.
Leave granted.
Ms ANDERSON: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I also have a letter from a teacher, a couple who were recruited from Tasmania. It is really nice to get these people in to give opportunities to Aboriginal kids. However, it is very sad when, as a local member, you get letters like this. I take this opportunity to read some of this letter. It is okay for you to stand up, minister, or your government, and say what good things you think you are doing, when in fact there are people on the ground who are telling you that your department is a bully, and that there are certain members of your department who bully them. There are things that do not get out to Aboriginal communities. These people are practically living on a shoestring, they are having items donated to the school, and you only just sent your minister, the Minister for Central Australia, to open this school a couple of months ago. I am talking about the Watarrka School.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to table this letter in full as well, so the minister can have the capacity to understand what these teachers are saying to you. It will be good if other people outside of parliament can sight these letters as well. I believe there is a book being written about you, minister, very soon.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you tabling that document, member for Macdonnell?
Ms ANDERSON: Yes, I will after I have spoken to it. I have asked leave to table it. This is an e-mail which came from Wilma Lambert, the teacher/manager of Lilla School and a co-principal of the Lambert Independent School in Tasmania. I have highlighted some of the things that I want to speak to, and she says:
- I and my husband have spent the last year establishing and working as Teaching Principals in Watarrka School in the Northern Territory. We were invited by members of the NT Education Department to establish this school as a hybrid model - the Department provides the infrastructure, administration etc, and we together provide one full-time teacher.
There are interested groups like Mutitjulu Aboriginal Corporation that actually work with these people, and Kings Canyon Tourism officers, and, of course, Parks and the land council. These people are really interested in closing the gap in Aboriginal education. I believe it is really bad, minister, that you have let down this group of people and given them a false impression of your sincerity towards Indigenous education in the bush.
In another part, she says:
- In the period from May to September 2010 we worked on the application for registration of a non-government school in the Northern Territory. This proved to be a difficult, slow process with the requirements not easily met even though I had previously established a non-government school and Neville had been founding vice-principal of a large government high school. Through this process we received support from the Government Business Manager, Robin Quarmby, the local NT Emergency Officer, the Ngurratjuta Aboriginal Corporation, Land Council Officers and other local officials, the Lambert School Board and parent body and other supporters including media representatives.
In Term 3 we were informed by the committee in Darwin working on application that the school could not be opened in 2011 and that an attempt by us to open the school before the process was complete would cause us to suffer legal consequences. We replied that we believed we had a responsibility to the children and that this could not be delayed. It was then proposed to us by Joanne Schilling that we set up together what she called a hybrid model in which the Education Department would provide the structure, finance, administration, etc and Neville and I would be the teachers. We accepted this proposal and planned the next stage with Eva Lawler of Alice Springs.
- In January 2011, we travelled to Kings Canyon where we took up residence and opened the school. It was extremely rushed with arrangements made the day before travel and the orientation program cancelled by the Department. We were met at the airport by Geoff Hobson, Principal of the Lasseter Group Schools which now included the new school at Lilla. A rush of information on housing, Northern Territory rules of employment, curriculum and resources, car, salary etc followed. There did not seem to be any correlation with earlier negotiations, the hybrid model, etc, or any understanding of our arriving to start a school rather than another teacher arriving for ‘changeover’. We were not given any information on what is understood by ‘school’ in the NT and we assumed that we would be able to work our way towards the creation of a successful education model as understood Australia-wide.
We were most surprised when we were told later we were on probation. This and other issues had not been mentioned while we were in Hobart but seemed now to be of importance. We would have wished to negotiate these had we been informed that they were conditions of our employment.
At the school we were assisted by Raelene Limbiari who had been appointed as 0.5 Teacher Assistant, and Raymond Reid appointed Janitor 0.5 and also under a separate agreement drove the school bus donated by Ngurrantjuta Aboriginal Corporation.
Children from three different communities attend the school: Wanmara is 40 km to the east and Ulpanyali is 15 km to the west. The school is sited on Lilla land. We worked together for the first two weeks and were then assisted by Thomas Lambert, a Hobart chef, who set up the healthy food program supported by us and the Red Cross. The improvement in the children’s health (eye, ear, nose infections, boils and scabies) has been remarkable. The local community and Kings Canyon Resort all assisted and expressed great satisfaction at the progress of the students.
- We were expected to comply with administrative requirements without having had them explained to us. We understand that education in the NT operates in a highly politicised environment but believe that the first responsibility of a teacher must be to the students.
There was another incident where there was a teacher in my electorate at Harts Range on the eastern Plenty who was dismissed. We are in a situation where we are crying out for teachers to come from other places; however, when they come to the Northern Territory we do not treat these people with respect.
The Aboriginal teacher assistant is not happy working at that school because he had a relationship with that young girl who was a non-Indigenous teacher and he is now being punished. It is his community and he has to continually talk to the department about the problem.
Minister, while you beat your chest about the things you do, you have a long way to go because you do not come from the Northern Territory, you are not Aboriginal, and you never will be. You will never understand the problems like we understand the problems. I know it is your job to do that. You are the minister, and you must try to understand it, but you will never have the capacity to understand it, nor will you try to understand. As everyone in this House has said, and everyone all over the Northern Territory know, soon you will be going into the sunset and they do not really have to worry about you. It will be good to see the back of you. Every department you have touched with your old hands has turned to thorns.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I always welcome the opportunity to speak in this House, particularly when it comes to matters of education. I am very passionate about education. It was a job with the Education department that brought me here in 1987. My three children were born in the Northern Territory. I have a daughter who is now at university, but I have two sons who are at high school. I have a vested interest in ensuring my kids have access to a quality education.
When I say that it is not because I believe I can specifically influence it from here; long before I got into this job I always had high expectations about what services were available to my children. Many of my friends are schoolteachers, and I even share a bed with a schoolteacher ...
Mr Tollner: You sly girl!
Ms WALKER: That is all right, he is my husband ...
Mr Tollner: Sorry, sly woman!
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim …
Mr Tollner: I am sorry if I offended you.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: ... can you please ...
Mr Tollner: I withdraw! Okey dokey?
Ms WALKER: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. I did not take any offence from the member for Fong Lim.
We know education is the cornerstone of people’s lives. Whether it is here in the Northern Territory or any other part of Australia or anywhere else in the world, it is access to a quality education which gives people an opportunity to grow and become independent and self-determining individuals with the future in their own hands. Without it, people have limited opportunities.
I have only ever taught in the Northern Territory. When I graduated in Adelaide at the end of 1986, basically, in the Education Department at that time your options were limited. If you wanted to stay in an urban area, there was a rule at that time that all graduating teachers had to serve in remote parts of South Australia, do a certain amount of time out there and then you could apply to come into urban positions. I graduated with a couple of friends and, between the three of us, we all went for interviews and decided if we were going bush we might as well go all the way to the Northern Territory. For me, it is probably the best decision I ever made. I have certainly never looked back. Like so many people in any job coming from south, I came for just two years, and I am very proud to say I have just clocked up 25 years.
When I started teaching here – actually, I am just going to take it back a step. I listened with interest to the contribution of the member for Port Darwin yesterday. He talked about the influence and lasting impressions that our teachers have upon us. I guess in one sense that is one of the reasons I moved into a teaching job. Pathways back then, more than 30 years ago, were more limited when I look at what is available today. Many young women, like me, when we left high school, if we were going into the tertiary area, it was typically nursing or as teachers. There was a handful of women I knew who went on to study in other areas, others went into apprenticeships, typically, such as hairdressing. I was in a small country town, so the retail sector was there as well. Many worked in family businesses. For young fellows, it was apprenticeships, working on the farm, or maybe working in the local bank.
I loved study, and I enjoyed being at school. I went to the local high school in a little town in the mid-north called Clare. Amongst the people who had lasting impressions upon me were two of my history teachers whom I talked about in my maiden speech. They were both, at separate times, Labor candidates in South Australia in what was a very blue ribbon seat. I guess it planted in me, at that time, more a sense of social justice than a sense or any ambition to enter politics. However, I will never forget those two teachers. There are a number of teachers whose names I remember and I can see their faces and I will never forget, but these two individuals made a particular impression upon me. Interestingly, I spoke about this at a Rotary dinner recently in Nhulunbuy. Some people were a bit surprised and afraid that the Education Department in South Australia was a hotbed for politics in schools and trying to influence young people in the school.
Alan Reed was my Year 12 teacher and, at the time, there were a number of different units that teachers could opt to do with their class, as well as core units. One we studied was the history of Aboriginal society in Australia, which was eye-opening for me, and the second unit was the history of the Labor movement. From there, I learnt, in addition to what my mother had taught me, as a strong Labor supporter and a strong supporter of unions, the historical background to that. I believe they were the seeds of social justice for me. I did not leave school having been taught by those teachers thinking: ‘That is it; I want to be a Labor politician’. That is something which happened many years later.
But those teachers do leave lasting impressions upon us. I have students whom I taught more than 20 years ago approach me. I had a young man approach me on Sunday afternoon at the Arnhem Club. I was at a fundraiser for our local surf club and he recognised me, came and shook my hand, and said hello. His name is Richard but I cannot remember his last name. I can still picture him sitting in my class. In some ways he was a reluctant student but, in the end, a successful student. He was never rude. He did the bare minimum to get through. But good on him, he made it through and he works as a contractor. He told me he is making lots of money going to shut downs around the Northern Territory.
The member for Port Darwin talked about some of the teachers who taught him and my ear pricked up because I recognised one of the names. I have heard the minister for Education say that the Northern Territory is a big place, but it is also a very small place and there are not that many of us here, particularly within the Education department, or perhaps across the public service generally. There are names which will ring a bell with people and I recognised when he was talking about Ms Callahan. I thought, hang on, I remember that person. Obviously the member for Port Darwin’s memories of that individual are somewhat negative. I want to put on the record that Gayle Callahan, when I was a neophyte teacher in the Territory, was one of the teachers I looked up to as a mentor. She was an incredibly dedicated woman. I do not know where she is these days. I do not know if she is still in the Northern Territory or if she is still teaching, but there was a group of English teachers in the Northern Territory who were second to none. I know a number of them are still teaching in our schools and pay tribute to that group of women - it was around the days when Vivienne Hayward was the Moderator; she had another position as well that went with it. She was an incredible woman. I believe Vivienne is still in Darwin. Rita Henry, who has recently retired, is another person I really looked up to. Teachers do leave lasting impressions on us.
When I taught for a year at Palmerston High School, or Driver it was then, followed by two years in Katherine and a year out at Nhulunbuy High School, those schools were reasonably well resourced. There were some very good teachers. The Country Liberal Party had invested in those schools and in education. In Katherine in 1989 we moved into a brand new school in Katherine East. The previous one was very old. Katherine was growing with families from RAAF Base Tindal moving into the communities, so there was a huge area of growth in Katherine East.
What I have seen, especially since I have been in this job, and even in the years after I left teaching in Nhulunbuy, is that there has been neglect in our very remote Indigenous schools. In 2001, we inherited a system that was very neglected. The member for Port Darwin called out yesterday that it was not neglected and that is just a furphy. But if it was not denied, why was it that the Country Liberal Party, with no transparency and only by stealth, managed to shut down Dhupuma College just outside of Nhulunbuy at the spot known as Gulkula in the early 1980s? That was a secondary boarding facility which accommodated Indigenous students from Milingimbi, Ramingining, Groote Eylandt and Elcho Island. This was a secondary boarding facility, but it was short lived. It was closed down during a school holiday break with very short notice to students and families. So, when they say we are not telling the truth, they need to look at their own record and history as to what it was they were delivering in the bush. There were 250 people accommodated at Dhupuma College between staff and students, and it was just shut down.
So in 2001 under a Labor government, dealing with that legacy of decades of neglect in our remote areas where, as we have said, and they do not like hearing it, there has been absolute neglect of secondary education for our Indigenous students. It is only since 2001 under a Labor government that we have seen kids in remote areas from our remote Indigenous communities graduate through to Year 12 level. We see that number steadily increasing. We would like to see many more, and that is what we are focused on at the moment.
Let us have a look at our investment, and Labor’s investment, at both the Territory and federal level. We talked about the BER program with $270m invested in infrastructure into the Northern Territory. I have seen the amazing results that has delivered in my electorate, as well as other parts of the Northern Territory. Let us remember that this investment in our schools was about building that infrastructure to make our schools better places, and it was also about keeping people in jobs and keeping the Northern Territory economy ticking over. It was a program that was not supported by members on the other side, or by their colleagues in the federal parliament. What a very short-sighted stand that was.
The Building the Education Revolution program is coming to a close. In fact, one of the last projects is happening in my electorate at the moment. Nhulunbuy Primary School is receiving a BER project. Nhulunbuy Primary School is 40 years old this year, so the infrastructure is quite old. It is getting a significant upgrade to the main assembly area modelled on what I have seen at Millner Primary School. That has been under way for a couple of months now. We are looking forward to seeing that project come to a conclusion within the next four to six weeks. It will make that school a better place, provide an assembly space that has just never been really available at that school. At the same time, that particular project has been undertaken by one of our local contractors in Nhulunbuy, and I am certainly very pleased for them.
The minister gave a list of some of the significant investments in infrastructure, and I am not talking about the BER program now, but I notice that he talked about Tennant Creek High School having received a gym for $3.2m. That project is also coming to an end at the moment. Interestingly, under the years of the CLP, Tennant Creek and Nhulunbuy were the only government high schools in the Northern Territory that did not have these gyms. You cannot help but think that probably had quite a bit to do with the fact that those seats were held for a number of years by Labor and therefore did not see the benefits of the CLP funding.
One of the most important spends that strikes a chord with me is the investment in meeting the needs of special education students, with $11.7m for Nemarluk School at Alawa. Those works are well under way and I really must get out there and have a look. Acacia Hill Special School has $4.7m for its redevelopment. That investment in our kids who have special needs is very important. I am the parent of a special needs child, and whilst my child is mainstreamed, he accesses good support through an ISA, and also has a special place when he needs somewhere to go at Nhulunbuy High School, as do other kids with special needs. Nhulunbuy High School has an excellent annexe with fantastic staff looking after our high needs students. In fact, I invited Tracey Myles from Autism NT to Nhulunbuy last year. It is an organisation that, like many of these NGOs, is strapped for funding. I know it is supported by the proprietor of the Nightcliff Shopping Centre, who provides them office space for free, which is incredibly generous of him. I know through the department of Education that Tracey’s position, which is 30 hours a week although she puts in more than that as well some hours as an administrative person, is met by Student Services from DET.
I have been a member of Autism NT for a number of years. I invited Tracey to Nhulunbuy in May of last year to time with an autism workshop being run under the federal program, Positive Partnerships. That is a federally-funded program with a few million dollars attached to it addressing the needs of autistic kids and their families. I paid Tracey’s airfare and accommodation to come to Nhulunbuy being so far away and with many families who have children on the autism spectrum. Tracey came for two days and a night and was impressed by what she saw at the special annexe at Nhulunbuy High School, not only the infrastructure, but the quality, dedication and the professionalism of the teachers working in that unit and what they are doing for our special needs students.
I cannot highlight enough how important that investment is. This government is about supporting education for all kids in the Territory no matter where they live and we are inclusive insofar as the special needs those kids have and we are doing our utmost to support them as well.
The minister listed a number of new schools we have built - those in the Palmerston area as that area continues to grow and grow. In my electorate, Baniyala Garrangali School has seen an investment of in excess of $3m. It has been a homeland learning centre for a number of years. That community, the largest of the Layna homelands with more than 100 people, has lobbied hard to see a school established there - a full-time school so they have small school status, they have full-time teachers five days a week as part of the spend there. We not only upgraded the existing classrooms but also built a beautiful new school building. The minister and I sat in that building last August during the opening. We built two teacher houses there, and the teachers there are Pat and Wendy Ellis. Pat is the Principal and his wife, Wendy, is also a teacher. They are very dedicated teachers. I have known them for many years and they were the Principal and the Assistant Principal at Nhulunbuy Primary School when my kids were there, and I taught their boys when they were at the high school. We have much to be proud of with the Baniyala Garrangali School. I know it is a source of much pride for the traditional owner, Mr Djambawa Marawili.
We have also seen a significant investment, as the minister said, in the information communication technology to ensure our schools are as modern as any other school. That is a real challenge in the Northern Territory when we have schools that are widespread across some pretty challenging geography. I met with the Principal at Yirrkala Homelands School last week, Haidee Dentith, who oversees that school, and is headquartered in Yirrkala, but looks after a number of homeland learning centres across the Layna Homelands ...
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time for the member for Nhulunbuy to complete her remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms WALKER: Thank you, Madam Speaker and thank you, member for Arafura.
Yirrkala Homelands School has a big project being rolled out this year. They are working closely with the ICT for Learning Unit within DET to have every one of those homeland learning centres hooked up to the Internet through a satellite through Wi-Fi so those schools and those communities are into the 21st century like the rest of us and have access to the Internet. That brings with it many more opportunities for e-learning so it is a real positive.
The minister talked about excellent teachers and principals. Critical to our Smart Territory policy and delivering quality education to get the very best outcomes for kids - because that is what it is all about at the end of the day; delivering the best outcomes for kids - we need excellent teachers, principals, and staff. We know there are many additional staff who work in schools who are not necessarily qualified teachers. We have people who work on guided reading programs, ISAs, and front office ladies who are the people who have the most knowledge of the school. I appreciate all the efforts of our school staff, but especially our teachers and principals. I have been to all of our school principals this year bar one. We have a new principal at Yirrkala School. We were due to meet last week. That has been postponed, but I am sure we will be catching up very soon.
We have talked about the challenges that we have in attracting and retaining teachers in the Northern Territory. The minister said in his statement:
- The Northern Territory is a place where the delivery of education involves unique challenges. We have the largest percentage of Indigenous students and the largest percentage of very remote schools.
We have a turnover we would like to see reduced, and we are reducing that turnover. It does not happen on its own; it happens through careful planning and strategy. If I look back to my recruitment into the Northern Territory - and I shared this story when I represented the minister at the inaugural conference of NARIS, the National Association of Remote Indigenous Schools, in Alice Springs last year around August/September. This was a group of teachers who all teach in remote Indigenous schools from around different parts of Australia. There was a real sense of energy in that room. It was the first time all of these teachers had been brought together. It is such a sensible thing to do rather than just to sit in the Northern Territory and say: ‘Okay, we have these problems with teacher retention and we have some great ideas about how we want to work in our remote areas. Let us start talking, let us have the dialogue, let us have an association and an active association with other jurisdictions so that we can network and share and work together to resolve some of the issues’.
I talked with teachers about my experience of being recruited into the Territory. I do not want to detract from the officer from the department who interviewed me - she was very helpful, very knowledgeable - but I could not help but feel that my interview was more like a visit to a travel agent. I did have good qualifications and much to offer, and I still hold that to be true. Most of the conversation was about where I would like to go. I said I wanted to come to Darwin and only to Darwin; that I would not look at anywhere else. I was not interested in going remotely and being a high school teacher. At that time, I was, basically, restricted to four main centres - or five if I include Palmerston. She agreed that Darwin was a very good place to come to because it was the gateway to Asia, that is was a great place, a stepping point for holidays, and that Darwin was a very friendly place.
We did not talk so much about what I could offer education, schools, and children but, rather, I was recruited on the strength of someone who was interested in living in the Territory. We have come a long way from there in recognising now that we do not necessarily just want people who want to come to the Territory for a holiday and adventure. We want educators who are passionate about education - I was passionate about education and I still am - we want people who are passionate about education and who are going to stay as well; to try to get a commitment from people.
At Shepherdson College on Elcho Island, under the stewardship of Brian Hughes, the principal, they do not have a great deal of difficulty with recruitment. In fact, Brian Hughes has teachers who want to work there approach him directly at the school saying: ‘I have heard a lot about your school’ ...
Mr Chandler: Great principal.
Ms WALKER: You are right, member for Brennan, he is a great principal. I wish we could clone a couple more of him.
As part of his recruitment process, in narrowing down his selection criteria, he asks people what their commitment is and how many years they are prepared to put in at the school. The next question he asks them is if they are prepared to be involved in some additional study of Yolngu Matha and Yolngu culture. The response people give to that question is what guides him on the sort of people he is looking for at the school.
We know a number of incentives are offered in the Northern Territory, under this government, to make it attractive to people. I have been in Nhulunbuy an awfully long time and study leave has come in since I have been there. Teachers have the opportunity to accumulate x number of points and when you have accumulated so many points for having lived and taught in a remote area, you are entitled to a period of study leave. That scheme, whilst it costs government to allow a teacher to go on leave and bring in a replacement for, perhaps, six months, is mutually beneficial. There is a return on the investment because it gives teachers a break and gives them an opportunity to study. It can be tough for those teachers who are in our really remote schools. They need a break; they need to be able to go away to recharge the batteries.
A couple of teachers approached me at the NARIS Leaders’ Conference and said they enjoyed teaching in place x, y or z in Queensland or Western Australia, but they would really like the opportunity to teach in one of the Territory schools to do something different for a couple of years and then go back to their school. That is one of the objectives at NARIS and we need to continue to look at that.
We are seeing encouraging signs in our investment in teachers, through the incentives which are in place, and that support is showing dividends. We measure those dividends through areas like student outcomes, and we have measurable results with tools like NAPLAN and through our recruitment and retention. Whilst the member for Brennan may beg to differ, we have seen retention of teachers in the Territory improve by 10% from 2010-11, and in our very remote schools we have seen that retention improve by 13.6%.
One of the other things I know is making a difference in my electorate is the homeland learning centres where teachers spend three nights in those communities. It is a tough gig; they are usually spending their time there in swag, camped in a classroom with fairly basic amenities. There are a number of schools in the homeland learning centres built with a combination of BER and Northern Territory government money. We are building additional teaching spaces, because these schools are growing. There is a breezeway in the middle, which is also good covered learning space as well. We have accommodation for teachers across at least four schools in my electorate, in homeland learning centres. We have overnight accommodation for teachers. They can sleep in a bed, with air conditioning, and have access to a kitchen and ablution blocks. These teachers do not do it for the money; they do it because they are dedicated.
Madam Speaker, I have run out of time but I believe we are heading in the right direction. We are doing amazing things in education in the Northern Territory. We will continue to do so, and we will see the measurable results that go with that. I commend the statement to the House.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I thank all members who have contributed to this important debate; nothing could be more important for the Northern Territory. As I said in Question Time, a strong education for a strong future could be a policy name. Maybe the member for Brennan will consider it as the title for his policy. Anyway we will wait for the member for Brennan to announce his policy.
In his offering, he talked about NAPLAN. I am paraphrasing here: he said NAPLAN achievements are below national averages even in provincial schools. I have never shied away from the fact that we are starting from a very low base with our NAPLAN results. It is there for all to see, but I also believe, and we can demonstrate, very significant and positive improvements in most domains of testing with our students. We have implemented a very comprehensive suite of actions around literacy and numeracy. To that end, as I have said a number of times in this House, we have engaged Professor Geoff Masters, who is visiting schools all over the Territory and reporting directly to the CEO of the department of Education and to me. He is also submitting reports, which I have said have been made public, and really point to the need for the department to align action to their strategic plan. I see him as a critical friend - that might be a way to put it - someone who is independent, someone who is expert, and someone who will speak his mind with all that independence and respect he has as a senior educator in Australia.
We have a unique mix of students, and we have the highest proportion of disadvantaged students, including those who are Indigenous or a very mobile student population. We have outstripped the Australian average in improvements in 11 of 12 categories of testing of students sitting NAPLAN for the second time - that is, those who sat in 2009. That is pleasing, but we have a long way to go. I am not saying we have arrived; this will take years for us to move forward.
We have a record budget. I take what the member for Nelson said, and also the member for Macdonnell, that money is not everything. Teachers are the key, and those teachers with enthusiasm and the ability to impart knowledge and have the respect of their students are the type of teachers we want. That is why we are endeavouring to recruit the brightest and best – and retain them.
One area where I believe we can demonstrate improvement but, once again, have a long way to go, is the Northern Territory Certificate of Education and Training. In 2001, there were 25 Indigenous students who attained that particular qualification. In 2011, there were 148.
I took on board what the member for Nelson had to say about his experience of employers saying that students were having difficulty reading and writing. That is a real problem, even though they may have attained their Year 12, and it behoves all of us to ensure the students are up to the right standard. That is why we have included a Certificate of Education and Training where we can get students going down the training pathway as well. That remains one of our challenges.
The member for Brennan mentioned the Gonski review, which is very important, that he acknowledged he is reading. He said he is finding it quite an easy - or accessible might be a word - report to read. I would have to say that I have to read it a number of times and go over it, and really try to appropriate it all. Maybe, member for Macdonnell, it is because I am getting older and I need to have layers of understanding in there. We all get old, member for Macdonnell. I suppose I am your senior in a way, even though I am a silly old fool, you might have said in the paper, but I will come to the paper, probably not in this wrap-up of education. I will speak specifically about that within the adjournments, because I do have a few things to say about it ...
Ms Anderson interjecting.
Dr BURNS: And you do too? Well, that is wonderful. So we can both stay and listen to what each other have to say about it.
This is an important issue. We will be going over the Gonski report very carefully. Schools will not lose a dollar. I am mindful of the non-government sector, and some of the schools, you call them private schools, Essington, St Philips, Palmerston Christian School, etcetera. We see them as an intrinsic part of our education system and we want to help and support those schools.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said positive learning centres are under-resourced and only take 25% of Taminmin students needing the service. She wanted a re-engagement centre in Palmerston. I have received advice from the department that we will be employing three new positive behaviour advisor positions to help schools with extreme behaviour issues and develop whole-of-school approaches to behaviour management. That step grew out of the 11 recommendations of the review carried out last year. I have talked about that in this parliament as well. We will also be looking to extend the capacity of the positive learning centre program. We will be looking at alternative school options, one-on-one literacy and numeracy tutoring, personal development, life skills, and VET. Many of these students may do very well in a VET stream rather than a formal education stream.
The member for Brennan talked about the need for additional professional learning and professional development and for the implementation of the national curriculum. The Centre for School Leadership Learning and Development established in 2001 will ensure these needs are met and support these needs. Last year, the centre developed a range of programs and events designed to improve leadership in teaching in our school including: preparation for school leaders program; school leaders in the making; principal and teacher orientation; development and programs for high-performing principals; coaching programs; Highly Accomplished and Lead Teacher program or HALT; and early career principals program. That centre is collaborating with other jurisdictions, professional associations, government and non-government organisations and universities to develop the highest quality programs and services for Northern Territory teachers and principals.
Given the number of people who have spoken to this statement, I do not have time to address everyone’s contribution, but I thought I would highlight the contribution by the member for Brennan, as shadow.
The Leader of the Opposition asserted there was a lack of cohesion and focus in the way the curriculum is being implemented. That is why, member for Blain, the national curriculum is being implemented. The Howard government talked about it for years and Julie Bishop, at that stage, was the Education minister. However, it is being implemented by the Labor government in Canberra. It is a major undertaking and is being progressively implemented across the country and will ensure consistency. It especially suits transient elements of our population such as Defence Force personnel.
I will say this on the record again, I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that to some degree we may have a cluttered curriculum, and I have told the department I want the decks cleared to a large extent to focus on literacy and numeracy.
The Leader of the Opposition referred to the Singapore curriculum where they did a complete rebuild of the maths curriculum. The Australian curriculum, I would suggest, is contemporary. From memory, the Leader of the Opposition was trying to make the argument that because Gonski said Australia as a whole was slipping on the ladder of OECD countries in subjects like maths and science, and because the Territory is the worst we are going backwards at a faster rate. I would dispute that in that band of students who take those subjects; however, we need to encourage more students to take up maths and science. It is important and our students, if they go to school every day, will have a great education. It is a very important debate and I listened carefully to the Leader of the Opposition.
He said we are all spin: education revolution, digital revolution, he talked about all the revolutions; however, we know enough as local members, particularly with the Building the Education Revolution, that there has been significant infrastructure placed within schools across the Territory. I could go through all the BER projects in the member’s electorate but I will not. He knows only too well that millions upon millions of dollars has been expended in his electorate. Does he also reject the 8000 new computers across the Northern Territory, and a laptop for ever senior year student? I do not think so.
He talked about COGSO and that is important. COGSO came to government and asked for positions. We have stepped up to the plate on that. Their current funding is $258 000 per annum and we put in another $100 000 on top of previous historical funding. The Leader of the Opposition referred to their four-year-old policy and the other policy they have about early childhood, but that does not mention school governance or autonomy. I predict the member for Brennan will come out with his new policy, and he will raise and discuss that issue. I am more than happy to have that debate. COGSO has been allocated $150 000 extra this year and the promise of $150 000 ongoing for two staff - one in Alice Springs and one in Darwin - for school councils training. I am not sure whether you are aware of that, member for Brennan. It will be interesting to see what you have to say about that in your policy.
Many members contributed to the debate and I really appreciate that, and I am grateful to each member who has contributed. Given the time I have, I do not think I can give every member’s contribution justice to the thought and preparation that has been put in.
The Chief Minister talked from the perspective of Chief Minister, and as a parent. He has – not a child - a young man who has moved from high school and beyond that, and two children in school, so he is experiencing the system firsthand. He reiterated that he believes if a child goes to school every day in the Territory, they will receive a first-class education. He also said that the advances we have made as a government in education is, in no small part, due to the reforms and investment made by this government, and the efforts of the successive Education ministers, my predecessors. He talked about transforming education in the bush. There has been much investment in infrastructure and teachers. There has been a great deal of investment in teachers and, as I said previously, we want to employ the brightest and best, and we want to retain them. Importantly, he talked about very good news with Charles Darwin University’s significant increase in enrolments. He commended the work of Barney Glover. All members of this parliament commend Barney Glover and his work as Vice-Chancellor of the university. I am very appreciative, and I commend his work and the development of Charles Darwin University.
The Chief Minister spoke of the Country Liberal Party’s need to deliver their education policy and it needs to have the backing of funding. I raised that issue before with the member for Brennan. He also talked about the success of Clontarf.
The Treasurer talked about education being at the top of our agenda; that we have better schools, more great teachers and programs on par with any in the country. She talked about the Back to School Bonus payment of $75 per student, and that is very important.
I have touched on the issue originally raised by the member for Nelson when he said he is getting feedback about people with NTCE certificates who cannot read or write. I acknowledge that has been an issue and I am not backing away from that. We need to ensure the quality of those graduates who come through with a Northern Territory Certificate of Education and Training now. So, it is a valid issue.
I was a bit bemused I suppose - the member for Port Darwin always comes off left field with a few things. He talked about a teacher - I am not going to say her name – and said she was a monument to beads, unkempt hair, and cheesecloth. I was almost tempted to add stale perfume in there, member for Port Darwin. Then he contrasted her with a teacher, who I will mention, Helen Coburn, who taught English to the member for Port Darwin. The member for Port Darwin is a wordsmith, he is a master of the English language. I do wonder, member for Port Darwin, that you talked in here yesterday about naming public servants and putting them on the spot, yet you named the poor lady in the cheesecloth who was a monument to beads. As I said to you last night, if I was that lady and I heard about it I might be inclined to write and ask for a right of reply as you were not very complimentary. You could have said the same thing and kept the unkempt hair and monument to beads, and added a few other things, without mentioning her name. Maybe you were just using a nom de plume, a name that …
Mr Elferink: No.
Dr BURNS: So the person actually exists, all right. Well, as we often say here, we are responsible for what we say in this place ...
Mr Elferink: I am prepared to be.
Dr BURNS: The member for Barkly, the Minister for Lands and Planning, talked about his long-term experiences as a teacher in the Northern Territory and he drew on that experience. He also made the point that he hopes the CLP education policy is delivered with a bibliography and with acknowledgement to me and to successive Education ministers in the Northern Territory, because I built on the achievements of others. It will be interesting to see how radically the member for Brennan wants to change our education system.
The member for Nelson also mentioned some great schools like Robinson River. There are some great schools in the Territory and it is great to see those schools, particularly those in remote areas with Indigenous kids, with great teachers, great attendance, and great community support.
The member for Fannie Bay talked about his experience growing up and being educated in the Territory. He said you can get a good education in the Territory. That was an important contribution to the debate.
The member for Arafura talked about the cultural aspects of learning and the decision-making process and how, in many instances, Indigenous people feel excluded from the decision-making processes. She commended the principal at Gunbalanya.
The positive part of the member for Macdonnell’s offering was about her meeting with the Gunbalanya principal, and she emphasised how important education is to children. She congratulated principals in her electorate. She raised the issue of bullying within the department and I have copies of the e-mails and the letter - it is an e-mail as well. I will be looking into, and following up on, those matters.
People do have redress through the Public Sector Employment and Management Act if they are being bullied. As Minister for Public Employment, I am happy to take those issues on board and refer them to the commissioner. I do not want to see bullying in the workplace.
I was interested to hear the member for Macdonnell say there was going to be a book written about me. I have already foreshadowed …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I move that the minister be given an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, member for Arafura. That alarmed me a little because I intend to write a book and have said so in this place before. It will be sort of a satirical non-biography and I have already determined the title, member for Macdonnell. It is The Truth is Up For Grabs, Not Even the Dead are Safe. I am a little worried there could be a book in competition. I do not have the distinction you have of having nearly a whole book, King Brown Country, written about you. I am starting to think that maybe I am up there with the member for Macdonnell. It will be interesting to see.
You did say something that I believe was a little unkind, that I might live in the Territory but I will never be Indigenous. I just keep on remembering what you say, member for Macdonnell. You say: ‘There is not a black way, there is not a white way, there is only the right way’. That seems to undercut the spirit of what you have said in this parliament a number of times. I am not Indigenous; I am a human being. I do understand things, many things. I understand what is written in King Brown Country. I understand what I talked about here the other night during adjournment - and I will have a bit more to say when we move into adjournment about that, and I will be listening very carefully. I will leave that for adjournments. I will be very interested to hear what you have to say, member for Macdonnell. You said that I will never understand the problems. I thought that was a bit of a generalisation. I thought that was being a bit unkind, seeing there is not the black way, there is not the white way, there is only the right way.
The member for Nhulunbuy represents a remote electorate, and has also had long-term teaching experience within the Northern Territory, and as parliamentary secretary for Education. She is a very good parliamentary secretary, I might say, Madam Speaker, as she has a wealth of experience, like the member for Barkly, within the system.
I know the Leader of the Opposition had a long teaching career before he came to this parliament. As I understand it, and he may correct me, it was more in the Christian school sector. Before he entered parliament, he rose to the position of principal of a Christian school.
I value the advice and feedback of the members, particularly on this side, who have had experience in the regions and the remote areas, and I am always seeking it in terms of education.
The member for Nhulunbuy talked about the pleasure of students she taught 20 years ago and seeing how they have turned out and the success of their lives.
If could just tell a little anecdote here. My sister was a teacher in the Territory in the 1960s and 1970s. She visited me a couple of years ago and attended a function at Parliament House, where she recognised one of the students she had taught in the remote areas of the Barkly. This particular lady had become a health worker and received an award for her great services as a health worker. It was great to see those two catch up, the bond that existed as a teacher and student, and now 20 or 30 years on, that really was a very special bond. We all remember those teachers who supported us and helped us; we remember them with a lot of affection.
The member for Nhulunbuy also talked about the annexe at Nhulunbuy for special needs students, and her experience with and the challenges of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. That is very challenging for parents, teachers and the school community. We need to work with parents and communities to support those students.
Madam Speaker, I commend the statement to members and to the House. I thank all those who have participated in this debate. Education is, front and centre, one of the major issues for the Northern Territory. Thank you to every member who participated.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
ADJOURNMENT
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I have several things I would like to briefly discuss tonight. The first is the advertising of exploration licence applications in the local newspaper. Some time last year, the government changed the rules and regulations regarding applications for blocks. Previously, companies could apply for the maximum size being 500 graticular blocks. The government changed it to a size of 250 blocks. Industry was not entirely happy with that because if they want the same parcel of land they have to put in more paperwork, and more fees go with that paperwork.
Something must be wrong in the system because in the NT News of 22 February there are 12 applications, three of which are over the 250 blocks that is a requirement under the legislation. I ask the minister for Resources to explain why it is that these applications are over the size. Is the department going to be asking applicants to reduce the application, comply, or split the application? Why advertise something the government cannot grant? I ask the minister and his office to look into that.
I commend the people at the Elizabeth Valley volunteer bush fire brigade. They had their annual general meeting on Sunday, 12 February, and it was well attended. They have elections each year for the committee to oversee the activities of that brigade. Again, Dianne Tynan has been elected as captain. She has been a volunteer fire fighter for some 20 or 30 years. She is an extraordinary woman who gives her time freely and continually. Deputy Captain is Paul Porkeny. The secretary is Jeff Baker, and committee members are Jean Baker, Bob Pitts, Andy Lewsley and Charmaine Tynan, and fire warden is Roy Christiansen.
I also wanted to put on the record that in the last 12 months this brigade of 20 or so volunteers had a total of 972 volunteer hours expended protecting the Elizabeth Valley region and the Noonamah region. They also assisted other brigades. There is a combination of work: they have smoke spotting patrols; controlled burn offs where they help people; attend to wildfires; assist in loading the water bomber when there are incredibly bad fires; check permits for people who want to do their own controlled burning; and help other units under NT Fire Service management and the Bushfires Council. Well done to them.
Sadly, there many fires in the rural area, but it is through the dedication and commitment of these people that we have a safer place to live. Well done to the committee, and I wish them the best for this year.
The third point is, sadly, the Northern Territory has come up very badly in some statistics that have just been released this week. The latest release of the Australian Bureau of Statistics - the national crime victimisation survey conducted in the second half of last year across all the states. Surprise, surprise, the most socially ordered states are South Australia, which is not surprising given it is the state of churches, and the Australian Capital Territory. The most disordered place in the whole of Australia, and I quote:
- ... unquestioningly the Northern Territory.
This is Australian Bureau of Statistics data. It is much the same in regard to noisy and dangerous vehicles as elsewhere in the country, but scores very badly on a swag of other questions. It has double the national average of public drunkenness, and being insulted, pestered or intimidated in the street. I will quote the figures so you can get an understanding. The subject is: people being insulted in the street. In the Northern Territory, 26.7; second place is New South Wales with 13.7 - almost double. Public drunkenness: Northern Territory, 44.1; the next closest is New South Wales, 19.2. Rowdy behaviour: Northern Territory 33.7; the next closest No 2, New South Wales 20.9. Clearly, the second half of last year in which this data was collected, almost four times as many Territorians see public drunkenness in their local areas as a matter of large or moderate concern as Australians as a whole.
What concerns me about these statistics is, clearly, what the government tells us in regard to their policies and programs - they are not working. Territorians have deep concerns in regard to people insulting and pestering them, and also the high level of public drunkenness in our streets across the Northern Territory. That is unacceptable and the government should get on to the Australian Bureau of Statistics data to check this, and they will see that I am telling the truth. It is a disgrace.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will continue with some of the issues that were raised in relation to my agreement with the Chief Minister ...
Ms Anderson: Not that; it is boring.
Mr WOOD: That is always a matter of opinion, member for Macdonnell. There are plenty of boring adjournment debates in this place. I thought I would add to that boringness, if you like, member for Macdonnell.
I want to raise some of the issues on the agreement, after all, it was raised in debate this week about what had and had not been done.
There are a couple of issues about a town planner I asked for to look at the overview of planning in the Darwin area. I am since satisfied that we do have a town planner who has those qualifications, and that town planner has been involved in Weddell, the Greater Darwin Regional Plan, and the Rural Village Plans.
An area difficult to achieve under the agreement has been issues relating to Robertson Barracks traffic. A traffic study has been done by the Litchfield Council to look at the T-intersection at the bend at the eastern end of Brandt Road. This issue will be ongoing, much as I would have liked it to be sorted out, because you have to deal with the Department of Defence. It is not exactly a Northern Territory government issue. There is hope because I know Brigadier Gus McLachlan is supportive of a new entrance from Robertson Barracks onto McMillans Road. There are major issues with the existing entrance from Thorngate Road. If a second entrance could be achieved, that would solve a number of problems - one from the Defence point of view, and also local traffic management through the Knuckeys Lagoon residential area.
Another area agreed to under the agreement was the changes to the Environmental Protection Authority, where they received additional powers and functions. The member for Macdonnell might have been in the Chair at that time when we looked at extra powers for the EPA. That is exactly what happened. They were auditing and reporting on compliance with environmental approvals and licences. They can now investigate and respond to pollution complaints. They can monitor and report on water and air quality across the Territory. They produce regular report cards on the health of our environment. By amending the referrals criteria, they empower the EPA to comment on environmental impact statements for future major developments. That has all been agreed to. That is a major change to the powers of the EPA. That has come from the agreement, and is a positive thing.
I have had a fair bit to do with the EPA in relation to a couple of issues. I mentioned last night the large drain that leads from the Berrimah Business Park into Ironstone and Knuckeys Lagoons. They are investigating that. They have also looked at the flooded blocks which have still not been sorted out on Pelly Road/Lorikeet Court and Madsen Road. I am hoping government will fix this up quickly because it is now 12 months since it occurred.
There is the issue of the radioactive waste depository. People would know my views on this probably vary from the government’s view, because I am not opposed to a radioactive waste facility at Muckaty Station, as long as it passes the environmental impact statement. The government has said it wants a site based on scientific evidence. Whereas I support Muckaty, the government opposes it. We are probably nil all on that particular issue in relation to the agreement.
Container deposit legislation has come in since the beginning of this year and the government had already promised in the previous election that it would introduce a container deposit scheme. My agreement was to give them a bump along. The agreement was about continual commitment to the container deposit scheme. I was trying to make sure it did not waiver from that commitment because I knew the pressure that would come from beverage companies like Lion Nathan, Coca-Cola Amatil, and the Australia Food and Grocery Council. Those companies, as we have seen, put an enormous effort into ensuring the scheme did not get up and running. Thankfully, the scheme is up and running. Although it has only been going for two months, it has been doing well.
I spoke last night about the price increases in beer in the Northern Territory. There have been assertions that price increases have been caused by the container deposit scheme. The figures I showed last night proved that is not the case. Prices have risen because retailers or breweries have increased them. That is something the government has to highlight and publicise, and must show the figures as they are because the container deposit legislation has not been the cause of major increases in beer prices. The maximum would be 20 cents. Anything higher than that and someone is ripping off the system.
Heritage parks was another part of my agreement, and that is an ongoing issue. The Strauss Airstrip is a heritage park which is surrounded by a number of World War II defence facilities - mainly gun emplacements - and they are all heritage listed now. The cricket pitch and the 17 Mile - or Camp Rushmore as it is called - have all been heritage listed. We also have a broad heritage area called the Defence of Darwin Experience which has just been opened, and I have yet to have a look at it. While that is good, we still have further to go. With the 70th Anniversary of the Bombing of Darwin, we have to work off that, look for federal government funds and start to achieve more protection of those areas, especially outside of Darwin – the Strauss, Sattler, Hughes and Livingstone Airstrips, and airstrips further down the track.
There are quite a few other World War II heritage sites around Snake Creek and Adelaide River, and a few spots in between. In Katherine there is Fenton, Long, McDonald and Gorrie. I mentioned before that Larrimah was probably one of the largest towns in the Northern Territory during the war. There is the railway line, and Birdum, and it goes on. We need to invest in the World War II heritage we have and use it to help with the tourist economy in the Northern Territory.
There was the issue of sewerage infrastructure for Coolalinga Howard Springs. This has been difficult because of the high cost involved. I had a number of meetings with Power and Water, Howard Springs and Coolalinga representatives. What eventually came back are some costings. People do not understand that we were trying to get the Howard Springs and Coolalinga Shopping Centres connected to a sewerage pipe from the INPEX plant to Palmerston. It looks like there is a possibility Coolalinga will be joined, at some time in the future, to the proposed sewerage line to Palmerston from the INPEX village. The Power and Water Authority has given an idea of the cost of connecting Howard Springs to that system to all the landowners in that area. It is a fairly substantial cost and, until people can afford it, that side of it is probably not going to happen.
We had an agreement with the government to help fund more capital works at Freds Pass and to add to the operational funds in the reserve. That agreement has happened. I was not involved in the negotiations. The negotiations were done with the Freds Pass Management Board and the government. It will be ongoing for three years. There was capital grant funding of $980 000. So far, the soccer grounds have been upgraded at $230 000. The irrigation has been completed, topsoil has been completed and trees have been planted. I would say, give that another year, and you will have two full-size soccer pitches, and a three-quarter one, which will be really great for Freds Pass.
The Rugby Union field, the home of the Swamp Dogs, is now on its way. They have a few issues as well which I recently mentioned, but they are just about to keep going too. There are a few more projects, one that I know many people are hoping for - that the Rugby League will have lights. I will continue this at another date.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I advise the House about the first Indigenous dentist who will be commencing work in Alice Springs in February 2012. Dr Chantel Thornis a graduate of the University of Western Australia and is the first member of the Noongar people of Western Australia to complete a dentistry qualification. She will be working in Alice Springs.
I advise that a previous patient in RDH donated $10 000 to the cardiac ward, which was used to develop the Cardiac Story DVD. This DVD will assist in educating Indigenous clients on what to expect when they are being treated at Royal Darwin Hospital and Flinders Medical Centre after experiencing a heart attack. They had it translated to Tiwi, Kunwinjku, Murrinpatha, Kriol and Djambarrpuynga Indigenous languages together with English and subtitles for the hearing impaired. It will be launched in the near future.
This month is Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month. Every 11 hours, an Australian woman dies from ovarian cancer, and every day three new women are diagnosed with ovarian cancer. Ovarian cancer is difficult to detect and is often only diagnosed in the late stages when it is difficult to treat. I encourage members of the parliament and the community to raise awareness of the disease by finding out more information on ovarian cancer, hosting an afternoon tea to raise funds, or by purchasing and wearing a ribbon on Teal Day, 29 February 2012.
Madam Speaker, I thank the Cancer Council of the Northern Territory for hosting a fundraiser to held in the main hall on 29 February.
Australia Day is a day when all Australians join together to celebrate our country and our culture. As an Australian by choice, I have to say that I really enjoy celebrating Australia Day. It brings Australians together from many cultures, either born here or migrating here. This year, we enjoyed another fantastic day of celebration. In the Northern Territory, we welcomed more than 140 citizens from 35 countries during eight official ceremonies, with the oldest being 64-years-old and the youngest four-years-old. It was great to see many locals recognised for their community work, and organisations being creative for their community events.
We have just finished celebrating the Chinese New Year. A number of celebrations took place - Chinese-Timorese, the Hakka Association, and the Chung Wah Society. I was very pleased to attend many of them, especially the Chung Wah Society banquet dinner held at the Chung Wah Society’s facilities. It was particularly pleasing to see so many young men, women, boys and girls learning the culture of their forefathers. Some of their forefathers came from China 150 years ago, but they still keep the spirit alive and celebrate it with a great gusto. The Lion Dancers in this year, the Year of the Dragon, danced at the Chung Wah Society. I was very pleased to announce a $50 000 grant to assist them with the repairs for their air-conditioning facilities which are getting old and will need support. Our government is very happy to support ethnic communities throughout the Territory.
The Casuarina Coastal Reserve is the most visited reserve in the Northern Territory. Every year, 750 000 people visit the Casuarina Coastal Reserve. I call upon all Territorians to take the opportunity to complete the community survey form recently sent out by Parks and Wildlife to comment on the Casuarina Coastal Reserve and what they would like to see in that particular reserve. It is unique; it is 1500 ha stretching from Rapid Creek to Buffalo Creek, and includes the coastal waters of Old Man Rock. It also borders Charles Darwin University, Royal Darwin Hospital and Defence land. It has some significant Larrakia sites, and significant native coastal flora and fauna. The reserve needs your assistance to ensure its survival and I call upon you to complete that form and return it to Parks and Wildlife. After all, if we do not comment about our own reserves, who is going to do it? If we do not comment and things do not happen that we want to see, we then have no right to complain.
We see $75 in back to school bonuses again this year. I will not receive it this year because Michael finished Year 12 and I was very pleased when he was accepted into two universities. One was CDU and the other in Perth. However, young families with children in school were very pleased to receive the $75 back to school bonus for their children. It is a huge help, and parents can use the $75 voucher in Term 1 to pay for school uniforms and book packs so children can start the school year with confidence. I have always said if we do not support our young families, and new families and their children, we cannot argue about them sending kids schools to school. That does not happen only in the urban areas, it happens anywhere in the Territory where there are primary and middle schools.
I welcome back to Nakara Primary School Principal Brennan and the staff and students. I have been advised everyone at Nakara school is looking forward to a busy and productive 2012. Nakara had a great start to 2012. I have been advised that enrolments over the school holidays, and the first week of term, resulted in numbers exceeding their prediction. They started the year with 17 primary classes and three preschool classes. A special welcome to five new teaching staff: Hayden Woodroffe, Katherine Nunn, Emma Pick, Kristin Raft, and Sian Edison; two transition assistants, Lou Gordon and Maria Vlamos; and three equity tutors, Donna Roach, Sarah MacDonald, and Yvonne Pratt. Nakara’s after school care is running to capacity with no vacancies for semester one.
I welcome Principal Fathma Mauger and staff and students at Alawa Primary school. Fathma advised Alawa Primary School had a very smooth start to Term 1. Alawa will continue with a strong focus on literacy and numeracy programs again this year. I was very disappointed I could not accept their invitation to read my favourite book at the launch of the International Year of Reading this week. Other commitments and parliament unfortunately interfered. Alawa Primary school has always been a very community-minded school. It is one of the more multicultural schools where Greek descent kids mix with African descent kids and Indigenous kids. It is a very peaceful school and all the kids enjoy learning in a social harmony
Dripstone Middle School Principal Brian, staff and students, started a very smooth 2012 and I was very pleased to see the Dripstone schoolchildren attending the bombing of Darwin commemoration. I was very pleased to take some photographs and commemorate the bombing of Darwin’s 70th Anniversary with them.
It is the beginning of the year, many schools will go back, and I am looking forward to visiting more schools and meeting the new staff and the new students.
I was also very pleased to hear about the first Aboriginal dentist in the Northern Territory and, hopefully, in the next few years we will see the first Aboriginal doctors coming out of the Northern Territory medical school. Grow our own and they will stay here! We have seen that with midwives, nurses, engineers and geologists. It is great to be able to offer these studies in the Northern Territory. It saves money for people who cannot afford to go down south, or who do not want to go down south because they have very strong links with their land and their families. On some occasions they have no alternative but to go down south, like my eldest son did. I would encourage my youngest son to stay in the Northern Territory and study at CDU. However, as you know, teenagers have a mind of their own and know everything. We have been there and done that, so I will let him choose his own future.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Deputy Speaker, I put on record a letter I have received from a former colleague of ours, the former member for Macdonnell, Neil Bell. Neil Bell wrote this letter to the author of King Brown Country, Russell Skelton. I want to put it on the public record:
Dear Mr Skelton
- I read your recent book King Brown Country quite carefully.
- While I am impressed that a senior journalist from a national paper should take the trouble over several years to acquaint themselves with the Papunya community, I must protest your attack on Alison Anderson.
- It is doubtful that without this unreasonable attack you would have a book to publish. Let me choose a couple of examples of your inaccurate reporting that made the attack unreasonable. Firstly, you say that Alison is an all powerful community leader referring to Papunya as her ‘fiefdom’ and saying ‘nothing happens in Papunya without her approval’ (pp13-14). On the other hand, you say that ‘the real power in Papunya lay with the elders and the established councillors (p49). You can’t have it both ways! The reality is that decision-making in remote communities is a complex consensus process and no individual has the power that you attribute to Alison Anderson.
Secondly, you make great play of the use of store profits for the purchase of motor vehicles for private use (eg p62) but you ignore the realities of public transport (or the complete absence of it) in remote communities like Papunya. And when Alison Anderson draws this to your attention (p67), you make no attempt to assess the validity or otherwise of this assertion.
I understand that you have sought to defend your attack on Alison Anderson on the basis that she refused to talk to you. Given your obviously close relationship with her former husband and given the bitter divorce proceedings that were on foot for almost all the period of your involvement, her reluctance to speak to you is understandable.
I note your reference to my involvement with Narlie Nakamarra and I recall your phone call. I wish to record that you asked no questions about Alison or my view of her work at Papunya. Given my long association with Papunya and with Alison, this was surprising and, ironically, I am now in a position where I cannot be accused of sticking up for a party colleague!
The important reality about Alison’s position is that in the multicultural environment, she was a major opinion leader. While you quote Fred Myers as saying she was ‘unusually bicultural’, you do not explore what this might mean. Let me help you. Alison was one of only two people who, to my knowledge over a 20-year period, could make a convincing public speech in English, Arrernte and Luritja, three very different languages. (I can make a fair fist of it in English and Pitjantjatjara/Luritja but not in Arrernte or Warlpiri, the third Indigenous language in the Centre).
As I say, while your book is welcome in a sense that national attention to the plight of remote communities is welcome, your attack on Alison Anderson is unfair and unsubstantiated. It can never be an excuse for colouring the facts that the object of your attack refused to be interviewed.
If there is any aspect of this matter you wish to discuss, please contact me at your convenience.
Yours sincerely
Neil Bell.
I seek leave to table that.
Leave granted.
Ms ANDERSON: There is also an e-mail that I want to table, and I seek leave to table this e-mail which came from John Gaynor ...
Leave granted.
Ms ANDERSON: … from the Chief Minister’s Office. The Chief Minister at that time was Clare Martin and it was to my electorate officer, the late Rhonda Loades. I will not bother reading it, people can read it themselves.
I also seek leave to table a media release from Mandy Taylor from the Northern Territory government, ‘Police Investigation Reveals No Wrongdoing’. I seek leave to table that as well.
Leave granted.
Ms ANDERSON: With that, I would like to start on my adjournment.
As you well know, the closing days of this parliament have been filled with personal accusations and invective. Tonight, I address this climate and consider the claims raised here about my public life. I shall be brief and restrained in what I say. I begin from the point that this parliament is, or should be, a House of debate, not warfare. In truth, in my time in parliament, there has been very little debate or thought or open-mindedness. There has been a great deal of bitterness and personal dislike, which has stood in the way of good government.
As you are all aware, I have been the subject of a furious and vigorous campaign of personal attacks by my political adversaries. Those attacks have been brought together in a book, offensively titled King Brown Country. That book, full of falsehood and errors, full of unsourced and untrue claims, has been available for almost two years. It is now the member for Johnston’s favourite reading matter – indeed, it is his obsession. I have replied in brief to the book in the media. I have considered taking legal measures against the publisher and the author, but decided that in public life one must accept such blows, hard though they may be. What is harder still is that among the book lies the falsehoods. I have counted up to 70 or so separate errors. There are a good many that come from members of the Northern Territory parliamentary Labor Party. The member for Johnston recycles this material in his adjournment speeches - a perfect cycle.
The facts are these. I was involved in the running of my community, Papunya, for many years until I became the ATSIC Commissioner. Claims about the financial management of Papunya are inaccurate and motivated by malice. There has been a detailed Commonwealth report into the allegations of fraud and bad management in the community. It exonerated me fully, and it has been in the hands of the federal and the Northern Territory officials for years. I again give my personal assurance to this parliament that I have never been involved in corrupt financial practices and have never benefited from any transactions at Papunya involving motor vehicles.
I invite the member for Johnston to repeat these slurs outside the House; I will take him to court. The member for Johnston - let me turn in brief to this bizarre man. In many ways he sums up the last dark 10 years in the Territory. He was brought to power in an election which saw a new chapter begin in our little world. We all hoped there would be revitalisation. Many Aboriginal people thought there would be a new broom. I, like other traditional Aboriginal leaders, was encouraged to run for Labor in that election. I withdrew because of the whispering campaign against me and only ran after the report that cleared me and my community council was completed and its findings made public.
For some years I served in the Northern Territory government. I watched from the government benches when the member for Johnston mocked a victim of child abuse. I wondered at his attitude. I wondered at the Labor Party when I saw the fraud and corruption involved in the SIHIP community housing program. I raise …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! There were no findings of fraud or corruption in SIHIP. That is wrong and it is offensive under Standing Order 62 ...
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: There was no fraud, no corruption in any report found anywhere in SIHIP!
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. I ask you to ...
Ms ANDERSON: Yes, sit down, Delia.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell! You know how to address members. You have the call.
Ms ANDERSON: Okay, yes. Member for Karama, remember that Burnsie said he hates you and your mother too ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, I ask you to address members by their proper title, thank you.
Ms ANDERSON: Okay. As you know I felt I could no longer serve this government. I made my political journey knowing full well what vile hate I would be exposing myself to. I have subsequently been the subject of a bitter and long-lasting campaign against me by politically biased members of the Territory media, and by the strange reporter in Melbourne who has developed an obsession with my story. It is these people who provide the material for the member for Johnston.
I look across at the member for Johnston in his twilight and what do I see? I see a human shell. I am ashamed ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I find that offensive under Standing Order 62. She is describing a member of parliament as a human shell. That is offensive.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker!
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Araluen, you do not have the call! Member for Port Darwin, your point of order?
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Deputy Speaker, any number of epithets and allegations are made by all members of this House, including clowns, grubs, worms, germs, etcetera, etcetera.
Ms Anderson: Madam Deputy Speaker, can you stop the clock?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, I think that it would only be fair that you would be allowed to go on ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please resume your seat. I am not sure there is a point of order ...
Ms Lawrie: I want to speak further to it.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: ... if we could just stop the clock, please.
Ms Lawrie: It does not stop in adjournment.
Ms ANDERSON: Okay, I will just go to the end part ...
Ms Lawrie: I do want to speak ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, please pause.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Deputy Speaker, there is no standing order to stop the clock during adjournments, and you well know that.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is actually the call of the Chair, so I can do that.
Ms Anderson: So, there. Sit down!
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am just going to ...
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Pause, please, and be quiet, member for Araluen! Minister?
Ms LAWRIE: I want to refer to what Madam Speaker said in Question Time in terms of former CLP Speaker Steele ejecting a member from this House for saying the word ‘goose’. To call someone a ‘human shell’ is highly offensive either in or outside this Chamber and would be deemed offensive in normal decent life.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is getting ridiculous. Can you just resume your seat and let me take some advice, please. I am inclined to agree with the minister that this term is offensive.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Macdonnell, I am going to ask you to withdraw that particular term, please.
Ms ANDERSON: I will withdraw that.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Macdonnell. If we could restart the clock, please.
Ms ANDERSON: Okay. In desert society we have special words for such people who have been driven wild by the hate inside their heart. He speaks today not to benefit the members of the Territory community or Territory people, but to hurt and insult those he sees as his enemies. He is a sexist and he is a racist ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Both of those descriptions are offensive under Standing Order 62.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Resume your seat. I ask you to withdraw that, please, member for Macdonnell ...
Mr Elferink: A point of order!
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have ruled on that member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Deputy Speaker, you ought to hear some of the invective that comes from that person that goes unchecked. Madam Deputy Speaker, if you make that ruling ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Resume your seat. Resume your seat! Resume your seat or withdraw!
Mr ELFERINK: ... I will move dissent.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Resume your seat immediately!
Mr ELFERINK: I will move dissent, Madam Deputy Speaker, from your ruling. I ask that you get the Speaker in here. You cannot editorialise from the Chair.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Resume your seat!
___________________
Dissent from Deputy Speaker’s Ruling –
Motion Withdrawn
Motion Withdrawn
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): I am moving dissent, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not resuming my seat ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Resume your seat!
Mr ELFERINK: ... I am moving dissent from your ruling. Get the Speaker back in here.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Resume your seat! As you know, you need to move your dissent in writing. I do find the words offensive. I had asked the member for Macdonnell to withdraw.
Mr ELFERINK: It is in writing, Madam Deputy Speaker. I ask that you get the Speaker back in here.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sure the Speaker is on her way, member for Port Darwin.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Conlan: Is the Speaker coming in or what?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sure the Speaker is on her way. Member for Macdonnell, you may as well resume your seat while you are waiting for this.
Ms Scrymgour: Is this making up for why you did not have the guts to intervene the other night on her behalf ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I suspect the Speaker is in the dining room. I have sent her a message and I am sure others have as well.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will deal with this matter very quickly.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I move dissent from your ruling. The allegations of racism and sexism are levelled in this House as a matter of debate on a regular basis. If a member is offended there are several vehicles …
Ms Anderson: He laughed at child abuse in this House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Macdonnell!
Mr ELFERINK: ... available to a member to respond to that. As far as I am concerned, all I want this House to do is be able to have members heard without being shut down by government suggestions that descriptions and epithets such as ‘hollow human being’, ‘racist’ and ‘sexist’ are in some way breaches of Standing Orders 60, 61 and 62. Those words contemplated by the standing orders are, in their very nature, expletives and unparliamentary words.
There have been no expletives. There has been nothing in this which is unparliamentary and we do have the right to question the motives, as members have the right to reject that questioning in this House in a free and open debate. An attempt to shut down that debate simply because someone does not like what is being said is not contemplated in the standing orders.
The minister is a big boy and is more than capable of having the capacity to reply to the allegations being levelled against him. I do not doubt for one second that the minister will reply fulsomely, aggressively and wholesomely, and may then choose to engage in some invective of his own. As long as his words are not unparliamentary, the public has the right to know what his opinions are, as they have the right to know what the member for Macdonnell’s opinions are.
Madam Speaker, I ask that the Chair adjudicate fairly and justly with the understanding it is the public which is the final arbiter on the debate in this House and not the Chair itself. I urge, as a consequence, a quality of adjudication which enables members to question the motives of other members unhindered by excessively onerous rulings.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I obviously deeply disagree with the member for Port Darwin. The words ‘racist’ and ‘sexist’, when used in this Chamber …
Ms Anderson: He hates you too!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: ... are used in the context of policy. Whether or not a policy is sexist, whether or not a policy is racist, whether or not the policies of a party - whether it be CLP or ALP - are racist or sexist.
This was clearly directed at an individual member of this Chamber - the member for Macdonnell accusing the member for Johnston. That is clearly fitting well and truly within the standing orders of our debate. I will read out the standing order so there can be no confusion about the wording of that standing order: ‘offensive and unbecoming words towards members’, etcetera ‘to be withdrawn’.
In our Australian society we accept as a norm that being called a racist, or being called sexist, is designed to be offensive to the person and, at the very …
Ms Anderson: Of course it is.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up the interjection from the member for Macdonnell. She just said: ‘Of course it is’.
Ms Anderson: Of course, I meant like it that.
Ms LAWRIE: ‘Of course, I meant it like that’, the member for Macdonnell just interjected.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, cease interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: She is clearly assisting me with the argument that she was being offensive to a member. Not offensive about policies, but directly offensive in words to a member. Admitting offense - she just agreed with that. I did not even get the chance to talk about whether it could be unbecoming, a much lower, much easier, bar to meet ...
Ms ANDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Can I speak to that point of order?
Ms LAWRIE: I just want to ...
Ms ANDERSON: I agree with the Deputy Chief Minister ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, resume your seat. There is no point of order.
Ms LAWRIE: I want to remind members because I know we are in election year and people are going to become more and more testy in this Chamber. I have witnessed debates in his House through the decades, and I continue to be shocked at the unacceptable level of personal …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms Anderson: Fool! Sit down.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell!
Ms LAWRIE: … personal offence …
Ms Anderson: She is a fool.
Mrs Lambley: It comes from your side.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell! Member for Araluen!
Ms LAWRIE: … directed to a member. The reason why we have these standing orders in the first place, hopefully, is to remind members of parliament that our behaviour ought to be somewhat better than what is behaviour in the worst scenarios. The standing orders are there for a reason. There are liberal and strange - removing themselves from accepting the standing orders by members in this Chamber. It demeans the parliament.
When the debate around offensive words commenced, and the adjudicator - and this goes to the issue of fairness of adjudicating. When the debate around offensive words commenced, I reminded the Chair of your own warnings and reminder in Question Time that the former CLP Speaker, Mr Roger Steele, ejected a member from this parliament for a week for the word ‘goose’. It was a reminder to the Chair, during the first call I made on the standing order which was offensive – withdrawn, and the next few offensive words, ‘sexist’ and ‘racist’ appeared. Of course, I sought them to be withdrawn, because it was in the context of a reminder to the Chair, of Madam Speaker’s wise words of warning to us all, I thought, during Question Time.
That is why I believe the Chair was being very fair in her adjudication, because it was base on the reminder from me of Madam Speaker’s warnings of the way Speakers have determined offensive words in this Chamber in the past. The Chair sought advice from the Clerk on the previous offensive words that the Chair then asked be withdrawn. These offensive words followed hot in quick succession, and I stood and sought them to be withdrawn.
Madam Speaker, very clearly, I believe, the Chair sought advice from the Clerk, when I first called the pathway of offensive words that started to come from the member opposite, got the advice it should be withdrawn and, very quickly, offensive words followed. In that context, in that total and combined context, it was a fair adjudication.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I will speak to this motion. As the member for Port Darwin said, I am a big boy, I am ugly, I am old, I can take it, and I have broad shoulders.
The member for Macdonnell, in today’s paper, said I was a raving lunatic and an old fool. I will cop that one on the chin; that is okay. I am old, I do rave a bit. Maybe when the full moon comes out, I might howl at it every now and then.
I say to the member for Macdonnell - I am offended by being called a sexist ...
Mr Elferink: You called her immoral the other day.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Ms Anderson: You can stay offended because I am not withdrawing it.
Madam SPEAKER: The member for Macdonnell will resume her seat.
Dr BURNS: I am offended by being called …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell!
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! On the subject of highly offensive language, I ask the member for Macdonnell to withdraw the terms she just used to address me.
Ms ANDERSON: Okay, I will withdraw ‘sooky’.
Ms WALKER: It was not ‘sooky’ …
Members interjecting.
___________________
Member Suspended -
Member for Macdonnell
Member for Macdonnell
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Macdonnell, I ask you to leave the Chamber, please ...
Ms ANDERSON: I will. I will.
Madam SPEAKER: … under Standing Order 240A for one hour. Leave the Chamber!
Ms ANDERSON: I will be pleased to.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave the Chamber, member for Macdonnell.
___________________
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Port Darwin, you are on another warning. Member for Daly, why are you still on your feet? I am on my feet. The Leader of Government Business has the call.
Dr BURNS: Thanks, Madam Speaker. As I said, I have broad shoulders, I can take a great deal, but, I am genuinely offended by, out of the blue, the member for Macdonnell calling me a racist and a sexist. If she had developed an argument and given evidence as to why I should be called that, maybe I would cop it. However, it came out of nowhere as an insult. The member for Macdonnell has left this Chamber. What was said was unfortunate.
In Tuesday’s Adjournment debate I did use this book and the context of this book, which has been on the public record for 10 years. I used it, I thought, in an almost academic way. In an analytical way I used the content of this book, which has never been challenged by the member for Macdonnell in court, in the media, significantly, or in this Chamber. The conclusions I drew from this book did not exceed what was in the narratives in that book.
There is nothing personal in what I said about the member for Macdonnell. Even though the member for Macdonnell has said what she did, I do not feel any personal animus towards the member for Macdonnell. What she said to me was unfortunate. What she said to the member for Nhulunbuy was unfortunate. What has just happened here does not do this parliament any favours.
As the member for Port Darwin says, we are here to have a robust debate. I made a speech once about the member for Katherine, but there was nothing personal in that speech. There was nothing personal about what I had to say about the member for Macdonnell. It is my job as the Leader of Government Business, particularly given the context of the remarks of the member for Macdonnell about Stronger Futures, and the relationship to the governance of stores - to bring this to attention. It is as simple as that. I built a case based on a book which has been in the public domain and has won a Walkley Award. The member for Macdonnell came in here and basically, apropos of nothing, as the Cheryl Crow song says - the member for Greatorex, probably knows - the person sitting over there says he is a sexist and a racist. We need more than that. We need a higher level of debate.
If the member for Macdonnell can demonstrate why I am a sexist and a racist I would be prepared to debate it. However, coming out of nowhere demeans her and this parliament.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the hypocrisy is clear. Whilst one member, the Leader of Government Business, argued that the accusation needed to be substantiated, the Deputy Chief Minister made sure the argument could not be put, and blocked the capacity for the member to substantiate. So you have two conflicting positions. Because you do not like what is being said you block it …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! That is misleading because I let the member for Macdonnell talk through her whole discourse about why she has been misrepresented in the book, etcetera. It was only when she used offensive words that I interrupted.
Mr Elferink: I would have been shut down by now, if I had tried to run that angle.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, you are already on a warning. You will be out the next time you do something like that.
Mr MILLS: Madam Speaker, that was not a point of order. There is a clear separation between the two points of argument being run by the members opposite. At the heart of this is blatant hypocrisy. We have one member, the Deputy Chief Minister, lecturing us about the morals of how we conduct our debates. How dare that occur as a strong point of debate when we can plainly see, and know, in practice that means nothing. Behind the scenes we can clearly see the platform which has been established is plainly a political motivation.
It is plainly hypocritical for the government to now take a high moral position, when they had a completely contrary position at a different point of time, when it suited them politically. There is grave concern about the way in which these matters are being progressed in this Chamber.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member for Port Darwin was talking the other day about the robustness of the debate and how he enjoys it. I have not had a chance to respond to that. There are those who think the Westminster system is a great place because it is an adversarial system and therefore it is a bit like winner takes all. I do not necessarily agree with that. I know the member for Port Darwin and I have different points of view on that matter.
No matter what the history is of what one party said and what another party said, we have today before us an issue of whether we have offensive or unbecoming words. I would probably put it a little different. How would we like to be spoken to like that any time? We can have debate, but do we have to be insulting? Do we have to bully people? Do we have do things that we would not expect people outside this Chamber to do? If I walk down the street and walked up to someone and said: ‘You are sexist and you are racist’, I would probably get my head knocked, I would probably get a bloody nose ...
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Yes, but it is offensive. It is offensive to me if someone walked up and said that to me. That is my personal feeling about those words.
We have been knocked on the head, Madam Speaker, by you for saying ‘fool’, ‘goose’, and ‘hypocrite’. They are pretty mild words if you ask me. Even ‘buggerlugs’ - I could not believe it but that has been ruled out of order.
However, we are talking about two very serious words that have connotations that someone is racially biased and has something, in this case, against women. That is what it responds to. They are fairly offensive words to use.
We have had a pretty good debate about whether King Brown Country is accurate, and the member for Macdonnell responded to it with a letter from Mr Neil Bell; that is fine. That is part of a robust debate too. I do not mind that kind of debate.
This has now, more or less, got down to name calling, and that lowers this place as a place of good debate ...
Mr Elferink: The member for Nhulunbuy last night.
Mr WOOD: Listen, let me have my turn, member for Port Darwin.
I just think we lower respect for people outside. They see this place as a place where people throw insults at one another. You walk out into the main street and ask people what they think of the Commonwealth parliament, and they think they are a bunch of ratbags, because all they see is Question Time, and they think it is a joke. That is a favourite word I hear about parliament: ‘It is a joke’, and this does not contribute to anything more than saying this place is a joke.
Surely we are intelligent enough and mature enough to have a good debate without having to call people names. Calling people names is childish. If you have to go down to that depth in your debate, then you do not have a debate. You should be able to argue your case on the facts that are put forward without calling someone names. That is the sort of stuff I expect in the school yard, not in this place. This is supposed to be a mature House for mature debate.
I believe those words were offensive. They would be offensive to me - that is how I judge that - and I would stand up here and complain. If someone said that to me in the main street, much as I do not believe in violence, I tell you, my blood would be boiling. I think they are offensive. I think we can do better. I do not care about whether one side said this or one side said that. We are dealing with two words that were said five minutes ago. We should deal with that matter now and make a decision on it.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I have to agree with the member for Macdonnell. Those words probably were offensive, and they were precisely designed to be offensive. They were designed to offend you, member for Johnston. That is exactly why they were said in an attempt to push back on the vitriol that you unload on the member for Macdonnell.
I happen to agree with her assertions, those two assertions. I think that never a truer word has been spoken in this House about you. You stoop to levels that I think have never been stooped to in this House before. You have form. We can certainly build a case around your form.
I happen to have here the Burns censure from 2008. I kept it to remind myself of exactly where you are in your form and where you have come from, member for Johnston. I believe you are a misogynist. Is that unparliamentary? I believe you are homophobic. Your attack on the member for Port Darwin ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, are you aware of Standing Order 62?
Mr CONLAN: What is it, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: Offensive or unbecoming words:
- No member shall use offensive or unbecoming words against the Assembly or any member of this Assembly, or against any House or member of another Australian parliament ...
etcetera:
- ... nor shall a member attribute directly, or by innuendo, to another member unbecoming conduct or motives, and all offensive references to a member’s private affairs and all personal reflections on members shall be deemed to be highly disorderly.
Mr Conlan interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Excuse me, member for Greatorex, I am speaking. You do not speak, and in fact you should be sitting down.
- Whenever the Speaker rules that words used by any member are highly disorderly, such words shall not be published in the Parliamentary Record.
- The provisions of this standing order relating to unbecoming conduct shall not apply where a substantive motion on notice brings a charge of misconduct against a member.
Standing Order 63, Speaker to intervene, and this is particularly important:
- When any offensive or disorderly words are used, whether by a member who is addressing the Chair or by a member who is present, the Speaker shall intervene.
Standing Order 64, Speaker to Determine:
- When the attention of the Speaker is drawn to words used, the presiding officer shall determine whether or not they are offensive or highly disorderly.
I remind you, member for Greatorex that in fact yesterday, the member for Araluen stood during Question Time and was offended by the use of the words ‘three stooges’, which I asked the Chief Minister to withdraw. I ask you to compare this with the kinds of comments that have been made tonight and the comments you are making. I ask you to reword your comments and think about it very carefully.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am surprised to learn that a word of the English language is somehow deemed to be unparliamentary and offensive. I might add, the member for Johnston made those, what I call homophobic, allegations in this parliament to a fellow member of parliament. It was made in this House in 2004, I believe it was ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Relevance. The member for Johnston mouthed some words to a member of this parliament - mouthed, not spoke, and apologised publically.
Mr Conlan: So what? It still happened.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Where is the relevance to a debate around ‘sexist’ and ‘racist’ being offensive words?
Mr Conlan: Surely that is not a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is a platform for the Deputy Chief Minister to make a little speech!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, this is a dissent motion about a specific issue. If you could talk to that, please.
Mr CONLAN: I wholeheartedly agree with the assertions made by the member for Macdonnell. I was simply going a little further because this member has form. He asked for us to build a case around those allegations. I am more than happy to use the 15 minutes to build a case and explain to this House exactly why I agree with the member for Macdonnell, and why those words fit him like no other words in the English language possibly do! The man has form. He has had form as long as our arm.
It is perfectly appropriate for me to outline why I feel the member for Macdonnell’s assertions and allegations in this House are quite befitting of the member for Johnston. He seems to have a problem with women - simple as that. He seems to have a problem with powerful women. He is obsessed with the member for Macdonnell ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: Maybe he has a problem with Aboriginal women ...
Members interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 62. I find that highly offensive as a woman, and as an Aboriginal woman. That is highly offensive and ...
Members interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I have worked with the member for Johnston for many years, Madam Speaker ...
Members interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No, I am talking to a point of order ...
Madam SPEAKER: We have someone speaking to a point of order. Resume your seat. Have you nearly finished the point of order?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No, Madam Speaker, I would like …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! For crying out loud!
Madam SPEAKER: This is a point of order. Standing Order 62 is what you are referring to.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Yes, I would like the words he said withdrawn.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Johnston, did you find the comment offensive?
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I implore the other side, let us just move through this and put it to the vote. Let us move on because I do not think any of this is doing this House any favours.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, in response to the member, I agree. I am sad we have arrived at this point because this now high farce. We should just bury this and allow us to speak openly in this House. If members are offended, then they have an opportunity to respond.
Madam SPEAKER: Have you finished your comments, member for Greatorex?
Mr CONLAN: Madam Speaker, I will wrap up those comments.
Madam SPEAKER: Reminding you of the standing orders.
Mr CONLAN: In the spirit of what has just been said, the point has been made - I still firmly believe it. I believe you have form, member for Johnston. We can certainly develop an argument for as long as we want about your form. You are obsessed with that book. You have something against the member for Macdonnell. She deserves better from this parliament. You are doing no one any favours - particularly yourself and your own legacy - by continuing to beat up on a member of this House. I believe she is within her rights to make those allegations; I believe they should stand.
I have made a list as long as this A4 page of paper of comments levelled at us, the opposition, by this government that have been allowed to go through, without asking to withdraw or be overruled by the Speaker - a whole list. I will not go into them now, but they are there.
She is quite right to make those opinions, she should be allowed to make those opinions, and I believe she is on solid ground.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I am astounded by the hypocrisy from the government. I have been a member of parliament for 16 months now. I clearly remember on the first day I stood in this parliament, shortly after giving my maiden speech, the member for Daly interjected and said: ‘So, you think you are not a racist?’ I have been called many names by people from the government, and I do not believe I have ever thrown a name at anyone on the other side of this House.
This is a deliberate attempt by the Deputy Chief Minister to shut down the member for Macdonnell. Clearly, it is a tactic. When you start throwing stones, member for Johnston, you should be able to receive them back at you. This is a case of tit for tat.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, before I put the question, I remind you of the standing orders that I have already read out: Standing Order 62, which is about offensive or unbecoming words; Standing Order 63, The Speaker to intervene; and Standing Order 64, The Speaker to determine.
The question is the motion as moved by the …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Woo, woo, slow down. Madam Speaker, we thank you for your ruling and your attention to this matter. In the interests of good conduct and good partisanship, or bipartisanship in this House, I withdraw the motion.
I seek leave of the Assembly to withdraw the motion of dissent.
Leave granted.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
__________________
Madam SPEAKER: Do we have anyone else to adjourn tonight?
Member for Arafura, I hope it is not controversial.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, every time I stand up here it is probably controversial, but I want to adjourn on the hypocrisy of tonight. I am not going to get into the name calling, but I believe what we saw tonight was the lowest depths of what this parliament can come to ...
Mr Mills interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Leader of the Opposition, you have taken your side to the bottom of the barrel ...
Mr Mills: Where did it start?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: The hypocrisy of the member for Macdonnell regarding King Brown Country - she gives as good as she gets. She stood here and called a colleague of mine racist! Madam Speaker …
Mr Mills: Oh!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No, no, it is offensive ...
Mr Mills: You have called me a racist.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I tell you it is offensive. The member for Macdonnell needs to look at her own attitude when it comes to …
Mr Mills: You have called me a racist.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, cease interjecting!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: When it comes to racism, her attitude towards urban saviours – a traditional person. You make me sick too, Leader of the Opposition, because you are spineless. The spineless way in which the member for Macdonnell constructed her argument - the hypocrisy she talked about in terms of, that the newspaper ..
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Madam Speaker, in the spirit of things, that would have been offensive if it had come from us. I ask, therefore, that it be withdrawn.
Madam SPEAKER: Are you reflecting on the Chair, Leader of the Opposition?
Mr MILLS: No, I am reflecting on the members opposite who are sheer, plain faced hypocrites. If that word was used to you - I ask them to withdraw it, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arafura, please withdraw!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I withdraw spineless, Leader of the Opposition.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Arafura, can you please remember Standing Order 62. It is not necessary to make unbecoming comments about members.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I withdraw spineless, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Early last week a group called Concerned Australians put out a media release featuring former Family Court Chief Justice, Alistair Nicholson. The media release was critical of consultations conducted in the Territory last year. Nicholson has released transcripts of some of the consultations and says the Commonwealth has been self-servingly selective in its reporting of what was said.
Bizarrely, given the solidarity with Howard and Brough in the consultation-free days of the second half of 2007, the Country Liberals have jumped on the band wagon. They expressed concern about what they call a second intervention and, in a brazen twist which reveals a new dimension to the word hypocrisy, the person from their camp taking the running on this is none other than the member for Macdonnell.
I attended the consultation sessions at Maningrida. The Commonwealth representatives included ministers Macklin and Snowdon. They had heard a number of complaints and criticisms across a range of issues. Some of the venting was along the same lines as what I have been saying about the intervention since 2007, in particular, about the social and economic vandalism of the replacing CDEP employment with Work for the Dole and Newstart welfare.
The people talked about the permits and how they thought the permit system was being reinstated, and CDEP and the Homelands. The member for Macdonnell with her hypocritical stance that she has continually, since 2007, was one of the founders of the intervention - she owns it. She will forever be tainted and defined by it and by the things she said at time, such as sick people and dead people have no rights. Perhaps more importantly as an assessment of the member for Macdonnell’s credibility, she also stands to be judged by what she said in the more recent past. I am referring to her comments reported by the then AAP journalist, Tara Ravens on 6 August 2009 in the lead up to the greatest day in Territory history. Ms Raven said the member for Macdonnell told journalists, and I quote - and it is on the public record member for Macdonnell:
- Absolutely, I think the federal government should just come in and take over the territory politics full stop.
If the member for Macdonnell thinks the Commonwealth should be running the Territory, why is she complaining about the Stronger Futures legislation, and why is she still in this place? The member for Macdonnell should do her constituents and herself a favour and resign and pull away, particularly where she thinks ...
Mr Elferink: I can get my old job back.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Member for Port Darwin, I know you have always longed for that and would give your left arm to go back to that electorate. I have had conversations with the member for Port Darwin where he has often recalled with fondness the electorate of Macdonnell. I am sure he would go back there in a flash because he did enjoy that.
I was listening to the member for Macdonnell’s speech and she talked about a newspaper campaign run against her. That is not true. The member for Macdonnell needs to look at her past and the newspaper campaign she ran on members on this side of the House. I talk from personal experience. I have never taken that up with the member for Macdonnell. I will one day but I will not do it inside this Chamber because this is a member who, again, will not back up what she says. She can stand in coward’s castle. I remember being in the Speaker’s chair the night she launched a cowardly attack on a journalist. She accused this journalist of running this campaign against her, when this very same member runs these same campaigns against other people. The member for Macdonnell always has been a bit of a bully. She uses traditional versus non-traditional, which I find offensive, particularly as an Aboriginal person. She likes to use that because it is a divisive way in which she has been doing it for many years.
I heard the member for Greatorex. The man has form. He is a bully, and he accused government members of reaching across and screeching and saying things. Well, the man is rabid. You only have to look at him, day after day, when we are sitting here listening to him. He makes a good pair with the member for Macdonnell, because they are cut from the same cloth, the hypocrisy of those members, and the selective memories of those members from Central Australia.
The member for Macdonnell should be ashamed of herself. She can throw insults. I was just appalled at the insult, when I heard what she had said to the member for Nhulunbuy across this Chamber, because that is the form of the member for Macdonnell. When she cannot get at you with facts and have a proper debate, she will resort to personal insults. That has been the member for Macdonnell’s form in all the time I have known the member for Macdonnell, and it has not been just when she was elected into this House. I knew the member for Macdonnell when she was in ATSIC and I was working in the health sector. I have also watched the career and the progression of this member. She projects this image that she is a wilting violet. Well, she is no wilting violet and she can certainly stand up and defend herself. But when she defends herself, she has to resort to the petty name calling, which is what she does.
The Leader of the Opposition should be appalled and hang his head in shame because he allowed her rabble to bring this parliament to a low point. The name calling and accusing my colleague, the member for Johnston, of being a racist, I find absolutely offensive. In all the years I have known this man, he is not a racist. He has worked long and hard for Aboriginal people and in those communities. She should apologise. She may not like that, but it is the member for Macdonnell who is bigoted and has a very tunnel vision of her own history.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, now for something completely different. I ask a couple of questions arising from a question I asked during Question Time today. I have to say that I received a somewhat unsatisfactory answer from the Attorney-General. I appreciate that the Leader of Government Business was concerned about matters sub judice, but a matter cannot be sub judice if it is not yet complained about in front of a court. That is first issue I raise.
In any instance, as I said during Question Time, it has come to my attention that NT WorkSafe is about to lodge a complaint against the Northern Territory Fire Service for an incident which occurred, if my memory serves me, in the order of about 12 months ago, in which a training exercise went wrong and a woman was injured, and she suffered paraplegia or quadriplegia, I am not quite sure which. It is well conceivable there were procedures in place, or a lack of procedures in place, which led to that injury. I do not necessarily want to talk about the nature of the events which occurred on that occasion because it will not add to the issue I am trying to raise today.
I am asking if the minister can simply illuminate for this House why a prosecution will be necessary. A prosecution for an injury at that time would come under the work health and safety act of 2007 which was introduced by this government. It had amongst its clauses a fairly superfluous concept which was called enforceable undertakings which, essentially, restated a common law position which exists in any instance. Basically, if you look at how an enforceable undertaking works, the investigating authority, in this case NT WorkSafe, determines to see something rectified. They enter into an agreement with the offending party or the alleged offending party. It would be an offending party because you would have to have an admission for an enforceable undertaking to work, for them to correct their conduct.
The reason I raise this issue is enforceable undertakings - whether you have them in legislation or not it does not matter, you could have an arrangement of a contractual nature or you could simply have the policeman, WorkSafe, say: ‘Get that fixed by next week or we will prosecute you’.
It is my understanding, and my full expectation, that the Fire and Rescue Service will have made strident attempts to correct what occurred which led to that injury. I would be astonished beyond all words if the Fire and Rescue Service had not done so. I would be just as surprised if the minister had not instructed that to occur. This was a tragic and sad incident.
The nature of an offence under WorkSafe legislation is it basically has to allege a form of criminal negligence. I would be very surprised if there was any intent involved in the circumstances of this matter because that would be a criminal offence you would find in the Criminal Code.
However, I then ask the question: if NT WorkSafe is confronted with this situation, and if the requisite work has been done to correct the circumstances that led to this injury, what is the purpose of a prosecution if you are planning to prosecute the Fire and Rescue Service as the defendant?
If you are prosecuting a corporation, you cannot put a corporation or corporate body into gaol so the best you can hope for is a fine. This is similar to the issue I raised when the minister for Natural Resources threatened to prosecute the Darwin Port Corporation. I am sure the Darwin Port Corporation, for its offences, had corrected its conduct, and I believe it has. A prosecution would simply mean that you would have taxpayers’ money spent prosecuting a matter to prosecute a taxpayer-funded organisation to fine that taxpayer-funded organisation to then have that fine paid back into the Central Holding Authority which was basically taxpayers’ money.
I hope some consideration would be given to the principles of the old common law rule that an organisation can fix what it does - and I do not doubt this has been fixed - or the same principle which is captured under these somewhat redundant, but if you like to use them, enforceable undertakings which I think is around section 80 of the old act.
I am interested to hear from the minister whether a prosecution is intended in this instance. If the prosecution is intended, why does the minister think the prosecution is necessary in favour of the enforceable undertaking?
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will be brief. Tonight I acknowledge the passing of Mr Eric George Smitt, and tender my sincere condolences and sympathies to Eric’s family and friends and to all who knew him.
An adventurous and passionate man, there is no doubt Eric lived his life to the fullest, and to borrow from the title of his own book, he had ‘The best time ever’. Eric documented his adventurous and courageous journey in his biography, The Best Time Ever, abridged for the Northern Territory, after realising that he was ‘living in the best time that ever was, or that ever would be in the best country in the world’.
Eric was born in 1923 in Glen Huntly, Victoria, and his early years were tough and hard spent, his family surviving on a meagre World War I pension, and living off the land on a small farm. Eric used to say that it was the hardship he experienced during these years that ’toughened him up’, and prepared him for the very full and adventurous life that he would go on to live.
At the mere age of 14, Eric commenced working for the Postmaster-General in the telegraph section where he became proficient at Morse communication. At the end of World War II, with such sought-after skills, Eric was presented with an opportunity within the Department of Civil Aviation, and it was this opportunity that consequently led Eric to the Northern Territory, to a part of Australia that, unbeknown to him at the time, was the part of Australia he would end up calling home.
In 1949, just after the devastation of the bombing of Darwin, Eric was transferred to Darwin for work, and the following year, in 1950, he relocated again, this time to Katherine, a place he fell in love with. Adventurous and easygoing, Eric felt right at home in Katherine, developing a love for the town, the people, the countryside and the river.
It was in Katherine, the town that Eric loved, that he married Aileen Lawless, in a ceremony attended by all of the locals, the warmth of the people and the spirit of the country firmly embedding itself in them both. Eric, with a strong connection to the country, spent his days walking up through the various gorges and savoured the moments he led visitors up to the sixth gorge to camp under a monolithic rock - a rock that now bears his name, Smitt’s Rock.
In 1956, Eric relocated with his work to Alice Springs, embracing the town with his usual enthusiasm, but this time with his family in tow. It did not take the family long to make new friends but, in 1958 after only two years in Alice Springs, the Schmidts were relocated to Adelaide, which turned out to be short-lived as, after only two years, they were again relocated to the Territory, this time to Darwin.
Eric was glad to be back in the Territory, and it was no secret that he was glad to have the opportunity to once again explore the coast and inland rivers with lifelong friend, Ross Timms, and cast a line or two, or three. Back in the Territory and loving life, Eric and Aileen developed a passion for gemstones, and began exploring the areas rich in agate and amethyst out from Katherine towards Wave Hill, and spent much of their time searching for and collecting precious gems.
In 1964, the position of Regional Communications Supervisor for South Australia and the Northern Territory became available, and it was no surprise that Eric, who was always disciplined, thorough and thoughtful, won the position.
After the destruction and devastation of Cyclone Tracy in 1974, Eric supervised the airport operations and staff requirements for more than 50 personnel at the Darwin Airport, and did whatever he could to assist during such a painful time. In 1977, Eric completed three months as Airport Director at the Darwin Airport before relocating to Papua New Guinea with Aileen, where he would begin his next adventure that would include walking the Kokoda Trail and Bull Dog Track, and climbing Mt Wilhelm, the tallest mountain in Papua New Guinea.
Eric retired in 1981, and spent the following years doing what he loved: working the gem fields in Australia with regular trips back up to paradise, as he called it, bringing him back to the land, the bush, the wildlife, and the Territory he loved. Eric and his family lived in, or visited, the Territory every single year since 1949, with the exception of four years. So, it was only fitting that Eric finally moved back to Darwin to live, and he spent his last 10 years with his family in the Territory, enjoying the part of Australia he always called home.
Eric is survived by his wife, Aileen, and children, Ronald, Lindsay, Peter and Gayle. I am sure all members will join with me today in sending our profound condolences to Eric’s family. While it is an occasion of sadness today, as we remember and pay tribute to Eric Smitt, it is also an occasion to celebrate the life of the truly spirited and colourful man. In his biography, The Best Time Ever, Eric wrote: ‘There is still so much time to live that I have difficulty sacrificing a moment’. Eric never sacrificed a moment, having lived the best time ever.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will adjourn on the incredible events that relate to the 70th Anniversary and Commemoration of the Bombing of Darwin, and those links to what the Northern Territory government has created for the Northern Territory - that is the Defence of Darwin Experience, as part of the Darwin Military Museum.
To the department of Natural Resources and Sport, particular thanks go to Hugo Leschen, Darlene Lyon, Michelle Grantham and their incredible team. To the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory, thanks to Pierre Arpin, the Director, with particular mention of Michelle Smith and Jarred Archibald, who worked so hard in an incredibly short period of time on the content for the Defence of Darwin Experience. To the NT Libraries and NT Archives staff for their invaluable research work which contributed to a range of things from the Defence of Darwin Experience and the new Maritime Union of Australia Wharfies memorial at Stokes Hill Wharf, to the iPad app for the Defence of Darwin Experience. What an incredible high-tech expos of modern museums that has provided.
Thanks to the Heritage Division, creators of the Administrator’s gift to President Barack Obama, the plaque on the plinth. Thanks also to the Department of Construction and Infrastructure for bringing the building in on time, even through the Wet Season. The weekly CE meetings were a pleasure; everyone worked as a team, led by the CEO, Al Wagner and a particular mention of the Project Manager, Mark Dodt and his team for an outstanding project - one of many the Department of Construction and Infrastructure delivers on behalf of the Northern Territory government.
The Department of Correctional Services provided a great team of workers for the Defence of Darwin Experience, some of whom have been offered full-time employment once they are released. Corrections also assisted the City of Darwin with the cleaning of the memorials and plaques prior to the anniversary.
Lands and Planning’s Transport Division provided buses for the many veterans to attend the range of functions and activities, including the trip to the Adelaide River War Cemetery.
To the City of Darwin’s team, who we work with closely - it was a pleasure to work with the City of Darwin team and the Northern Territory government, working together, meeting regularly for months on end to ensure there was great cooperation and synergy in bringing the whole range of activities together.
To the speakers at the Families Function – Mr Bill Risk, Mr Don Christopherson, Mrs Wendy James, our previous Administrator Austin Asche and that wonderful MC, Charlie King - this has been a sensational project for the Northern Territory and leaves an outstanding legacy which is not only a story that is unique to the Territory, but it is a unique Australian story, if not a unique global story. What all these people have done, coming together in the design and construction the 70th Anniversary Commemoration, is told this story to the world and it will not be forgotten.
The Chief Minister, among others, through tireless work, has made sure that the Bombing of Darwin has been included in the national curriculum and through the efforts of many Territorians it has been also included in our calendar as a National Day of Observance.
I place on the public record, a mate of mine, a colleague and an incredible, dynamic Territorian who worked through this from the start to finish, Alan James. AJ, as he is known in Suite 1, works with Arts and Museums and brings an interesting perspective to government and government delivery throughout the community. If you get to know Alan James, you will know of his very interesting and diverse background. He is a born and bred Territorian, but one of his interesting phases in a life and career was founding manager of the band Yothu Yindi. If you ever get the chance, get him to tell you some stories of touring the world with a band from the member for Nhulunbuy’s country; she would know the families well. AJ took those guys around the world more than once, and the stories are sensational, fabulous and also hilarious.
He brings this unique private sector sort of focus to government, and he took on this project with true gusto and determination and, at times, was singlehandedly holding all these major organisations together. He works under pressure with a smile on his face. He is not shy of long hours, and he has the Territory at the forefront of his work and of his dedication.
He certainly can reflect with his family, a long-standing Territory family, on this project. He can tell the stories to his children and to his grandchildren, and generations beyond, because he has a very strong connection with the bombing story through his mother, who spoke brilliantly at the Families Function. It was a truly inspiring story for not only old Darwin families, but also all the new Territorians and all our visitors to get that true perspective on what this event really did.
AJ, I cannot say enough about your involvement and the lessons that we have all learnt along the way. I hope you will continue working with us, because you are a very important member of the team. You have created a massive impression on this project that was not only challenging in terms of the Arts and Museums perspective, but also challenging in terms of delivering a state-of-the-art piece of public infrastructure that will go on for generations in what I consider to be still a frontier town.
I thank the RAAA, the Royal Australian Artillery Association of Australia. It was a pleasure to work with those Territorians who took on the project, being long-term Territorians committed to the site on East Point, the Darwin Military Museum. They took on the project with a lot of nerves, but being fine Territorians, and a lot of military strategists amongst them, they worked with government and with the City of Darwin, and we achieved these outcomes together. The wonderful thing about the RAAA is that now government has created a good governance model where they will go on to manage this facility as part of the Darwin Military Museum. I know, from their smiles and from their accolades of government over the weekend of the 70th Anniversary of the Commemoration of the Bombing of Darwin, that they are absolutely thrilled to add this incredible state-of-the-art, high tech, world-class, Defence of Darwin Experience to their whole museum package. I know they already have plans to continue developing it and to continue telling this wonderful Territory story.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016