2006-10-11
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise you of the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery and the Ministerial Officers’ gallery of family and friends of the late Mr Eddie Quong. I particularly acknowledge the partner of the Administrator, Ms Nerys Evans; the Bishop of Darwin, Bishop Ted Collins; the widow of Mr Eddie Quong, Ms Greta Quong; and three of their children, Terry Quong, Marie-Louise Pearson, and Donna Quong. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
CONDOLENCE MOTION
Mr Eddie Quong OAM
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly express its deep regret at the death of Eddie Quong, a highly respected and long-time member of our Top End community. I place on record the Assembly’s appreciation of his significant and sustained contribution to the Northern Territory over more than 60 years.
On 24 August this year, after battling to recover from a serious car accident a year ago, Eddie Quong died. He will be greatly missed by many Territorians. Eddie was an extraordinary man who had a real passion for life. He was devoted family man, a proud Territorian, an active member of our Top End community, and a much-loved and highly-respected figure in Darwin’s Chinese community. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that Eddie was the embodiment of the multicultural mix that is Darwin.
As his friend, Tom Pauling, our Solicitor-General who is here today, observed:
Our Administrator, Ted Egan, a friend for more than 50 years described him as ‘more ocker than Paul Hogan’.
Eddie Quong was born in Pine Creek in 1925 and was one of 13 children. Soon after his birth, his father moved the family to Darwin to work a market garden in Parap. It was a real struggle back then so, in 1932, they moved again to Queensland to make a new start, but always with the intention of heading back to Darwin one day.
Eddie never lost sight of these early days and his market garden heritage. He became a keen vegetable gardener later in life and produced a wide variety of mainly Chinese vegetables. He believed the secret to successful gardening in Darwin was to start preparing your beds in January, and the sheer volume of his crops would have silenced any doubters.
The family did return to Darwin in November 1945 and they never looked back. Very soon they had opened the town’s first post-war bakery, Quong’s Bakery, under the family’s house in Smith Street West. The bakery soon became a great social venue, especially on Wednesday nights when the mail would arrive via Guinea Airways. Our businessmen would pick up their mail in the afternoon, head back to their offices to answer the urgent letters and get them ready for the next day’s plane. They would then drop in at Quong’s Bakery on their way home at around midnight and stay there until the early hours of the morning, eating freshly baked bread straight from the ovens and washing it down with whiskey.
An advertisement for Quong’s Bakery appeared in the very first issue of the NT News on 8 February 1952 with a slogan that would become very familiar to Territorians over the years: ‘Quong’s for Quality Never Queried’.
Eddie married Greta in 1954 and they had four children, Terry, Marie-Louise, Rodney and Donna, as well as eight grandchildren. Eddie sold the bakery just before Cyclone Tracy destroyed the building in Smith Street. He turned to selling insurance and devoted himself to serving his community.
The extent of Eddie’s community service is too extensive to list here, but let me just mention a few of the groups and organisations he worked with over the years. There was the Red Cross, in which he was involved for 40 years, a truly amazing effort. He was a member of the Royal Darwin Hospital Advisory Board for 24 years, including 21 years as Chairman. He served on the Darwin Private Hospital Advisory Board and was co-founder, with Greta, of the Darwin and Districts Spastic Centre, now Carpentaria Community Services. Eddie was also the Commissioner of Electoral Divisions for the NT for six years. He served on boards with the Automobile Association, the Australia Day Council and was the Chairman of the Arafura Games Advisory Board. There are many more organisations I could mention, but time does not permit me to list them all.
Eddie’s passion and incredible energy and his extraordinary service to the Darwin community will never be forgotten, and was formally recognised when he was presented with an Order of Australia Medal. In 1999, at the age of 74, Eddie was named the NT Senior Australian Achiever, a very proud moment for Eddie and his family. At the ceremony in Canberra, the highlight for Eddie was singing the National Anthem with Slim Dusty, who was named Senior Australian of the Year.
Madam Speaker, as you know, the Chinese are an integral part of our Darwin lifestyle. They helped build and shape the city we have today and Eddie and his family were among our early pioneers. There is no doubt that we, and many others, owe them a debt of gratitude. Eddie was a generous man, and very generous with his time and advice, and everyone - absolutely everyone it seemed - knew Eddie. In fact, with such a big family and wide network of friends and acquaintances, Eddie developed some mechanisms to get him over the initial recognition stage when bumping into people. His favourite was to greet people with: ‘I know you’. All his nieces - and there are a few - were his ‘bubby girls’.
By all accounts, Eddie was a great cook, and loved nothing better than cooking up a storm for the family. One of his favourite dishes was Gai Ju, which, roughly translated, means Brandy Chicken. Katrina Fong Lim, one of his ‘bubby girls’, said his generosity of spirit was only matched by his generosity with the spirit when cooking this dish. Brandy Chicken is a traditional dish for christenings and, needless to say, the new mother and baby were always guaranteed a good night’s sleep after one of Eddie’s spirit-laden servings.
He will certainly be missed by very many people, most of all by Greta, Terry, Marie-Louise, Rodney, Donna and his grandchildren. On behalf of all members, may I extend my sincere sympathy to Eddie’s family and friends. Our thoughts are with you. We will all be able to cherish our wonderful memories of Eddie, and we wish you all the very best for the future.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the Speaker’s gallery of the former Administrator of the Northern Territory, Hon Austin Asche AO. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, we support this condolence motion. We have seen a number of condolence motions in this parliament, but if ever a condolence motion was required, it is required for Eddie Quong. The Chief Minister has referred to many aspects of Eddie’s life, and I will do likewise.
The Quong family has long been a part of the history of Darwin. Their legacy is the Asian influence which still touches Darwin. The Quong family has been a part of that history since the 1880s. Eddie was born in Pine Creek in 1925. His parents, Chin Shu Hong or Henry Quong and Ethel Low Oy Quong, were both born in 1900; his father at Pine Creek and his mother at Yam Creek. Eddie was one of 13 siblings and quickly made his mark on the community.
In late 1945, following the announcement of victory in the Pacific, the Quong family were among the first civilians to arrive back in Darwin. For 20-year-old Eddie, it was the beginning of what proved to be a very exciting life. Eddie’s family came back to help rebuild Darwin in November 1945 and, at that stage, the Army was providing all of the food and essential services. As we know, Eddie’s father was a baker and the Army was very keen that he should start a bakery to supply the town so that they could withdraw from their field bakery at the old Vesteys Meatworks. Quong’s legendary bakery was possibly the first private business to get started again in Darwin after the war.
The Army supplied a couple of ovens and a mixer, and helped the Quongs to set up under the old family home in Smith Street West. The bakery was always advertised, as the Chief Minister has said, with the slogan: ‘Quongs for Quality Never Queried’. Eddie’s father died in the middle of 1946 and Eddie took over. Fresh bread was one luxury for the people of Darwin. The bakery became a great gathering place, especially, I understand, on Wednesday nights. Business people would get their mail from the south on Wednesday afternoons via Guinea Airways and they would rush to their offices to answer urgent letters so that their mail could go south on the returning plane the next day.
Eddie’s magnetic personality attracted people from different backgrounds and spheres of Territory society. Quong’s Bakery, as the Solicitor-General said at Eddie’s funeral, was the social hub of Darwin for the next 20 years. When the pubs shut and all the gambling joints closed at night, people would go up to Quongs for a drink - several in many instances - and the prospect of hot bread coming out of the ovens. After the bakery was destroyed in Cyclone Tracy, Eddie turned to selling insurance while devoting himself almost entirely to the service of this community.
Anything that was a good cause, Eddie found the time and the energy to be involved in it. Both Eddie and Greta were renowned for their tireless charity work, with 40 years of service to community organisations such as Rotary, Apex, Red Cross, Lions, and the Northern Territory Spastic Centre, to name a few. Eddie worked tirelessly on the boards of Darwin’s private and public hospitals and was passionate that people could have access to good hospital services in Darwin.
Eddie served on the boards of 15 separate groups over the years, including 24 years on the Darwin Advisory Board, 21 of which were as Chairman. He was also a Parole Board member for 20 years and, in recognition of his extraordinary community service, he was the first person of Chinese origin to be awarded the Order of Australia Medal in 1980 and was Senior Territorian of the Year in 1999.
Eddie was a Life Member of Apex International and the Automobile Association of the Northern Territory and a recipient of the Red Cross Medal. He was also heavily involved with the Australia Day Council, the Australia-Britain Association, Centenary of Federation NT committee, the Chung Wah Society and the Charles Darwin University Foundation, again, to name but a few.
In a life of good fortune, Eddie valued above all the gracious gift of his wife, Greta, always by his side for some 52 years. If Eddie Quong created a better community, it was because of the community others created for him. Greta had that quality which was essential for life with Eddie: a sense of humour, and she was always there for him. Her love for him provided much of his strength, and their love together helped transform Darwin. The partnership of Eddie and Greta was an institution which proves that the key to happiness is a sense of humour and an optimistic outlook coupled with patience and, perhaps most important of all, generosity of sprit.
In 1951, Eddie became very sick with flour on his lungs. He went to Brisbane for treatment and, while he was there, friends introduced him to Greta, a nurse who was organised to show him around. After the treatment, Eddie was given a clean bill of health and he came home to Darwin. However, he was not cured of his love sickness. He and Greta wrote to one another for a year. Eddie pursued her to come to Darwin for a month’s holiday, and Greta never went back to Brisbane. Eddie got her a job at the hospital - no surprises there - and then he persuaded her to marry him.
In 1955, Eddie and Greta built a house at the corner of Shepherd and Wood Streets, where they lived for the remainder of their married life. For them both, their family was a fortune beyond calculation. Eddie is remembered as a loving and deeply devoted family man by his wife, four children - Terry, Marie-Louise, Rodney and Donna - and their eight grandchildren, including two sets of twins. Eddie’s dedication to his family above all else, and his belief that family were the most important part of his life, is best summed up in this quote from a recent documentary on Cyclone Tracy:
The Northern Territory lost a true multicultural icon with the passing of Mr Eddie Quong. Known by many as ‘Multicultural Eddie’, this is only heightened by the fact that he managed to buy a plot in the Greek section of the cemetery. He very much believed in his Chinese heritage and culture, but always, he was a fierce and proud Territorian and a very staunch and proud Australian. Eddie Quong was a true Territorian. He once told a journalist:
It has been said that Eddie Quong was simply all of the good things about Darwin and he has impressed a mark on the Top End, and Darwin in particular. At a time when it seems so many great Australians are being taken from us, Eddie Quong will be remembered for his commitment to improving life in the Northern Territory, and the Territory is much better for the presence of Eddie Quong. Eddie was a revered and much loved patriarch of the Darwin community and will always be close to the hearts of many Territorians.
Madam Speaker, I remember when I first met Eddie. It was many years ago. I had heard lot about this bloke, Eddie Quong. It was difficult not to hear a lot about Eddie Quong. When I met him, he was like a rocket, full of energy, full of life, full of enthusiasm and passion - and always smiling. I had the good fortune to speak with him over the years. He was an impressive man, a great man. All of us share the family’s sadness. We know things are always difficult at a time of loss, but please accept our heartfelt condolences and our sympathies.
Mr HENDERSON (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I am very privileged and proud to speak in celebration of Eddie’s life in this motion. It is very fitting that Eddie’s life is commemorated in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, the House of the people. I pay tribute to Eddie Quong, a great family man, a great community man and a great Territorian.
As we have heard, Eddie was married to Greta for 52 years. Greta, that is a huge, tremendous and wonderful life together - 52 years. I have been married 17; there are 35 years to go. As Greta just said, it only gets better. They had four children - Terry, Marie-Louise, Rodney, Donna - and eight grandchildren.
Eddie was a great Territorian who had a huge passion for the history of the Chinese people. Chinese emperors left great dynasties; Eddie has left a great dynasty in Darwin. Eddie spent over 60 years in the Territory and almost all of that time was spent serving the Territory in some way or another. His community work, as we have already heard from the Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, is legendary.
Madam Speaker, as you probably know, almost everyone has a great Eddie Quong story, and I would like to mention a couple. I was saying to the Chief Minister that, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, I cannot specifically remember the first time that I met Eddie because he was just always there. I came to the Territory in 1982 and have been in Darwin since then. Eddie and Greta and the family were always around and Eddie just seemed to be everywhere you went.
The greatest memories that I have of Eddie and Greta and the family is that whenever I did bump into Eddie - and Greta was normally there - there was always a smile, advice and encouragement. Those are memories that will stay with me forever.
There are a number of stories of Eddie, and I did a bit of research through the paper over the years. Actually, when you do that research, the number of clippings about Eddie Quong and the stories that were written about him are too numerous, but there are a couple that I would like to recount today.
Eddie always said one of his greatest honours was when he was extended a royal invitation to a dinner with the Queen, Prince Phillip and Lord Louis Mountbatten on the Royal Yacht Britannia when it visited Darwin in 1973. His retelling of the story is a great Territory yarn. His new car broke down 30 minutes before he was due to arrive so, in true Territory style, he borrowed his son’s car - which was fresh from a round of geese hunting, and not the newest car on the block - to drive to the wharf. He arrived late and his excuse for keeping the royal party waiting was: ‘The bloody car broke down on me’. That drew a great laugh from Prince Phillip.
The Chief Minister has spoken about Eddie’s life and family history. From many discussions I had with Eddie over the years, I know he was passionate about China and Chinese history. In 1988, Eddie visited China, which he said felt like a different world. He saw the 13 tombs of the 13 dynasties and, as Eddie put it – and this is a magnificent quote:
What fabulous words they are; what great insight, reconciliation, language and description of a great nation and a great people. That description came from Eddie Quong.
When Eddie was asked how he felt when he was taken back to the Chinese village his grandfather Chin Wah Too left, he replied in the classic Eddie style – and this is fabulous:
One of Eddie’s driving passions was championing the cause of Chinese people in the Territory. Eddie was one of Darwin’s leading Chinese figures who cut a swathe through the racism and suppressive attitudes of the early Territory days. His great attitude, personality, and tenacity helped rightfully establish the Chinese community as a key ingredient to Darwin and the Territory.
It was not until well after World War II that attitudes towards the Chinese community changed for the better. In Eddie’s own words:
That is a fabulous commitment to our Territory.
It is very obvious today that in a large part because of Eddie’s great work, the Darwin Chinese community is now one of the most respected and integral components of Darwin’s multicultural identity as a whole. I can say that is a large part of why I, and probably many of us here, have chosen to make Darwin our home: because of the great multicultural nature of this place and the commitment of people like Eddie Quong to build a truly diverse multicultural and harmonious community. I certainly would not live or bring my kids up anywhere else.
Eddie loved Darwin. He is quoted as saying:
My best wishes and condolences to Greta, Terry, Marie-Louise, Rodney, Donna, and all of Eddie’s grandchildren. He loved his family and our great Northern Territory and his life has left the Territory a better place. Darwin loved him, too; a true icon. I will end by giving you the credo by which Eddie lived his life:
Vale, Eddie Quong.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I pay tribute to Eddie and his family, who are here today in the Chamber. We all try to think of the day when we first med Eddie and, like the member for Wanguri, it is hard for me to put a particular time on it. My most memorable recollection of him was in 1997, and I will come back to that.
When I think of Eddie, I think of a man who is a Darwinian; first and foremost a family man; a Top Ender; a true Territorian; a man who called Bishop Ted Collins ‘Cuz Ted’. When we think of Eddie, we think of a man who has an OAM, is a former Senior Territorian, an Apexian, Chairman of the Royal Darwin Hospital for 23 of the 24 years he was on it - and for good reason: he was there to ensure that everyone had equal access to such an important facility in our town. He was a man of modest means, but with a very generous heart.
The Northern Territory News wrote of him as its headline ‘A True Hero’. When you speak to people around Darwin, that is a recurrent theme: a giant of a man, short though he may be; third generation Chinese born in the Territory, and he kept that heritage right through his life and for his family.
Tom Pauling said in his eulogy that Eddie was strongly Chinese yet fiercely Australian, and asked what better advocate you could have for the Territory than a man such as Eddie. He was respected, revered, much loved in this community, especially among the old Chinese families in Darwin. The best example of that was in 1997 at a Chung Wah Society Chinese New Year banquet, as we traditionally have. Donna was the MC as usual - and she does it so very well. We always play a game, and that year it was a game of Celebrity Heads. Several people were picked from the audience, and Eddie was one of them. I cannot remember who the other two were, but Eddie and two others wore on the top of their heads a cardboard cut-out with the name of the person they represented. Unbeknown to Eddie, the card he wore identified Eddie himself. The people sitting facing the audience had to ask questions to try to identify who they represented. They were questions like: is the person still alive? Is the person hard-working? Is the person prominent? Is the person a family man? Is he still married? Has he many children? I remember Donna trying to give him as many hints as she possibly could. In the audience was the then Chief Minister, Shane Stone. Shane yelled: ‘He is fat, short and dumpy’, and immediately Eddie retorted: ‘I am the Chief Minister!’. Eddie brought the whole house down. We all held him in high regard, obviously, and the way the game was played was so incredibly amusing. Then we said: ‘No, you are not the Chief Minister. Bad luck’. The game went on and eventually, I think we had to tell him that he was wearing his own name. That is symbolic of the regard in which Eddie was held.
The member for Wanguri quoted a little story, which I had planned to relate, about his late arrival at dinner with Prince Philip. There was an article written about the same occasion, and it comes from a periodical called Migration, dated September-December 1991:
That was written by Diana Giese.
To the Quong family, this is a man of whom we should be speaking in this manner when he was alive so that he could hear it. Unfortunately, he is not, and I hope some of the words we utter here today will bring some comfort to you, Greta, Terry, Marie-Louise, Donna, Rodney and everyone in the family. My condolences. I pay tribute to a man who will be sadly missed in the Territory.
Dr BURNS (Health): Madam Speaker, I join with all other members to celebrate the life of Eddie Quong - and what a life, as we have heard today – who was held with great respect in the community of the Northern Territory.
We have heard this morning about someone who was Australian and Chinese - fiercely both - and multicultural; one person who made a fantastic difference to the lives of others through doggedly sticking to a position and being an advocate by his own personality and integrity. We have also heard about someone who has given life-long service to our community through a number of avenues, and I will come to that.
We have also heard about someone who was a fantastic family man. What greater testimony is there for someone being married to his wife for so many years, his children Terry, Marie-Louise, Rodney and Donna, in themselves people who are well respected and well known in Darwin and held in the very highest esteem. That is a fantastic testimony for any parent to have children of that stature - and, of course, eight grandchildren who I know will carry on the good name of the Quong family.
Eddie, who was a Member of the Order of Australia and, as has been said, was in 1999 Senior Territorian of the Year. He was a Life Member of Apex. When he finished with Apex - because you can only go to 40 years of age with Apex – at 41, he joined the Rotary Club. He was not wasting any time and he received Rotary’s highest honour, which is the Paul Harris Fellow. He had 40 years of service with the Red Cross, a fantastic organisation, both locally and internationally.
Eddie would give his time and effort to a whole range of charities, organisations and causes. I last remember him speaking at a prostate cancer support function. With his own earthy humour, of course, Eddie won the day and certainly convinced me, along with others - Dave Tollner was there - that we should be having annual check-ups. He was very direct, but he did it with a great sense of humour and I appreciated that.
I have a couple of Eddie Quong stories. I have got them from Brian Woodrow, who is a friend of Eddie’s and a member of the same Apex and Rotary Clubs. Brian told the story of how, in 1963, there was a delegation of several hundred Australians who went to the Apex convention in Kuala Lumpur. In the morning, they had to give blood - and, of course, Eddie gave blood - and in the afternoon they had to work very hard building a whole range of structures, including concreting drains and erecting stalls for the goats. Eddie worked very hard and there was absolutely no sign of him being fatigued from giving blood earlier in the day.
After the Apex convention, Eddie and others travelled to Thailand and Hong Kong and that is where Eddie tried to show off his command of the Chinese language to a waiter in a Hong Kong restaurant. I am told the waiter finally lost patience with Eddie’s poor attempt and told him to speak in English.
Eddie was a well-known card player, and I am sure he only played in legal card schools. He loved a game of poker. He was a member of a school which played every two weeks at different houses around Darwin. As we know, Eddie was a baker and he could not always attend those card schools, but he was a very enthusiastic and exuberant participant when he could make it to the games. According to our sources, Eddie was probably best described as an unorthodox player. He did not bring a classic poker face to the table; he was always boisterous and he also tended to hide the cards he had in his hand through his boisterous manner.
He had a tendency to go for outside chances. For instance, he had the capacity to get a flush after buying two or even three cards, or drawing an inside straight. As most poker players would know, that is a pretty mean feat. He must have been pretty good at it because the school had a saying for anyone who managed to pull a hand like that - it was called ‘doing a Quongy’ so he was legendary in his poker school.
The school he played with included, at various times, senior public servants like Martin Ford and Jim Gallagher; Fred McCue Snr, who was Ansett Manager; Jim Kuskey, Ansett Freight Manager; Bob McNaughton, who was Kwikasair Manager; Cec Vandeveld, TNT Manager and occasionally Alec Fong Lim.
As we have heard today, the Quong family, through Eddie, has a very proud part in Territory history. Eddie features in three songs written by our Administrator, the most notable of which is Characters of the Outback, but also Bloody Good Drinkers and Granny, so his legacy has been immortalised in the songs of our Administrator. He was a larger than life person, a pioneer, and I am sure everyone in this House joins with me in extending our sincere condolences to Eddie’s family.
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Economic Development): Madam Speaker, I today I pay tribute to a true Territorian, a person who epitomised the cultural character of Darwin and Northern Territory, the late Mr Eddie Quong. Eddie passed away in August at age 81, but he will always be remembered for his love for life, his great sense of humour, and his friendship to many Territorians of various ethnic and cultural backgrounds.
I cannot remember when I met Eddie for the first time; I always felt I knew him all my life. I do, however, remember very well where I met Eddie for the first time. As it always happens in Darwin, the most likely place to meet a local Chinese is at the Greek Glenti. It was at the Greek Glenti in the mid-1990s when Margaret and I met Eddie for the first time. We were introduced to this jovial Chinaman who spoke English with a broad Australian accent and who, when I asked him what he did in Darwin before, he told me in fluent Greek he was a , or psomas, which is Greek for ‘baker’. Seeing my surprise, he explained that after the war and until 1974, he ran a bakery. Eddie knew most of the old Darwin Greek community. It did not take him long to realise that bread is a staple food for the Greeks, and fresh bread was always available at the table. So, off he went on his bike, carrying a basket with fresh bread, heading for what he called the ‘Greek town’, calling out in Greek for all the Greek housewives to come and get their daily bread.
Eddie soon made more new friends in the Greek community when the Kalymians arrived after the 1950s. He was also involved in construction of the Greek Community Hall at Cavenagh Street where he further enriched his Greek vocabulary. He was always demonstrating this knowledge of Greek language to me after a beer or two. Unfortunately, I cannot repeat some of the words because I am pretty sure they are unparliamentary because Eddie, as anyone who learns a new language, learnt the swear words first.
Eddie was a walking social encyclopaedia of Darwin and its residents. He knew most of the people here, young and old, and all the stories associated with them. He had many cousins of various ethnic backgrounds since, for Eddie, anyone who lived in Darwin or fitted into the Darwin lifestyle, was part of a big family. Just like the Chinese community, where you have a big family, you have lots of cousins, Eddie had lots of cousins here in Darwin. He was very popular, not only amongst his own people, but with the whole community. His shop was a gathering place not only when the mail arrived by plane in the 1950s, but also for religious celebrations, be it Chinese New Year or Greek Easter.
Eddie was fun loving, and had a wicked sense of humour that often drew attention. I know that one of the family’s favourite photos of Eddie is one that graced the cover of a fishing magazine. It was a photo of Eddie holding a huge barramundi that he had ‘caught’ from the person who threw it at him to hold for the photograph.
At a tea party at Government House, Canberra, when he was honoured as a recipient of the Order of Australia, Eddie commented graciously to Lady Stephen on the quality of the food and the service, and thanked her for the hospitality and, in a lighthearted moment, suggested that he thought this High Tea would be an opportunity for him to sample cucumber sandwiches. Lady Stephen enjoyed his company, and a short while later, cucumber sandwiches appeared.
Eddie and Greta were involved in a fateful accident in 2005 and, whilst Greta made a full recovery, Eddie did not. Last time I saw Eddie, it was at his daughter, Marie-Louise Pearson’s home for a New Year gathering. He was once again laughing and, for a little, was like the old Eddie I knew.
Eddie is now resting at the McMillans Cemetery in the Greek Orthodox section. You might wonder what a Catholic like Eddie is doing in the Greek Orthodox section of the cemetery. My sources advised me that Eddie, in the good old days, put a bet or two on with a Greek bookmaker. On one occasion, the bookmaker did not have the money to pay Eddie his dividend, so they kept to an agreement: the bookmaker gave Eddie his family grave at the Greek Orthodox section and Eddie forgave the debt - not that this caused any problem for Eddie; the Greek Orthodox section is next to the Chinese section and Eddie knew very well that, eventually, he would be resting there and he would be amongst old friends from both communities.
Eddie lived an interesting life and always declared himself a true Australian, a true Territorian, a true Darwin person. It is most appropriate that we remember Eddie today here in the Northern Territory’s parliament. Eddie, with Greta’s help, of course, passed his knowledge, his values, his love for Darwin to his children, Terry, Rodney, Marie-Louise and Donna.
I am very proud to be friends of the Quong extended family. We knew them for a long time, first through Eddie’s grandson, Lennie Quong, who was training in martial arts with my son, Alexander. They were both six years old and the shortest in the group; they were always sparring partners. Also, later, through his other grandsons, Shaun and Stephen Pearson, once again Alexander’s great mates. I feel very privileged to have known Eddie and shared with him a joke or two, or listened to some of the interesting stories about the old Darwin. I extend my sincere condolences to Greta, Rodney, Terry, Marie-Louise and Donna, but also to the Territory community on a loss of such a great man. I also farewell Eddie. I farewell you, Eddie, in the same way your Greek mates would have done if they were here today, with a traditional Greek saying for the occasion: . God rest his soul.
Ms SACILOTTO (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, on Thursday evening, 24 August 2006, the Darwin community and the Northern Territory lost one of its treasures. Mr Eddie Quong, OAM and 1999 Senior Territorian of the Year passed away.
Eddie was born in Pine Creek in 1925. He was one of 13 children. After World War II, he and his family opened Quong’s Bakery in Smith Street West.
At the age of 21, Eddie took over the bakery after the death of his father. The bakery is well remembered by old locals. The smells of baking bread would attract many dedicated hot bread lovers and the bakery became a regular meeting place for late-nighters. After the bakery was destroyed in Cyclone Tracy in 1974, Eddie embarked on a new career selling insurance. He retired from full-time employment in 1992, but his love of helping others kept him very busy and he dedicated himself to serving his community.
Eddie’s service is legendary. He was a Life Member of the Apex Club Darwin. He gave 40 years of service to Red Cross. He was also a member of the Royal Darwin Hospital Advisory Board for 23 years and served as its Chairman for 21 of those. Eddie was a dedicated family man and he found lasting love and companionship when he married Greta Yow on 25 September 1954 at St Mary’s Star of the Sea Cathedral. Their wedding was attended by around 250 people and, at the time in Darwin, this was quite a major social occasion. Eddie and Greta raised four children in Darwin. I extend my condolences to Greta, Terry, Donna, Rodney, Marie-Louise and their families.
In 1980, Eddie was formally recognised for his extraordinary service to the Territory community and was awarded the Order of Australia Medal. A truly remarkable Territorian, he was again recognised for his community service in 1999 when he was awarded the honour of Senior Territorian by the Australia Day Council. I am told a highlight of this award was a special dinner in Canberra with the Prime Minister, John Howard, minister Bronwyn Bishop and Slim Dusty, who was named Senior Australian of the Year. Apparently, at the end of the evening, they all rose and sang Advance Australia Fair with Slim and Kamahl leading. Eddie was a Slim fan and he thought this topped off the evening.
Eddie, as you could imagine, was a great source of history and information. In light of this, it was natural that the Australian actress and author, Judy Nunn, would be introduced to Eddie when she was in Darwin researching her book Territory. Eddie is mentioned in the foreword for his contribution and Judy has provided this quote on hearing of Eddie’s passing.
My condolences are extended to Greta, Eddie’s family and the wide circle of friends Eddie made over his 81 years and to the Darwin community. We will all miss this extraordinary Territorian.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I thank you for your contributions in this important motion on the sad passing of Mr Eddie Quong on 24 August 2006. He was a prominent Territory and I know that he will be greatly missed. Honourable members, I ask you to stand and observe one minute’s silence as a mark of respect.
Members rose and observed one minute’s silence.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, morning tea will be served in the Main Hall for family and friends who have joined us for the condolence motion. On behalf of honourable members, thank you for joining us today.
Motion agreed to.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 2057 petitioners relating to funding for after-hours bulk-billing medical services in Palmerston. Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 218 petitioners praying that the sale and use of fireworks be banned. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders.
Mr WOOD (Nelson)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 228 petitioners relating to the closure of Farrar Medical Centre. Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Non-Support of Aboriginal
People for Abortion
Mr BONSON (Millner)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 84 petitioners relating to the non-support of Aboriginal people for abortion, or bills serial 70 and 71. Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
The CLERK: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform honourable members that a response to Petition No 38 has been received and circulated to honourable members:
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, last week’s 2006 Chief Minister’s NT Export and Industry Awards marked the beginning of a new era in how we recognise business excellence in the Territory. This year, for the first time, the former export awards and the new manufacturers’ awards have been combined. It is recognition of the clear link between our manufacturing sector and the Territory’s export performance. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s aim in revamping the awards was to get more businesses involved and participating, and they certainly succeeded on that front.
As patron of the awards, I take this opportunity to congratulate and thank the Chamber’s International Business Council and Manufacturers Council for managing and organising the awards.
Territorians have always been successful traders, making a significant contribution to the Territory’s economy. Last year, the estimated value of our exports was around $3.5bn and we are taking our businesses to all corners of the globe. For example, in the last financial year our products and services were traded to over 60 countries, and our businesses have shown they can match it with anyone anywhere, and they can adapt and respond to the changing needs of their customers.
Let me tell you about last week’s winners. The winners of the Territory-FM Small to Micro Business Award was the Mbantua Gallery in Alice Springs. Mbantua Gallery exports Aboriginal art to all corners of the globe, and the paintings of Utopian artists like Barbara Weir, Gloria Petyarre and Minnie Pwerle will be shown at the upcoming Shanghai Art Fair, where over 55 000 people attend each day. Congratulations on that award to Tim, Jan and Dale Jennings for all their hard work.
The Commonwealth Bank Services Award was won by the Charles Darwin University. CDU has continued to expand the number of international students they take and, therefore, their export revenue. Congratulations to Dr Claire Baxter, Executive Director of the Business Development Unit and her team for their great work in this area.
The NTICN Manufacturer’s Industry Award and the Darwin Port Corporation Agribusiness Award was won by TAAU. Bell Huang is the Director of TAAU and his agricultural farm near Berry Springs produces top grade spirulina, 90% of which is exported to Asian markets.
The Austrade Arts and Entertainment Award was taken out by Maningrida Arts and Culture. Maningrida Arts and Culture made history this year with the first Aboriginal art exhibition in Bahrain. The work of artists like Samuel Namunjdja and John Mawunrdjul made a big impact and are in great demand. Congratulations to Apolline Kohen and her team for their vision and dedication.
The Perkins Shipping Minerals and Energy Award and the Southern Cross Television Exporter of the Year Award were won by Alcan Gove. The massive expansion project at Gove is great for the Territory and is turning the company into one of the world’s largest and most efficient alumina producers. Congratulations to Alcan’s site manager, David Buik and Jim Irvine, the General Manager of Human Resources, and their team at Alcan.
The AusIndustry Emerging Exporter Award went to Guppytraders.com. The Director, Darryl Guppy, produces stock market tracking software for the Chinese stock market and its traders. It is a unique Territory product that is really going places in one of the world’s fastest growing economies.
The Manufacturer’s Council Small to Medium Manufacturer’s Award was won by Australian Crocodile Products. These unique Territory products are in hot demand in Europe, the USA and throughout Asia. Director, Heather Brown, and Store Manager, Samantha Ptakarios, have worked extremely hard in establishing these export markets.
Madam Speaker, we will continue to support new and existing exporters through our Trade Support Scheme. The scheme assists businesses in offsetting the costs of their export marketing activities and, in the past 12 months, over 68 businesses have used the scheme. Congratulations to all nominees and winners in these awards. It is businesses like these that keep the Territory economy moving ahead.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I also congratulate those who have been mentioned, and I have a note of all those who are award winners. Behind every one of those award winners is the enterprise of Territorians who are seeking to take that next and most important step of exporting our product to the wider world.
The stories behind each of those are an inspiration because it is the small business enterpriser who has a vision and belief and takes a risk. That is why it is so important that government provides the right atmosphere and environment so that the risk can be minimised. I acknowledge the great risk that is taken by many who aspire to take that next and most important step.
The population of the Northern Territory is very small when you consider the size of the market to our immediate north. With some 200 000 to 200 million people at a distance of about where Tennant Creek is from Darwin if you start in Timor and move up through the archipelago, there is immense opportunity. We are blessed to be so strategically placed. The opportunities, however, can be further explored by government to consider that the AusAID budget distributes about $85m into our immediate region and, at this stage, there is very little acquitted in the Territory. I call on government to provide greater efforts to see how we can acquit ourselves of that additional and very large revenue stream.
To revisit the MOU between the eastern provinces of Indonesia and the Northern Territory, I know there is growing willingness, particularly of those in Nusa Tenggara, Timor, to advance that issue.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Blain, your time has expired.
Dr BURNS (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Speaker, in December 2005, Cabinet approved the development of a targeted strategy to address liquor-related issues surrounding suburban liquor outlets, including hotels and supermarkets.
A 12-week pilot strategy was developed by Racing, Gaming and Licensing in consultation with the Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services, and implemented during the period June to August 2006.
Two specific areas were chosen in which to conduct the pilot strategy. These were Parap/Fannie Bay and Jingili/Wagaman/Moil. These areas were chosen because there was an existing high level of concern about liquor-related antisocial behaviour expressed by police and residents, strong community support for action, and because the areas were easily defined.
Parap/Fannie Bay has a high concentration of licensed takeaway premises within a small area in close proximity to high density accommodation. Jingili/Wagaman/Moil is predominantly suburban residential with a small number of liquor takeaway outlets in the area, but with major outlets in close proximity at Casuarina and Hibiscus Shopping Centres.
The objective of the strategy was to target maximum resources into two defined geographic areas for a 12-week period in order to reduce liquor-related antisocial behaviour in and around areas where liquor outlets are located. The pilot strategy combined targeted regulatory activity by RGL inspectors and police, with responsible liquor service training for liquor licensee employees and community engagement activities. The community engagement activities included public meetings and neighbourhood visits by licensing inspectors.
Specific activities included:
The pilot strategy was evaluated through: public meetings to obtain feedback from the community, licensees, and other stakeholders; police statistics collected over the period for the relevant areas; the number of complaints received by the Director of Licensing; information from other agencies such as Darwin City Council, sobering-up shelter and Community Harmony staff; volume and type of liquor sales data received from wholesalers; and observations by licensing inspectors.
There has been a notable reduction in liquor-related antisocial behaviour near liquor outlets in both targeted areas; however, this has not been accompanied by any significant reduction in overall liquor sales by licensees. The Director of Licensing received no complaints from either inspectors or members of the community in relation to licensees or licensed premises located in either targeted area through the period of the pilot strategy.
Licence inspectors reported the movement of itinerants away from the general public areas into more secluded drinking areas. The feedback from community organisations and residents has been very positive. I attended a number of those meetings and it was, indeed, very positive.
The next series of operations will be in Alice Springs and suburban liquor outlets located in the Gap area, Todd Mall and surrounds, north Stuart Highway, and some parts of Gillen area have been targeted under the strategy. A public meeting was held in Alice Springs last night at Witchetty’s, Araluen Centre, and the strategy will continue until 4 December 2006. I congratulate liquor outlet owners and their staff and residents for their support.
Madam Speaker, this is part of this government’s strategic initiative to reduce liquor-related harm and harmful liquor consumption in our major centres.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, yesterday we had assertions that all things are going reasonably well out there and crime statistics are trending downwards. Now we have a report of a very proactive response of government, which is largely driven, I suspect, to bolster the community perception of action and addressing an issue of concern to constituents. Noticeably, we are working actively in the northern suburbs where we need to bolster our perception in that community.
We know very well that if we are going to make any substantial and long-term change, we are going to require real courage. We are going to have to look at what happens in Groote Eylandt and places like that and start to make some deeper and harder decisions. These sorts of things are good to hear but, in all honesty, minister, they are unsustainable.
You are going to have short-term efforts and concentrated resources to address an issue here and now. Granted, there is going to be data feeding back into the system, but that data should do more than create an impression of activity. We have to start getting serious about this and putting in some deeper planks that will change behaviour now and forever.
You told us yesterday that crime statistics are trending downwards. At the same time, you are telling us there is grave concern and you are required to bring in this kind of effort to deal with hot spots, and to turn around issues of great concern to families in the northern suburbs. You are at odds with yourself.
Dr BURNS (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Speaker, in answer to the member for Blain, this is a government that has a strategic approach to alcohol issues. Alcohol management plans are currently being developed. The member for Blain mentioned a couple - Nhulunbuy and Groote Eylandt. This is a government that is very focused on these alcohol issues.
This is a government that will be looking at a complete rewrite of the Liquor Act next year and I hope the opposition will participate in that. This is a government that realises the importance of reducing harmful alcohol consumption in our community.
As I said yesterday, as Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing, I am committed to it. As minister for Police I am committed to it, and as it knocks on into health areas, as Minister for Health, I am committed to it.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arts and Museums): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to report to the House that Alice Springs will stage the next Regional Arts Australia national conference. The 2008 conference, to be called Art at the Heart, will bring major benefits to the Alice Springs with an expected attendance of 1000 people, and an economic benefit of around $2m.
The cultural benefits to Central Australia will be considerable. It will provide a major showcasing for Territory artists and their organisations. A handover ceremony to Alice Springs was held last month in Mackay. Some 750 delegates and officials from around Australia witnessed an exciting presentation by Territory artists demonstrating the strength of the Territory’s art community and enticing them to come to Alice Springs in 2008.
In 2005, Arts NT, in partnership with Tourism NT, and with strong backing from the then Arts minister and Chief Minister, commenced bidding for the RAA national conference. It had overwhelming support from the Central Australian arts community for which I would like to thank them.
The RAA conference is held every two years and is a national event focusing on regional arts practice and related issues. It is attended by regional arts workers, practitioners, volunteers and arts administrators, and national policy and decision-makers. The growth of the conference has been staggering since its inception in 1998, growing from 250 in that year to 750 who attended this year.
We are looking to 1000 delegates for Alice Springs. The conference will spotlight Territory art practices with traditional and contemporary, young and old artists working side by side and sharing experiences and ideas. It will offer us the opportunity to show Australia what we do and how we do it. The conference will inject an estimated $2m into the Central Australian economy, with ongoing benefits to business, tourism, hospitality and employment for the region.
In 2008, the Territory will host the Cultural Ministers Council, bringing together Arts ministers from around Australia and New Zealand. It is my intention to time this meeting to coincide with a conference to focus the arts debate on regional issues and to encourage new partnerships across borders through Art at the Heart - a great way to celebrate 30 years of self-government for the Northern Territory.
In Mackay, regional art representatives from around Australia were treated to a rich presentation of Central Australian artists speaking with passion about their art and the influence of people and the environment on their work. This story was captured by local film makers Craig Mathewson and David Nixon through amazingly beautiful and haunting images and honest, intimate interviews with local artists.
Drum Drum followed with a powerful performance of traditional song and dance from Papua New Guinea and North Australia, reflecting the multiculturalism that is the Territory. Arts NT along with Music NT produced a compilation CD featuring original contemporary music from 10 Territory artists, with visual artist Bronwyn Wright providing a stunning cover image, Her Master’s Voice.
The CDs were giveaways at the 2006 conference to invite delegates to the Territory and to showcase the strength of the contemporary music sector in the Northern Territory. It will be a great event for Alice Springs and, indeed, for the Northern Territory. Madam Speaker, I table copies of From the Edge to the Heart DVD and the Art at the Heart CD so all members can experience the magic and promise of the 2008 Art At the Heart conference.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I welcome the report. First, I ask if the minister would update the House on any progress with the very important issue of authentication of indigenous art. I have raised this each time the minister has made comments on this very important area of indigenous art. We need to progress the central issue of the value of the art only being enhanced if we make sure that we have proper systems in place to ensure authentication. There are very innovative practices and proposals on the table. I am aware that the minister and this government have been asked to become involved in this, and that there is some work being done federally on this. Until we get that settled, we cannot realise the full potential that will flow back into indigenous families.
Second, I ask whether the minister is aware of an approach being made by a group of French investors in the art area with a connection to the medical field who want to establish a link with Royal Darwin Hospital. If you are aware of that, I am interested to hear what approaches have been made to the minister’s office.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arts and Museums): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Blain for his comments. In terms of authentication, there is a lot of work that has been done with both Desart and ANKAAA. The code of conduct has now been produced and circulated to all art centres, artists and anyone involved in the industry. The code of conduct has been widely received, driven by the industry and the sector - which is important - rather than by government.
There are discussions between the federal and the Northern Territory governments in terms of authentication. It is early days, but it is being worked through.
This will be good news for Alice Springs in 2008. It will bring an $8m boost. If we look at the Masters Games, which is estimated to be worth $6m to the Alice Springs economy, coupled with this $2m that could come in from this conference, that is an $8m boost in a matter of three weeks, so it is good for Alice. It is good for the artists and the economy.
I will get back to the member for Blain on the issue of authentication. There is work being done and we will follow that through.
Mr NATT (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I inform the House of a topic close to many people’s hearts: gold. Members may be aware that gold has been mined in the Territory since 1870 when the rich Pine Creek goldfields were discovered during construction of the Overland Telegraph. Today, gold is still mined in the Territory, particularly around Pine Creek and in the Tanami.
In 2005-06, the Territory produced 390 000 ounces of gold with a value of $271m, which is about 15% of the value of all mining in the Territory.
Companies searching for gold today can take advantage of some of the best pre-competitive geoscience information in the world provided by my department’s Northern Territory Geological Survey. This wealth of cutting edge information is available free as part of the Northern Territory’s major exploration and investment attraction program, Building the Territory’ Resource Base. This cutting edge geoscience, along with increases in the gold price, has broken the gold mining stagnation of the late 1990s and focused exploration into the most prospective areas of the Territory, and the results are significant.
Canadian listed company, GBS Gold Australia, has consolidated gold tenements in the Pine Creek region and has announced a global resource of 3.5 million ounces. The company has spent $10m on exploration in the region this year and has already opened two mines, Rising Tide and Brocks Creek. Last month, the first gold from these mines was poured at GBS Gold’s Union Reef Mill. The company is so confident of the future of this region that its exploration budget for the next five years is $34m. It is, moreover, considering reopening mines at Fountain Head, Cosmos Deep, Princess Louise, Chinese Howley and Maud Creek. This means jobs, wealth to the economy and a welcome return to boom times in the Pine Creek region.
Add to the GBS venture the exploits of Renison Consolidated Mines, which has recommenced mining at Tom’s Gully near Mt Bundy. Renison made its first gold pour on 23 August this year. In the old days, this would have been called a gold rush.
In the Tanami Desert, Newmont Australia, which runs one of Australia’s largest gold mines at Callie, is exploring deep underground extensions to the ore body. This has already led to the discovery of increased resources to the tune of 4.3 million ounces of gold.
Regional exploration in the Tanami has been revitalised by the recent Tanami Seismic Survey, which was partly funded by my department in a fine example of private-public sector cooperation. This survey has already generated many new exploration targets. Explorers in the Tanami like Tanami Gold and Ord River Resources can now take advantage of new data and apply new exploration models. This is the very essence of modern exploration.
Meanwhile, exploration for gold in the Tennant Creek region is being revisited by Adelaide Resources and West Gold Resources. These companies are themselves following new exploration models and are hopeful of positive results. Once again, the NTGS is there, and based on the strike rate of their information to date, I am sure we will soon be hearing more about Tennant Creek.
There are also totally new greenfield areas under exploration. In the Western Arunta region, at the Tekapo prospect site on Aboriginal land near Lake Mackay, Tanami Gold recently announced an exciting new gold discovery. This is to follow up the geophysical and mapping programs undertaken by the NTGS, which highlighted the prospectivity of this previously unexplored region.
Gold exploration holds the promise of considerable wealth and brings positive flow-on effects to the region and the entire Territory. The Arunta discoveries are particularly exciting as they occur in regions where gold was previously unknown. The Arunta discovery confirms that the Territory contains vast tracks of poorly explored land, awaiting new data, ideas and activity. The rewards are, potentially, very high and my department is assisting every step of the way. The assistance and information we are offering is really solid gold.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I rise in the absence of Mrs Miller, and I am sure she would join with me in congratulating the minister on his first ministerial report in his capacity as mining minister.
The minister and, indeed, his colleagues, will be aware that after the ministerial reshuffle that occurred at the end of the last sittings, there was a great deal of concern that the very important mining sector had been given to a junior minister. That concern continues. Why do I know that? Because people in the mining sector, pretty much from far and wide, continue to tell me. It goes pretty much around the Territory.
We have heard in this Chamber this minister’s predecessor say how vital the mining industry is to the Territory, what it represents to our Territory economy and so on. Yet, in what can only be described as a slap to the mining sector, the Chief Minister deigned to give this vital portfolio to a new bloke.
Wasn’t it a mistake? In the first couple of weeks, we saw the minister make a couple of mistakes. That leads, obviously, to the McArthur River Mine. He shot from the blocks and said words to the effect of: ‘Oh yes, bring it on, bring it on. McArthur River is vital to the Territory’. Then he got slapped, and he has been pretty much stumbling ever since, trying to be seen to be playing with a straight bat. I hope you have learnt from that experience, minister. It is not your fault that this important portfolio has been given to a junior minister. However, the industry expects a much better performance, minister. I hope you improve and, not to put too fine a point on it, you can do no worse than your predecessor.
Mr NATT (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, in reply, there are exciting times ahead in exploration. With metal prices high on the commodities market at the moment, many big international companies are currently investing in the Territory.
It is amazing that the Leader of the Opposition notes that I am a junior minister. That is in her eyes. I can assure the members of the opposition that I will be stepping into the big shoes filled by my predecessors, and I will be undertaking all endeavours to ensure the mining industry does prosper in the way that it is in the moment.
Reports noted.
Mr MILLS (Blain)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that separate questions be put for the second reading, the committee report stage and the third reading of the Medical Services Amendment Bill 2006 (Serial 70) and Criminal Reform Amendment Bill (No 2) 2006 (Serial 71).
The need for this motion is clear, I hope, to anyone who has taken the time to assess what is being asked in this bill. First, we have been presented, as a parliament, with a decision made by government to cognate two bills. The consistent argument, once inquiries were made, was that the bills only deal with technical matters. You may say that all you like, and even attempt to believe that it is only dealing with technicalities, but there are those in this House who hold a distinctly different view. I suspect that there will be members on the other side of this House, if provided the opportunity to reflect individually and freely on the questions at the heart of a proposition to deal with two bills in a cognate manner, who would have a different response. I could digress on that point. I will constrain myself because, as a member of parliament, I endeavour to be true to my own conscience, my own beliefs, to speak truly and pay heed to the way this parliament starts and conduct my business, in every respect, in accordance with certain principles.
I cannot accept that these two bills have sufficient in common to warrant them being cognate. The arguments by the minister when presenting the bills to the House were sparse. The reasons they were sparse is because there is an element of trust that operates in these matters. Generally, when a minister moves a motion that bills are cognate, it is because the changes relate to the same issue across bills. That is generally the case; that is the convention. Generally, ministers are not pulled up and expected to give explanations because members trust them to be honest about the need to have bills taken as cognate. Therefore, there is an element of trust. The reason for this is that, in some instances, several bills are affected by a changing law and it is pointless to have to bring two or more debates on the same issue. It is obvious there are times when a bill needs to be cognate with others because they all relate to the same matter.
Once again, I know the view of government, which is dissimilar, I suspect, from individual views. Another story is that these are bound together by a similarity in one very loose and, I would say, superficial sense. It relates to the Criminal Code. There is a similarity but, then, to take it to the next stage and say it is a mere technicality, it is a tidying up, and sweeping under the carpet important questions that are not permitted adequate expression in this Chamber, is immensely troubling.
Whether you like it or not, we deal with moral and ethical issues imbedded in this decision to cognate two bills. Moral and ethical issues may, if you are predisposed to do so, be swept aside and put into another category. Some do not have the so-called liberty to do that. To be true to our view as members to represent that which we deem to be important is compromised by the approach that has been taken by government.
Now we are using words such as ‘the government has decided’. There is a trap in that because no one is accountable. Government generally is. There are members of this Chamber who have made a decision of convenience to cognate two bills, and then perpetrate a line of argument that is satisfactory and convenient to sustaining a position. So, it is not a government position. Individuals, whether they are active or inactive, have given consent to this matter. It makes it immensely difficult to properly address issues that are dissimilar.
Now to the point of similarity and dissimilarity: that which is common at this point is that they both relate to the Criminal Code. They both belong to the Criminal Code at this point until we go through the debate in the Chamber, because matters in this cognate bill all relate to life, and they rest collectively on the fundamental principle of do not kill. The converse of that is affirmation and value of life. That is why they are together in the Criminal Code now. It is because that context, the value of life, is the fundamental. That is what it rests upon - a matter of convenience or inconvenience perhaps to be able to shift that. To use a term that has been bandied around a lot recently, I bring you back to an inconvenient truth, and that is that matters to do with the termination of a pregnancy relate to life.
Some may hold a completely different view. You use superior numbers and the collective view of members on the other side of the Chamber to have nodding assent to a position - and we have seen it happen throughout the course of history. There is no reference, encouragement, acknowledgement of ethical and moral considerations in this debate: ‘Let us keep it technical, let us keep it tidy, let us combine the palatable with the unpalatable and see if we can slip it through’.
It may be convenient to achieve a particular end, but it is inconvenient. It is wrong and I cannot abide by it. I call on all members to respect the deeper principles that give meaning to all that we do. We are dealing with the fundamental value of life. That is why I am at odds and have immense difficulty. The debate will continue at a later stage on aspects of this bill. There are parts of the bills that I can support because they are cognate. There are some aspects of the criminal reform proposals that are supportable. On the other hand, I have moral and ethical questions, which are completely different from the other propositions. These are issues that grip many families, mums and dads across our Territory, deeply, and to deny the opportunity for those two issues to be properly assessed and articulated in isolation is plainly wrong.
I urge members to permit us the dignity of at least talking about the two aspects of these bills because they reflect two different questions based, at this point, on a single principle: the value of life. That is what they have in common.
Life is fundamentally valued to the point that to remove a life is the worst possible crime that can be committed. Conventions of society have given rise, wrongly or rightly - that is a matter of debate - for acceptance in the minds of some that it is okay to terminate a pregnancy. Some hold that view with some comfort; some do not at all. To put these two things together is wrong. To mask it over is unconscionable.
Not to allow proper development of issues in the minds of the community by being a bit ambiguous about when this was going to be brought before the parliament - you will deny that, I am sure, but we see it from this side – means that the community has not really been aware of what this about. Yes, it is the responsibility of opposition to do so. We have done the best that we can. So have Independent members. Generally, when government wants to bring some grand reform, they pump a lot of energy into ensuring that the community is fully aware of what they are up to. This time it was quite different. It seemed to disappear beneath the surface. Aspects of it were amplified; other parts of it were hidden. The implications of this were obscured.
The same technique, this violation of a convention of parliament, was perpetrated in this very place by this same government, these individuals, when we had the gay law reform debate. The palatable and the unpalatable combined together and endeavoured to be passed through. Once again, that was unconscionable. There are members who reflect deeply on issues and like to think about issues from other perspectives and, yet, at that time, there was great and deep consternation from members who believe in liberty and freedom of expression, and the right and the dignity of being able to discuss issues properly, who were put in the undignified position of having to throw out and reject a bill that had very supportable elements because, embedded in it, in defiance of a convention, was a moral and ethical matter. Members in the ascendency with the greater numbers believed, though privately expressed some variance to the collective view, the same thing, conveniently, and through it went.
Great credit goes to members of the community who awakened at that point and put appropriate pressure on members of this Assembly to reflect more carefully about the decisions that we make.
We must reflect carefully on the decisions that we make because the purpose of our decision-making is not to manage it in the most clinical, technical and efficient ways so that you can slip through to the next election without troubling too many people so that we can be re-elected. Wrong, wrong, wrong. The decisions that we make here affect other people.
Consider other regimes and discussions that have occurred in other arenas of a similar nature. You can conveniently exempt yourself from the implications of your decisions. ‘Other people can do what they like, everything is relative. We are only parliamentarians, we have a part in process, other people have a different part in the process’. I do not believe that. I believe the decisions that I make have a direct effect, therefore, I have responsibility for the consequences of our decisions. As a moral and ethical position, it is practical. I cannot easily exempt myself from the effect of my decisions on other people. Therefore, when I consider that, what is being proposed contains a critical principle that should apply equally here as it does in the operating theatre.
In the Medical Services Amendment Bill, Clause 11(6) reads:
No person, in any operating theatre, should ever be put under pressure to do something that they conscientiously object to doing. If that applies in an operating theatre, it must apply here. It must! It emanates from here; this is the source. How can it be different here than it is in the operating theatre? It cannot be. It is wrong - it may be convenient, it may be technical, but it is wrong. It cannot occur and you will not be comfortable with it. To put these two bills together is wrong. You will not get away with it - politically, for a time, perhaps. You will not get away with it; it is wrong.
As a member, I am faced with a proposition. What do I do when the bills are cognate out of convenience? Do I ignore aspects that may benefit our community in one part of this debate at the expense of another issue that moves me deeply? It arises from my view of the value of life. That is why it is in the Criminal Code as far as I am concerned. There is an exemption, a legal assent given, under certain circumstances, where a termination can occur. It sits in the Criminal Code because it feeds that notion of the value of life. That question is dismissed, wiped away, by joining these bills, talking about technicalities, and putting it somewhere else in the same category as medical services, debt collection, movement of patients, tonsillectomies, etcetera. It is just a medical procedure for some. It is not!
The moment fathers learn the news that their wives are pregnant, changes them. You do not have a different view some time later. From that point on, magic occurs. That is my view. Practically anyone here would not be unmoved by that proposition.
A member of this Chamber said to me in the lift yesterday: ‘I am going to be a grandfather tomorrow’. I bet the moment he heard that his daughter or son and their family were going to have a child - from that moment it was confirmed - there was excitement. From that moment, there was excitement. Be honest. It is from that moment we know that there is a child: ‘Oh, it is a child; it is a life’.
When we have a condolence motion – for Steve Irwin, Peter Brock, Eddie Quong and others who are close to us - we spend so much time reflecting on the value and the quality of their life. We tell little stories about the funny and interesting things they did, the contribution they made, the influence they brought to bear upon other people. I wonder, at times like that, on almost every occasion, how is it that we wait until they have gone before we value their life? How is it that we wait until it is too late? It was mentioned in the condolence motion this morning. They have a story to tell, but for those, from my view, who have not yet been able to tell their story, from the moment we know that there is something magical happening, their story is yet to be told.
By joining the bills, calling it a technicality, providing a convenient mechanism by superior weight of numbers in this parliament where individual members, whatever they have done with the plausible arguments and whatever happens with group think, we are in a position today where, sadly, these words will be uttered in this Chamber, and I fear they will have little practical effect. Members will listen respectfully, they will see a man who is quite passionate about certain things speak, and probably give a couple of compliments over a meal: ‘Oh, that was really good. I liked that, but this is my view’. Fine. One begins to reflect on why one is here.
I will stay here and continue this because this message must be continued about the genuine reflection on our duty as members of this parliament; what it means to be a representative of our community. What is our real purpose in being here? It is not to use convention to bring bills together to achieve a technical, efficient and convenient end; that is, slipping something through so that you can then move on and tick a box.
Anyone who is a student of history should be able to hear echoes of other times and other places where such group thinking existed - matters of convenience, tidiness, put it aside, others make the decision; it was not me directly; I am not directly responsible. We are directly responsible because the decisions that we make in this Chamber affect others.
I ask members to consider the motion once again. I ask for this parliament - I am not asking government; I am asking members of this parliament - please, in the interests of recognising what lies at the heart of this, what some members may find offensive, in the interests of dignity, of considered and careful debate about life, you will permit this: separate questions be put for the second reading, the committee report stage, and the third reading of the Medical Services Amendment Bill. I urge members to consider this request. I only hope that I have made my point clear enough.
There are many ways to tackle a matter like this. I fear that the responses will be of a legal and technical nature and that will, perhaps, be seductive and persuasive in one sense. However, I ask members to remain alive to the idea that there are moral and ethical issues that sit underneath that have been covered. They can easily be covered. Our minds can play games because, if we change the terminology, if we add well constructed arguments that are plausible, we can easily become confused.
As in a legal arena, if there is any doubt, if there is any question, why not separate them so at least we can be true to ourselves as members who represent other people? Even if there is any doubt, why not go ahead and have the two questions, so that we will strengthen the dignity of our office as elected representatives?
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support everything the member for Blain said. He spoke from the heart and as a true parliamentarian. If I can speak as well as that, I would think I have done a good job. I accept the fact that doing a good job here may not win, which is the sad thing about all this.
The government knew, when it decided that these bills would be cognate, exactly what it was doing. The government is not stupid. It takes advice from various people and it consciously agrees or disagrees with that advice. That is what it has done in this case. It knew that there were two bills here that literally deal with life and death. How much more fundamental can you be with legislation in this House? The whole basis on which we are here is based on life and death. Nearly all our laws to some extent affect life and death. Yet, we have been treated with contempt as parliamentarians by the government deliberately putting two bills together, knowing that many of us could not support one section of one bill. We know that is about abortion.
Legalities, rules, party discipline are totally irrelevant at times. We cannot stand here oblivious to the fact that we are human beings, that we, as parliamentarians, have the power over that life and death, and to cover it up with legal arguments or party political rules, to me, is totally irrelevant.
When I leave this earth, I do not get extra points for belonging to the Labor Party or the CLP or being an Independent. I hope that someone judges me on what I do as a human being. Being in this House is just a passing phase of life. I was a chook farmer once. I am a politician now. I do not know what I will be in the future. Hopefully, with all the mistakes I make in life, I will try to do things better in each phase or my life. This is a new phase of my life during which I have an opportunity to support the fundamental principle that human life should be protected. I will be moving an amendment to the Criminal Reform Amendment Bill which says that a person is a person from the moment of conception until the moment of death because there is no way I can accept that a human life has a stage when it is not protected and a stage when it is protected. I will come to that when we come to the Criminal Code debate.
Returning to the issue of these bills being cognate, the government is saying that this is just a technical change. It is not just a technical change. On the Criminal Code side, you have a whole lot of clauses relating to manslaughter and murder. That does not relate to the Medical Services Act. The only thing that relates to Medical Services Act is that you said you will take the lawful part of the Criminal Code and put in the Medical Services Act. However, what you have done is put before us the very act of abortion. You have put before us the laws of this parliament that allow the termination of pregnancy. You have allowed us, as parliamentarians, the opportunity which has rarely come before this parliament, to give an opinion on whether you agree with the life and death matter that is abortion.
You cannot just look at this law and say: ‘It is only a technical thing’. It is not. You have the fully-fledged act of when you can allow termination of a pregnancy. You cannot avoid that. Here is an opportunity as a parliamentarian to say I agree or I disagree but, no, it is just a technical movement from one act to another. No, it is not. It has come before us as an act. Every section of that act, we can debate. This whole act, we can debate. The principles on which it is based, we can debate.
I cannot accept abortion. I do not accept abortion. I understand in a secular society other people have a different point of view, and I accept that. I am not asking people to take on what I believe, but I have the right as a parliamentarian to express those views, and that is what I want to do today. What saddens me the most is that we will not hear that from all 25 members of parliament today.
I do not mind if people disagree with me, or are vehemently opposed to my point of view, but I stand in this parliament believing that we represent the conscience, to some extent - whether it is different from mine or not is irrelevant - of the community. They want to hear what our elected members stand for. If I am not elected at the next election because people disagree with me, that is the business I am in. People would like to hear what you have to say on serious matters of life and death. Whether it is euthanasia, capital punishment or abortion, people would like to hear their elected representatives say what they believe.
Because the bills are cognate, it makes it extremely difficult. If I vote no for this section, I do not vote for the good sides of the other bill. If I vote yes to the Criminal Code amendment, I am voting yes for abortion. Why did the government do this? Because it wanted to put this through quickly and non-controversially. Why, for instance, has the media not taken up this issue? I wrote and e-mailed a letter to the NT News last Wednesday. It has not appeared in the paper. I put my point of view simply so people knew what it is. Surely, someone must have made a decision somewhere in the media - whether it was in the media out there or some influence on the media side of government - that said: ‘It is technical. Do not worry about the arguments’. They were convinced that there was no big deal about it. Therefore, we discuss the issues of criminal responsibility, manslaughter and murder. That is the bit that was the big ticket item, the headlines, not the abortion issue.
I find that very strange. As the member for Blain said, elsewhere in Australia when this issue has come up, it has created headlines, controversy, and debate, and surely that is what should happen, regardless of whether people get stuck into me about my views – that is irrelevant. People expect us to debate these serious issues properly, and this is improper use of parliamentary procedure. This makes it very difficult. The government should consider the member for Blain’s motion because it is a considered motion based on all things the member for Blain has said.
I ask the government: just for once, change your mind. Make these bills separate so that we can debate them separately. We can support the good side of the Criminal Reform Amendment Bill and, for those who wish in conscience to reject the Medical Services Amendment Bill, they can do that, too. However, to leave them together is an abuse of political process. It is a sell-out of the people of the Northern Territory who expect us to debate these serious issues properly, with dignity. The way these bills have been presented does not allow us to do that. I ask the government to please change its mind and support this motion. I certainly will be supporting this motion.
Debate suspended.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I do not have a lot to contribute to this debate, but there are some points I want to make fairly strongly. This motion is not one that government should not or could not support. All it is doing is allowing members who have strong opinions about one particular topic in these cognate bills to have a say and to vote on it in a way that they can allow their conscience to do so. By lumping them all together and having to vote as one, you are not giving them their democratic right of voting within this House. This is a House of debate. Sometimes, we have personal opinions, sometimes the opinions of our electorate but, most of all, we should be voting in the way that we feel we should. To put people at the disadvantage of having to vote for both these bills at the same time means that they may, in fact, be voting against something they believe in for the sake of their principles.
When we use suspension of standing orders to put two bills together, sometimes we do not realise exactly the implication of what we are doing. This process to have the bills debated together before this parliament has even seen them seems to undermine our democratic rights as members of parliament. Had we known what these bills were before the motion to suspend standing orders occurred, perhaps there could have been debate then and government may have realised that there was a lot of passion about them. The process of suspending standing orders denies us, as members of this House, to fully understand what the bills are.
You are, basically, putting the cart before the horse. You are saying to everyone here in this House: ‘Let us suspend standing orders and debate them as cognate even though you do not know what they are all about’. That is the process that we have followed a number of times and, for the most part, it does not really make any difference because the bills do fit. However, when they are as controversial as these are, it is something we should rethink. This has been normal procedure as long as I can remember being in this parliament, which is now 12 years. It has never been a big question, perhaps with the exception of one other bill which might have been the gay reform bill.
Perhaps it is time for us to rethink. In future, members will not be racing to support the suspension of standing orders on bills that they know nothing about. They have done it in good faith because it has been the procedure in the past, and because government has basically said: ‘This is a good thing’. Usually it is but, in bills such as these, the government has been either unaware or a little blind to what they are doing.
It was not until the second reading speech by the Attorney-General that members were given an idea of what they had agreed to. If they had known the implication of debating these bills together, perhaps the alarm bells would have rung. There is a problem with the process that we are undertaking in this House. I am not sure what happens in other parliaments but, obviously, we need to review it.
The process of debating these bills as one has raised the debate about abortion, which was not the original intent of the bills. By debating them as one, it has taken the focus off what they intended to do. In any debate on abortion, people have different ideas and views. I am one who agrees that changes should go into the Medical Services Bill. Do not get me wrong on that. It is the right place for the relevant clauses. However, I do respect other people’s points of view. It is unfortunate that some people will now vote against this motion and the bills because of their concerns on one aspect of the bills.
What has happened is a reflection of the control that is occurring in this parliament by the government exercising control over their members. It is also an indication of that control and the fact that the only person on the government side who seems to be going to speak to this motion is the Attorney-General. Does that mean no one else on the government side has an opinion on this matter? Are they always so silent? I am quite sure there are people on the government side who will look at this motion as simple and straightforward, and say: ‘Yes, okay. I agree with this. I agree to have separate questions at the second reading stage, at the committee stage, and a third reading on these bills separately’.
This motion is not a big deal. It is purely giving people the right to be able to vote on separate aspects of these two bills separately. I cannot believe that there is no one on the government side who, in their own conscience, would like to see this motion supported by government. However, I believe that the government will not allow their members to do that. I do not suppose the Attorney-General is going to agree to this motion. If he does, wow! We will take our hat off to you and, as the new Attorney-General, we will say: ‘Here is someone who is listening and has a lot of commonsense’. We will be listening to you, Attorney-General.
I support the motion, perhaps not for the same reason as the member for Blain who moved it, but because members of this parliament have a right to debate bills in a manner that gives the bills the best scrutiny. As members of this parliament, we have the right to debate bills in a way that allows us to consider all aspects of the bills. That has been denied. Government should be careful that they do not go down this line too often if they really wish to be considered sincere and transparent and fair. They have the numbers. It is not as though they cannot get their legislation through. They always will, but they should not lose sight of the fact that the members in this parliament have a role to play when legislation is introduced and debated.
As members of the parliament representing our electorates, we have the right to be able to debate things in a logical manner and we are being denied the right to vote on these bills separately. It is as simple as that. I say to government: think about it. This motion is not a big deal. If you do this, you will at least say to people out in the community that you understand and that you are prepared to allow people to vote separately. Doing that, you are still going to get your bills through; you have the numbers. It is not going to make any difference to the final result, but at least it will show people that you are listening and you are a fair government.
I intend to raise the issue of the procedure of moving a motion before members have had a chance to see the bills at the next Standing Orders Committee meeting. It is something we have to look at. Although I understand that once standing orders are suspended, anything can happen and anything can be moved, this will make members more cautious about agreeing in the future. I will ask the Clerk to advise of the process in other parliaments and I will ask the government to consider the implication of the motion and why they needed to make these bills cognate.
The member for Blain’s motion should be supported by the government. It will indicate their willingness to at least have an open vote on these two bills separately. By not allowing that, they are only increasing the passion and the strength of the debate on abortion, which these bills are not about. Abortion is legal; it is as simple as that. That is not what we are debating, but the issue has been confused by lumping these two bills together.
I am talking about process, Madam Speaker. It is time we thought about it. Previously, as you know, the first reading was read by the Clerk in parliaments long ago. We no longer do not that; the Clerk only reads the name of the bill. The way it stands is that we have agreed to debate these bills together as cognate without really understanding what they are about. That is my problem. The process has created the situation that it need not have.
This is not a difficult motion to support. It will allow those people who want to vote separately on these issues to do so. I know you will not allow a conscience vote, but at least you will understand that there are some people in this House passionate enough who want to vote separately on these bills. I ask you to consider it in light of the fact that it is good government, good governance, and open and honest, if you allow that. By not allowing it, you are basically saying again: ‘We do not care. We will do it our way. We have the numbers. So what?’
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I am surprised. I was hoping that the Attorney-General would respond to the motion of the member for Blain. I was looking forward to listening to his response before I got to my feet. Obviously, that is not going to be the case and, once again, the government, with its absolute majority, is ramming through legislation as it sees fit.
I support the comments made by the members for Blain, Nelson and Braitling. There is no need for me to repeat their words. The motion is quite clear; that we should break up these bills so that the House can freely debate both of them in the fullness of time.
I want to make some observations. When the member for Blain was speaking so passionately about his beliefs and the anger that he felt, the disappointment that he felt, with the government joining the bills, thus preventing clear and open debate, I was watching the faces of members across the Chamber.
The member for Blain raised the point of Medical Services Amendment Bill, and I will read it:
He read that and said that we, in this House, are the first step towards a law that allows abortion, but also a law that says that if you are a conscientious objector, you can refrain from participating. That was such a pertinent point and it affected members in the Chamber. I could see the emotions in their eyes …
Ms Lawrie: In your mind.
Dr LIM: I pick up the interjection from the member for Karama, ‘in my mind’. That is the problem. She has a position and that is fine. I accept that. People have a choice. It is their choice; I cannot stop them. I cannot tie them up; I cannot lock them up in a room. It is their choice. That is not the issue. The issue is there are people out there who would make the opposite choice and this government has refused to allow that. Not only have they refused to allow it, they need to think about the implications of the decision that there will be no conscience vote. Every member over there, whatever they believe, will now be a participant, whether they object conscientiously or not, in abortion. They will be a participant in the act of abortion because, once this law is passed with their assent, they are implicated in it. They are part of the whole process. That is what the member for Blain was driving at.
Members opposite cannot understand that whatever law is passed in this Chamber, they are part of the whole process. It is as though they consented, condoned and did the procedure themselves. That is what this clause in the bill states; that is what it is about. If you object to it, if you have a conscientious objection, you stay out of it.
Members in government cannot. If they can live with their conscience, that is their choice, that is fine. I am not here to judge them; I am saying let them be their own judges. If the government refuses to allow a conscience vote, they are locked in - 19 members of government, all locked in. I know the government is going to drive this through irrespective, as per the Chief Minister’s comment today at Question Time, that it is all a technicality. Chief Minister, if you are listening to this, it is not just a technicality. I will be raising those points later on when the bills come on for debate. It is not a technicality. There is more to it than that and, if the Chief Minister believes it is a pure technicality, then I sadly say she has been misled by her advisors, whoever they may be. Perhaps her advisors have a political agenda of their own, I do not know. The Chief Minister should read through the literature, abundantly available on the Internet and from the Parliamentary Library Service. They will be able to produce enough information for her to consider. You could consider that, as I said, in the fullness of time if the bills were not cognate.
I support the Criminal Code amendment bill. I thought they were very good amendments but, because it is cognate, I cannot support them - absolutely not - because I do not support the amendments to the Medical Services Act. Therefore, I seek the government’s cooperation. This is one time that you can get above it all and do the right thing. I look forward to hearing the Attorney-General’s comments and, while it is not possible for us in opposition to respond to him, his words will live in Hansard forever.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I will be brief. I have made it known that I will be voting in support of the legislation. I am proud that we have afforded ourselves a conscience vote. It is disappointing that the government has elected not to do so.
However, I want to make it clear that, even though I will be voting in support of this bill, I accept and respect the views of others and their desire to have the bills separated. Whilst I will be supporting the legislation, I believe in the principles enunciated by members who have spoken so far. Whilst my views in relation to the bill are different, I will be voting in support of the amendment. The views of the speakers who have spoken so far are not mine in relation to the bill itself; however, the principle of separating the bills is one I support.
Mr STIRLING (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, it is the government’s view that it is entirely appropriate that these bills be considered and debated as cognate bills. The bills deal, at least in big measure, with the same subject matter in relation to the repeal and transfer of the lawful termination provisions. There is no substantive policy or legal change in this Medical Services Amendment Bill. This is a technical, but essential, component of a wider Criminal Code reform, and is directly connected with reform of this division. There is, of course - and this may be the origins for the mover of the motion - the risk that if you dealt with the bills separately and the Criminal Code reform was to pass and the Medical Services Amendment fail, provisions dealing with lawful terminations disappear from the Territory statute.
If that is the motivation behind the move for this motion, be honest and say that. The member for Nelson did, and I respect him for his views. I disagree with his views, but he has every right to stand here and say it as he sees it. He did, unlike other members in support of this motion who wishy-washied around the issue of abortion without stating clearly whether they support it or not. I understand. I can recall being in opposition in years past on similar provisions with other items of legislation where you might have wanted to vote for a substantive part of the bill, but there was something in there that you could not support, so you did not support the bill. However, it is proper legislative process that bills of this nature, which are so closely interrelated, need to be dealt with at once and passed together.
I want to quickly go across some of the comments made in the debate. The member for Blain talked about an element of trust, as if my predecessor, the previous Attorney-General, and I were attempting to mislead parliament in some way. Nothing could be further from the truth. These bills have had the same process that bills always have: a second reading into parliament, and out there for the world to see.
If you accept at heart that the amendments and the transfer of the lawful termination provisions do not go to the central issue of abortion itself, then the question of having to separate the passage of these bills does not arise; that is, if you accept that the law on abortion as it stands is basically sound, the question of having to separate these bills does not arise. If you are totally opposed to abortion, as the member for Nelson is, then I can recognise and see a difficulty for a member who may want to support the other Criminal Code amendments, but not the aspects around the transfer of the abortion provisions from one item of legislation to another. That, in itself, is a deceitful approach and an abuse of parliamentary procedure in the way that I was alleged to have abused parliamentary procedure by the member for Braitling. You have to accept that the question of abortion - legal or illegal, yes or no - is not the issue here today. It is not the subject of debate here today. They do not substantially change either the policy or the law.
Support for the Criminal Code reform and defeat of the Medical Services Act in a separate handling process, as the member suggests, would, of course, just leave the legal provisions around abortion in the NT in a very uncertain state. The proper process for a member who has a difficulty like this, who cannot live with these provisions, is to bring into this House a private member’s bill as Marshall Perron did in 1995, or even earlier, around euthanasia; as Kevin Andrews did in the federal parliament with the counter bill killing off the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act. That is the process. If you are so opposed to abortion that you do not think it should be on the statute books, you have every right, as a member of this parliament to introduce a private member’s bill …
Mrs Braham: It is members’ rights to debate and vote according to the way they want to.
Mr STIRLING: Well, the member for Nelson said he wanted to hear the views of every member of this House. If he wants that full debate, he introduces, as he has every right to do, a private member’s bill to outlaw abortion in the Northern Territory. To use this debate and these amendments to overturn the legal provisions around abortion is entirely inappropriate. To try to distort the relevance of these amendments as a question on abortion itself is equally inappropriate.
What this bill does is transfer the lawful termination provisions from the Criminal Code to the Medical Services Act. It changes the requirement for gynaecologists or obstetricians to carry out the procedure as required in the 0 to 14-week category to one where it may be carried out by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner - not just a medical practitioner as referred to today - and at least one of the authorising medical practitioners be a gynaecologist or an obstetrician where that is practicable to achieve.
The member for Braitling talked about a loss of parliamentary democracy of the right of members to exercise their democratic rights with the cognate handling of these bills. Every member has the opportunity to exercise their democratic right to vote for or against every one of these amendments in the committee stages of the debate. That is the opportunity. That is the proper opportunity for members to put their views, to move their own amendments, to change the amendments that are on the table today. Indeed, members have that right and that is the proper process in the committee stage of debate: discuss and put your views to support or against each of the amendments and, indeed, put your own.
There is no loss of right. There is no loss of democratic practice or procedure. There is absolutely no loss of rights of members in dealing with these bills in a cognate fashion. Where bills are closely related, as these two are, it is the normal and appropriate means of handling them. The same level of scrutiny applies to these bills as, indeed, any bill - and perhaps a little more given the sensitive nature of them.
The member for Braitling also stated that this side of the House disallowed a conscience vote for our members. That is simply not true. In fact, if the question was about abortion, yes or no, then Labor Party rules applying across Australia clearly specify a conscience vote. There can be no tying of Labor members in parliament around the question of abortion itself. However, members on this side of the parliament clearly recognise that this is not a question about the central issue of abortion being right or wrong, but amendments that by and large retain the status quo around abortion on our books as it has been for many years.
Even then, had one member - just one member - expressed enough disquiet or discomfort in relation to this to say: ‘Perhaps there ought to be a conscience vote’, I have no doubt at all that it would have been discussed by the caucus, by the party room, and a conscience vote would have been allowed.
However, to say that we have disallowed it or have stood on our members or whatever is simply not true. Each member of caucus has had an opportunity to put their view and, if there was a level of discomfort such that their conscience would not have allowed them to support the nature of these amendments, they had every right to do that. I daresay discussion would have followed and a conscience vote allowed.
It is a simple matter of following the process of the passage of these bills through all normal stages, as any legislation proceeds through here. Second readings go down, members declare their views during the second reading stage, then we go into committee. There are a number of amendments that have been circulated by members. They are dealt with, including the committee stage amendment from this side, and members make up their mind to support or not support those amendments as they come up one by one. Then, of course, is the decision to support or oppose the bill as a whole at the end of that process. I look forward to that debate.
The government does not see the need for these bills to be separated. There are many occasions on which bills are cognate because you are dealing with a principal act and an amendment. That flows to other legislation and every other item of legislation that is affected by the change that you are seeking to effect in the primary legislation, necessarily, makes those other bills cognate. I have done this as minister for Education many times, as have each of the ministers in here. In fact, it is more often the case that if you are amending one item of legislation, there are implications for others and they become cognate. More the case here, in fact, where it is the same subject matter in relation to the repeal and transfer of lawful termination provisions.
Madam Speaker, we will not be supporting the motion.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I have little more to add nor the energy to do so. However, one simple matter has been carefully overlooked: the nature of the debate relating to medical services is the principal question as to whether, in fact, the transfer of that which is legal in a Criminal Code to another code.
It is the underpinnings of that very decision that are not permitted to be investigated, valued, respected, and it is that matter that was not responded to by the only speaker from government. It shows a disregard for the sensitivity of this matter, which I find distressing. If the minister who spoke, representing the collective voice of government, is of the view that there are wishy-washy members over here and there is only one who values life to the point and finds it greatly discomforting to move the termination of a pregnancy from the criminal context - which is couched in terms that values life - then I am another. I simply cannot comfortably sit with that convenient and tidy decision of government with no consideration of the deeper underpinnings of that decision.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 5 Noes 17
Mrs Braham Ms Anderson
Ms Carney Mr Bonson
Dr Lim Mr Burke
Mr Mills Dr Burns
Mr Wood Mr Hampton
Mr Henderson
Mr Kiely
Mr Knight
Ms Lawrie
Ms Martin
Ms McCarthy
Mr Natt
Ms Sacilotto
Ms Scrymgour
Mr Stirling
Mr Vatskalis
Mr Warren
Motion negatived.
Continued from 31 August 2006.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I propose to deal with the parts of these bills relating to termination of pregencies which move the provisions as they currently exist in the Criminal Code to the Medical Services Act.
The opposition, unlike the government, has elected to have a conscience vote on this issue. Accordingly I, like my colleagues, will vote with my conscience. Unlike Labor members, Territorians will hear from each of us and know what our views are with respect to these changes. Like the age of consent legislation in the last term, Labor has not allowed its members a conscience vote. Instead, Labor members are all taken to agree to these changes. I do not know for certain what their views are, but I encourage people in the Northern Territory to ask them.
In any case, the opposition acknowledges that there is a divergence of views on this issue and, in modern Australian politics, issues such as termination of pregencies ought properly be a matter for the individual conscience of members of parliament. For my own part, I have no difficulty with the changes proposed. I note the second reading speech of the former Attorney-General and the public comments of the new Attorney-General.
I am not troubled by these amendments. In my view, the nature of the amendments does not require a debate about the threshold issue of abortion, or whether one is pro-choice or pro-life, although I know that there are some who have a contrary view, and I respect their right.
I note that the government has received advice from senior clinicians requesting this change. Put simply, I do not want to see a situation where women who want or require terminations need to get on a plane and head south. This is not the Northern Territory that I want to live in. I am supportive of the removal of the historical anomaly of a non-criminal matter being located in the Criminal Code. It is, in my view, appropriate.
May I take this opportunity of thanking those Territorians who took the time to write to me expressing their views on this matter. I know that I will please some and disappoint others. I have voted with my conscience before in this Chamber, and I am proud to do so again today. It is a shame that members opposite are prevented from doing so.
Having dealt with that part of the bills, I move to other parts of the proposed legislation. I propose to deal with the other parts of the changes in considerably more detail. There is so much to say and, in some respects, it is difficult to know where to begin. The obvious place is to address what I consider to be the government spin that has hijacked considered debate about the changes dealing with murder, manslaughter and defences. While some of the changes are laudable, for the most part the changes proposed have been lost in the spin machine which has become the hallmark of this government.
The Attorney-General has said that there has been widespread consultation about these changes, or that he imagines that there has been. There has not been, because the President of the Criminal Lawyers Association said when he was interviewed recently that: ‘real consultation – it did not exist’.
It is important for me to put on the Parliamentary Record that this government has disgracefully pedalled a line that somehow, murderers have been getting away with murder, and these changes will fix this. That is arrant nonsense. I ask: does the government seriously expect us to believe that for the last five years, Cabinet ministers have been sitting idly by and watching murderers get away with murder; but only after five years this government has decided to act? I think not. If this bill is really about stopping the huge number of murderers getting away with it, then any responsible government must surely have acted, or would have acted, before now.
In the Attorney-General’s media release of 2 October, he said:
It is absurd, as it is laughable. Does the Attorney-General, who has been Deputy Chief Minister since Labor came to office, seriously assert that in the last five years offenders have not faced the full arm of the law? That is, in essence, what he is saying. It follows, therefore, that we and other Territorians are compelled to ask: why on earth has not government acted until now? If this was the situation over the last five years - that murderers were getting away with it – then, presumably, that was the case under the CLP. Accordingly, we ask: why was not that the first thing Labor addressed when it came to office? Surely, if offenders were not facing the full arm of the law, any responsible government would have acted immediately. The government did not act immediately because it is not true to assert that offenders were not facing the full arm of the law in the last five years, or that in the last five years, murderers were getting away with it.
These changes are spun along the lines that they will increase the conviction rate for murder. No, they will not, and there are many reasons for that. The conviction rate for murder in the Territory has been surprisingly low for many years. In some cases, the reason for that is that offenders elect to plead guilty to manslaughter rather than chance their arm at copping a life sentence. The debate about the different sentencing dispositions that follow convictions for murder and manslaughter are best left for another time, but it is dishonest to spin these changes as somehow being a response or, indeed, an answer to low murder conviction rates.
Lawyers know that this is the case. Department of Justice personnel must know this is the case. Surely, the minister’s advisors know that this is the case. Yet, these changes are somehow pitched to represent that the answer to the Territory’s low conviction rate for murder will be found in this legislation. They will not. Territorians should not swallow the hook, even if certain media organisations or journalists have chosen to do so.
I would like to deal with the defence of provocation. Much has been made of the changes to the defence of provocation. The first point to note is that this government has relied heavily on the change to the ordinary person test, and how a person’s ethnic or cultural background can no longer be relied upon. I was very interested to see the use of this language by the government. Much of it mirrored the language that I and others have used when arguing for the removal of customary law by the courts in sentencing. In fact, much of the language was the same. I have said that cultural factors in relation to customary law are not an excuse, and that it is unreasonable for violent Aboriginal men to rely on it when seeking to mitigate their sentences. It shows how opportunistic this government is. They do not want a bar of the sort of language that is associated with the arguments made by me and others when debating the removal of customary law, yet they use the same or extremely similar language for their own political ends and use it mischievously in the context of provocation. I note that this has not received much, if any, media comment.
I would like to spend some time talking about the defences of provocation and diminished responsibility which are retained, despite contrary recommendations of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General and their abolition in other jurisdictions. Before doing so, however, I remind members of the government that they, through their former Attorney-General, have consistently made comments that support the implementation of a national Model Criminal Code. So often when law reform has been undertaken, this government has said: ‘This is part of a national Model Criminal Code and it is a good thing’ or ‘We are supportive of a national Model Criminal Code’.
In answer to a question from me in the committee stages of a bill at the last sittings, the then Attorney-General lauded the fact that the government had introduced Chapter 2 provisions of the national Model Criminal Code. I refer members to his comments in answer to my questions on 22 August. He said that all jurisdictions were considering ‘harmonisation of the national Criminal Code’. He went on to say and I quote:
In 1998, the Model Criminal Code Committee recommended the removal of the partial defence of provocation. Since then, however, there has been a review undertaken by the Victorian Law Reform Commission that recommends the abolition of the defence of provocation in its entirety. I note that in this bill, it changes it from a partial defence, but the Law Reform Commission of Victoria suggests that it be abolished in its entirety.
What is concerning is that there was really no explanation as to why government has not done so other than a relatively short statement made in the second reading speech by the former Attorney-General, where he said and I quote:
That is, the defences of provocation and diminished responsibility:
That is not, with respect, a satisfactory explanation, particularly when one looks at the great research undertaken in the report of the Victorian Law Reform Commission, and I will come back to that.
It was a somewhat mischievous comment because murder attracts a mandatory life sentence, but a defence is a defence. The government has, in my view, very deliberately and subtly mixed up the language and the message. Put simply, they have mixed up sentencing with a defence. Other jurisdictions do not have a mandatory life sentence for murder, but they do attract maximum life sentences.
I am well aware that the comments that I have made so far and, in particular, the comments that I am about to make when I extract what I consider to be a very important recommendations from the Victorian Law Reform Commission report are of no media interest, or very little media interest. I also appreciate the fact that there would be relatively few people in the Chamber who would understand the issues. I do not mean that to sound discourteous, but I know these issues are not commonly understood by members of parliament or, indeed, many people in the Northern Territory. That is because they are, essentially, legal issues.
However, as a lawyer I am compelled to put my case, as it were, on the Parliamentary Record. Whilst the matters that I have referred to so far - and will refer to shortly - are legal issues, it is also a political issue. It is important for me to put my comments into a political context, and that is very easy to do. Put simply, the government has fallen short. The government has lacked the courage to remove the defences of provocation and diminished responsibility. What, members may ask, does this mean? It means that the government is spinning in a most duplicitous way, and spinning its reasons for not abolishing the defence of provocation. Why? Because to do so would be to incur the wrath of criminal lawyers. Why? Because to remove this defence, particularly provocation, would make it harder for murderers to be acquitted. That is why. In other words, this government would prefer to distort the truth, and that I regard as scandalous.
I need to outline why the defence of provocation should not be retained. I should say that these arguments are not mine, although I agree with them. The arguments to support the abolition of the defence of provocation come from others. It is referred to throughout in Chapter 5 of the Model Criminal Code 1988 but also, and interestingly, most recently in the work done by the Victorian Law Reform Commission, commencing in about November 2003 until 2004, the effects of which I understand were seen in Victoria with the abolition of the defence in 2005.
The arguments to remove provocation are persuasive and have particular application in the Northern Territory. There has been a great deal of work done in this area, but I will briefly outline some of the arguments in support of its abolition. In a nutshell, it is recommended that the defence of provocation should be abolished, and I quote from page 55 of the Victorian Law Reform Commission’s Defences to Homicide Options Paper. There are a series of bullet points under Arguments Against Provocation:
provocation is gender biased;
provocation is homophobic;
the defence is conceptually uncertain and lacks clarity;
provocation is an anachronism; and
provocation is open to easy fabrication.
I support the arguments put by the Victorian Law Reform Commission and others in support of each and every one of those points. I do not propose to go through all of the objections to the defence of provocation or, indeed, diminished responsibility. However, in relation to provocation, there are some particularly compelling arguments from that list that favour the abolition of it.
The gender bias issue is one of particular interest and application in the Northern Territory, given the high rate of male on female violence. I want to read some particularly germane aspects from the Victorian Law Reform Commission Options Paper, which says at page 56:
It goes on:
On page 57, the authors go on to say:
In the event that anyone is interested in pursuing that aspect further, I commend to them an article by Jenny Morgan from the same university as I. The title is moving and compelling. It is called Provocation Law and Facts: Dead Women tell no Tales, Tales are Told About Them, (1997) 21 Melbourne University Law Review 237.
I do not propose to quote extensively for much longer, but this final quotation in relation to provocation is also of great interest and importance as to why it is that the defence provocation should be removed. At page 60 of the report, the authors say:
I commend this report to anyone who has an interest. If a case has not already been made that one of the many reasons for why the defence of provocation should be abolished because of its gender bias, then the arguments are strong and they are certainly there. I would be grateful if, in his reply, the Attorney-General would advise, in the deliberations of him and his predecessor and the department, whether regard was had to the Victorian Law Reform Commission report, and if he would be good enough to advise why it was that, notwithstanding what I regard as compelling arguments as to why the defence should be abolished, government did not share that view.
I said earlier that Victoria has now got rid of provocation. I say again that, given the very high numbers of male on female violence in the Northern Territory, I ask whether government might be minded to go down this path in the future in any event.
I also ask what level of research has been undertaken in relation to the defence of provocation. I ask, in particular, whether the Domestic and Family Violence Advisory Council established by government has been asked to consider this bill and, if not, why not? Going to the heart of this issue is: might they not have some views on this matter? I am sure they would, and I am sure that other women’s groups in the Northern Territory would have views as well, so I ask whether these groups were encouraged to contribute to the bill that we have before us.
Another argument in support of the abolition of provocation is that provocation is homophobic, something that I would have thought would have been an issue of concern to this government, given its changes to the age of consent laws in the last parliamentary term. In this regard, I quote from the Victorian Law Reform Commission report as follows, at page 66:
It goes on over pages 66 and 67:
As I said when I went through the reasons why provocation should abolished, there were seven bullet points. I will go through them again:
provocation is gender biased;
I have touched upon that, although not at great length:
provocation is homophobic;
provocation is an anachronism; and
provocation is open to easy fabrication.
I have simply selected two of those seven very significant objections to retaining the defence of provocation. I did so, I guess, because it is no secret, I do not believe, that this government has courted women’s groups and gay groups, in Darwin in particular, and I guess to a lesser extent in Alice Springs. The question is one of consistency. If a government that courts, among others, those two groups is not persuaded by two of these quite powerful objections to retaining the defence of provocation, I would like to know why. I am sure those groups - both women’s groups and gay groups - would like to know why as well. I am hopeful that, in his reply, the Attorney-General will provide me and others with a comment. I have, however, simply highlighted just a couple of those six or seven points.
The lack of consultation has been disturbing. One wonders whether women’s groups and gay groups have been consulted. Perhaps the Attorney-General could comment on that as well. It certainly does not appear, from my inquiries, that those groups have been encouraged to do so or, indeed, the Women Lawyers Association of the Northern Territory.
Victoria has abolished the defence of provocation and I understand that some other jurisdictions are moving to do so as well. Similarly, in relation to the defence of diminished responsibility, I think it is suggested in the Model Criminal Code that it be abolished. I believe only two jurisdictions in this country, Western Australia and Tasmania, retain those defences. We should ask why they do, but this government is electing not to, given our very high murder rates and our very low conviction rates.
Mr Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, if this government is serious about the Model Criminal Code - and they have certainly always said they are - why have they retained these defences? Why have not they gone further to remove these defences, and what has been the extent of consultation?
Whilst I accept that this government embarks on political spin, I do not believe that it makes for good law or good policy, nor does it, in my view, represent a considered approach to true law reform. I hope that the Attorney-General takes my comments in relation to the substantive matters regarding the defences of provocation and diminished responsibility in the spirit in which I bring them. I am sure he will appreciate that those issues are regarded by me as very serious.
Having said that, I support the bill because, as I said, some of the other changes - and of course I have just highlighted these defences but there are other changes as well - are laudable and supportable. However, I do ask the Attorney-General to give me a response to the matters I have raised. With those comments, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have nothing to add and I look forward to hearing from other members.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, I feel compelled to contribute to this debate. In the first instance, I said earlier and I say again: running these bills as cognate is wrong. It prevents open debate over what is at the very core of our society’s belief system. There are two bills to be debated on two very significant matters which this government has chosen to cognate, thus reducing time to consider issues that go to the very heart of our society: law and order, sanctions for murder, and abortion. I know I will not have time for both or to do either justice. Others on this side of the House will speak on the Criminal Code Amendment Bill. I will concentrate on the Medical Services Amendment Bill.
I note, however, that the Chief Minister is not leading nor contributing to this debate on which her government has chosen to embark; a journey that is fraught with danger to the very social fabric of the Northern Territory. The irony of it all is that the media has swallowed the line the Chief Minister put today; that it is a mere technicality. The bills were introduced some six weeks ago. Until a couple of days ago, we heard nothing about the issue from the media. If this issue were in parliament in any other jurisdiction in Australia, it would feature in the newspapers and the electronic media of that jurisdiction on several occasions. One needs to ask the question: why has this been so? One needs to ask if this has been a well orchestrated media manipulation by the Northern Territory government through its well-resourced media unit in the Office of the Chief Minister. If this were so, why did it need manipulation?
I thank the people who have written, e-mailed and spoken to me. I thank the people who have given me advice. At the outset, let me say that I am opposed to abortion and, therefore, I am opposed to the cognate bills. Abortion is not something that I would choose for myself or for my family, but I am pragmatic enough to know that there will always be people who will choose to have an abortion for whatever reasons they may have. As a medical practitioner of over 30 years, I speak today from a position of having been personally involved. I am not speaking from a theoretical basis. I have lost count of the number of terminations of pregnancies that I have personally performed. I hasten to add that I mistakenly said that I performed hundreds to a question from the media today. In my haste, my response was wrong. I lost count, but it was more likely to be in hundred-plus than the hundreds, meaning more than 200. Anyway, I will no longer perform them.
While I no longer support abortion, I also recognise that we cannot make all terminations of pregnancy illegal. This will only prevent abortions from being performed in a lawful and medically controlled environment. I could never support a return to the days of illegal and non-medical back-yard abortions. For that, I support the government for keeping legislation governing unlawful abortions in the Criminal Code Act so that these unconscionable practioners can be prosecuted to the letter of the law.
Let me go to the former Attorney-General’s second reading speech when he argued that the Northern Territory should remove the requirement for an obstetrician gynaecologist to perform an abortion so that we are consistent with other jurisdictions. The spokesperson on women’s issues of the Australian Medical Association of the Northern Territory repeated the same position on radio this morning. The advisor in the briefing I had in the Attorney-General’s office declared only the Northern Territory requires an obstetrician/gynaecologist to perform the procedure. That is not true, is it? It is not true because Tasmania still requires a specialist obstetrician/gynaecologist to perform the procedure. The officer’s concern as expressed at the briefing was that if this legislation does not go through, the whole service at the Royal Darwin Hospital will collapse. Why will it collapse?
The officer said that fewer and fewer obstetrician/gynaecologists are doing terminations of pregnancies and his estimate was four in Australia. I do not know if that four in Australia is correct. I wonder whether he meant the Northern Territory. The question he needs to ask himself, the Chief Minister to ask of herself and her government of itself, is: why are there fewer and fewer specialist obstetrician/gynaecologists doing terminations? Perhaps there is a message in this.
The former Attorney-General then went on to demand that the removal of lawful abortion laws from the Criminal Code, even though every jurisdiction in Australia, with the exception of the ACT, has retained them. The former Attorney-General, the government and the AMA spokesperson cannot have it both ways. If they pleaded consistency with other jurisdictions, the Northern Territory should comply on both counts. That is, removing the requirement for a specialist obstetrician/gynaecologist and keeping it in the Criminal Code.
The former Attorney-General also asserted that abortion in the Criminal Code Act is an historical anomaly of a non-criminal matter being located in the Criminal Code, and so said the Leader of the Opposition. Abortion is unlawful in the Territory, except insofar as it is carried out under strict conditions. The point about it being in the Criminal Code is that the community still regards abortion, at best, as a necessary evil under certain circumstances. The Attorney-General gave no reason for his assertion that it is an historical anomaly. He spoke as though abortion, in general, is regarded as a totally acceptable medical procedure like any other procedure. Well, it is not. It involves the killing of a human foetus, which many in the community still see as immoral and wishes were unlawful.
Australians believe there are too many abortions and want the numbers reduced by non-coercive means. A qualitative study by Adelaide-based Sexton Marketing Group undertaken across the nation found that while choice was paramount, some 64% to 73% of those interviewed believed that the abortion rate of over 90 000 per year across the nation was too high. They regarded abortion as immoral in nearly all situations and would prefer women chose differently.
The location of abortion in the Criminal Code significantly reminds us - including the medical profession and politicians - that abortion is, at best, a necessary evil and ought only to be performed after fully informed consent, and only after a woman has been properly and expertly counselled on all of the alternatives. For those doctors who are performing abortions lawfully, it is also important to have in their minds that the operation is not just a another surgical procedure, but a procedure that will terminate a potential life if done before 20 weeks of pregnancy, and a survivable life if done after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Therefore, let us not trivialise abortion; it is not a medical procedure like any other. Other medical procedures do not involve terminating a potential human life. The specific and peculiar aspect of abortion - and particularly when a doctor engages in medical misbehaviour such as the Sood case - means that the supervision of the criminal law and the stigma which a criminal conviction carries with it, is necessary for the protection of women, of the public’s sensitivities on this matter, and of the common good.
As I said, the present Attorney-General, the Deputy Chief Minister, said to the media that the amendments are necessary to ease the workload of the only obstetrician gynaecologist who is performing the procedure at Royal Darwin Hospital. That confused me. Is this legislation for the common good of Northern Territorians, or is it about medical manpower and the obstetrician/gynaecologist at the Royal Darwin Hospital? Are we making this law for one particular doctor? If we are, it is a tragic way to deal with legislation.
I will give members a few examples of patients who, through their requests for abortions, have caused major ethical conflicts for their doctors. However, before I do, let me observe that the number of terminations of pregnancy among indigenous women and girls has gone through the roof. Ten or 15 years ago, there were few. It was not something within their culture, I suggest to you. We are now told that some 25% of pre-14-week abortions in the Northern Territory are performed on Aboriginal women and girls. Cultures may change, and I would expect them to do that, but I cannot accept that such a radical change has taken place in so short a time. It begs the question: are abortions being offered to patients when seen at medical centres and health clinics as early choices? For instance, when a girl or woman is confirmed to be pregnant, are they offered an abortion as the first option, or does the health professional keep his or her comments open ended and allow the patient to initiate the request? These are the many issues that need to be considered.
I will now give some examples of patients approaching doctors for abortion. For instance, a young woman in her mid-20s who consulted the same doctor on three separate occasions, each time seeking the termination of a pregnancy, using the procedure as a form of contraception because she chose not to use any other form of contraception. She made a choice, but where was her responsibility to herself and to her pregnancies? What dilemma did she cause the medical practitioner?
Another example: there is a couple who had three consecutive miscarriages, who tried and tried to have their first baby with no success. Finally, a decision was made to investigate the couple to find out whether there were any causes for their failure to have a thriving pregnancy. The woman was found to be absolutely normal and, while waiting for the results on her spouse, the young couple proceeded to adopt a baby, and they were successful in that. While still waiting for the results, just after the adoption, the woman fell pregnant for the fourth time. The results then returned that the husband, unfortunately, had a genetic abnormality which, if passed through to the baby, would have a risk of one in four chances of abnormalities to the heart, lungs, kidneys and brain. A decision was made to do an amniocentesis to find out if the baby was affected knowing that the husband, while having abnormal genes, to all intents and purposes was perfectly normal. The genetic studies came back and, yes, the baby was carrying the same genes as the father. No technology could tell us then that the baby was going to be normal or abnormal. The couple chose to proceed with the pregnancy. A perfectly normal baby was delivered. That was a happy ending.
The third story is of a young woman who was a midwife and fell pregnant for the first time in her mid-30s. Being a midwife, you would expect that she would understand the potential complications of a termination of pregnancy for a woman of her age whose biological clock was ticking away. Her spouse demanded that she have a termination of pregnancy. She saw the doctor, who counselled against the termination, but she was trapped in the situation where her spouse demanded it. On the next visit, the patient brought her spouse along and they had further discussion with the doctor to see whether they could work through this situation. She wanted the baby, you could see that, but the husband was determined not to proceed. When the question was posed to the couple ‘Could this marriage not be strong enough to support a baby?’, the husband, in front of his wife, said: ‘No, it cannot’. Imagine the pain and the hurt for the woman.
Anyway, the couple left the doctor’s surgery and went home to discuss the matter further. The patient presented for the third time, still within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, to say she needed to have the termination; there was no option and she had no choice. The doctor agreed to perform the termination, and then lost touch with the patient. You just wonder whether the marriage would have lasted anyway. You wonder whether, if the nurse had the baby, today she would be better off with a child of her own that she would love than a husband who had spurned her and, largely, that the marriage did not last anyway. However, she lost the baby because she went through an abortion.
Finally, a woman who suffered serious autoimmune disease - that is disease of the soft tissue of the body as though one were allergic to oneself - which flared up into a major life-threatening illness when she was pregnant for the first time. Fortunately, she was able to progress with the pregnancy and the baby was delivered - a healthy strapping young boy - and she recovered from the illness. She and her spouse then consulted me on the possibilities of having another baby and the risk that it would pose for her and the baby. Knowing the history and complications that she had with her first pregnancy and delivery, I counselled against it; that they should not consider another pregnancy as the risk would be too great and her life would be at great risk. Unfortunately, soon after, the couple discovered they were pregnant. I do not know whether it was planned or it was accidental, but she was pregnant. They chose to continue the pregnancy and have the baby rather than having a life-saving abortion. The baby was born fit and healthy. The baby is now completing her senior school studies and, with good results, we will see her heading to university next year. I know this child, this young woman, personally. Unfortunately, her mother died at childbirth.
Let us look at the foetus in a normal pregnancy. Let us go through that step by step. At 12 weeks of pregnancy, the foetus, weighing about 14 gm, is fully formed. It has all its organs, muscles, limbs and bones, and sex organs are well developed. From now on, all he has to do is to grow and mature. The baby is already moving about, but the movement cannot yet be felt. By about 14 weeks, the heartbeat is strong and can be heard using an ultrasound detector. At 14 weeks, the baby is about 8.5 mm long from head to rump. The pregnancy may just now be starting to show. The baby is now growing quickly; the body grows bigger so that the head and body are more in proportion and the baby does not look so top heavy. The face begins to look much more human and the hair is beginning to grow as well as eyebrows and eyelashes. The eyelids stay closed over the eyes. The lines on the skin of the fingers are now formed so the baby already has its own individual fingerprint. Fingers and toenails are growing and the baby has a firm handgrip.
At about 16 to 22 weeks, a woman may feel her baby move for the first time. If this was the second pregnancy, baby movements may be felt earlier. First is a sensation of fluttering and bubbling, or a very slight shifting movement, maybe a bit like indigestion. I describe it to my patients as butterfly flutters touching the insides of their tummy. At 22 weeks, the baby weighs about 430 gm. The baby is now moving very vigorously and responds to touch and to sound. Very loud noises may make it jump and kick. It is swallowing small amounts of amniotic fluid and passing tiny amounts of urine back into the fluid. The heartbeat can now be heard through a stethoscope.
At 24 weeks the baby is about 600 gm, described as ‘viable’. By World Health Organisation definition, 20 weeks pregnancy is viable. Therefore, there is some variation in terms of when a baby becomes viable.
In a premature delivery, at 20 weeks probably nothing much will be done for the baby, nothing heroic. At 23 weeks, much heroic effort will be made by the attending doctors to save the 23-week premature delivery. At 24 weeks of pregnancy, all efforts will be made to save the baby. We are looking at a time when babies are seen to be viable.
What are the methods? We have the abortion pill, RU486, which is not generally used around Australia, and there are no practitioners who are registered to do this in the Territory. You give the pill with the effect of causing the woman’s uterus to contract, shedding its lining and so losing the embryo. You could do this in the early weeks of pregnancy. A surgical termination can be performed up to 14 weeks under this legislation. Normally, under general anaesthetic, a sterile tube is introduced into the uterus through the cervix and suction is applied to the tube and the pregnancy terminated. From 14 to 19 weeks, the technique is slightly different in that it is known as a surgical dilation and evacuation, where the neck of the womb is stretched open to allow forceps to remove the foetus.
To describe it in detail may be unpalatable for some members, but often body parts are removed from the pregnant uterus and many staff members feel very distressed when they see that happening. A legal medical termination can be performed up to 23 weeks under this legislation. This involves a patient having two types: one using medication or the other using surgical termination. Again, medical termination means the use of RU486. Again, there are no practitioners who are registered to use this within the Territory. That is, obviously, what Dr Sood did in New South Wales.
With surgical termination, up to 23 weeks, when we hear that a baby is 0.5 kg in weight, almost 30 cm in length from head to toe, it is a more complicated procedure. The woman is in the stirrups. The first stage is when you have to stop the baby’s heartbeat and then soften the neck of the womb. The second stage is when you surgically evacuate the uterus. The uterus is large and soft with the consistency of liver, easily perforated, with subsequent bowel injury. It takes a skilful practitioner with specialist training in obstetrics and gynaecology to perform such a procedure safely. Dr Sood attempted to do that and failed. I am not suggesting that doctors in the Northern Territory are the likes of Dr Sood but, unless you have specialist obstetrics and gynaecology skills, you are going to be in trouble if you perforate the uterus.
The Medical Services Amendment Bill is a foolish and dangerous attempt by the government to have less scrutiny over, and require less medical expertise to perform, terminations of pregnancies of up to 23 weeks. Perhaps, and more tragically, this government believes it is doing the right thing by shifting abortion laws out of the Criminal Code. They way I see it, the termination of a pregnancy is not like any other surgical procedure that a doctor would perform on a patient. In any other surgical procedure, the sole person involved is the patient. Where an abortion is concerned, while we have the pregnant woman as the patient, there is another person involved. One can debate whether the other being is truly a person; I am sure you will all concede that it is alive. It moves, it kicks, it swallows amniotic fluid and urinates, it grimaces and smiles, it is startled by loud noises that penetrate the mother’s tummy wall. It is alive and, if delivered out of the mother’s body in the latter part of pregnancy, will survive as another human being. Therefore, termination of pregnancy cannot be considered as just another surgical procedure. It behoves all governments in bringing about public policy, not for an individual, not for the extreme minority who are distributed on the two ages of the bell curve, but for the bulk of our community to ensure that it brings about policy that is appropriate for the vast majority.
Let me now quote the Model Criminal Code Officers Committee of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. The committee included august figures such as His Honour Judge Rod Howie QC from the District Court of New South Wales as Chairperson, an academic from the Faculty of Law of the University of Adelaide and other QCs. It also has members from every state and territory jurisdiction, one from the Northern Territory, a representative from the Policy Division of the Attorney-General’s Department who provides advice for all Attorneys-General. The Model Criminal Code, we are told, was what triggered the changes in our legislation - funny, that.
I read the Model Criminal Code relating to abortion. The Model Criminal Code Officer’s Committee stated in its final report on non-fatal offences against the person:
When asked to explain why the government in the Territory is intent on shifting the laws pertaining to abortion from the Criminal Code Act to the Medical Services Act, officers at my briefings said it was to correct an anomaly in the Criminal Code, that they were following the Model Criminal Code which recommended that it would be the right thing to do to shift it. That was what the former Attorney-General said. Is that so? Have we been given the whole truth on the matter? It appears not. When I went to the Model Criminal Code Report, I found that the committee had written that:
It appears to me that the government cannot say on one hand that it is shifting laws on abortion from the Criminal Code to correct an anomaly, when a learned body recommends otherwise. As regards the anomaly that was so strongly stressed by members supporting the shift of the legislation, again, the committee argued otherwise.
Mr WOOD: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the member be granted an extension of time subject to Standing Order 77 to complete his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Dr LIM: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and member for Nelson.
As regards the anomaly that was strongly stressed by the members supporting the shift of the legislation, again, the committee argued otherwise. It wrote:
Further:
I quoted from the Adelaide-based Sexton Marketing Group earlier. Let me give you the results of the national study. A total of 64% to 73% of those surveyed thought that the abortion rate was too high; 87% believed that it would be a good thing if the number was reduced while, at the same time, protecting existing legal rights to freely choose abortion; 99% of all respondents believed that women contemplating an abortion should have access to counselling; 98% of those polled thought that women should be advised of any health risks involved in having an abortion before choosing an abortion. Apart from the hard cases involving a danger to the mother’s health or foetal disability, fewer than one in four thinks abortion is morally justified.
While 60% of people feel positively towards women who choose alternatives to an abortion, many – only something like 34% - felt positively towards women who choose abortion. Most respondents believe that a woman contemplating abortion should seek advice from more than one source, such as a health professional independent - and I say again, independent - of the abortion provider - a relative or friend or professional counselling service. Even the strongest supporters of abortion on demand want it to be a last, rather than a first, resort, and social policy should be designed to ensure this.
I urge the government to retain the laws regulating abortion in the Criminal Code Act. I ask you to put in place a strong counselling service that is cheaply and readily available, preferably done by a person who is not one of the two doctors who authorise the termination, with the requirement that a procedure be done by a specialist obstetrician/gynaecologist for those pregnancies that are beyond 14 weeks.
Mr Deputy Speaker, in supporting my recommendations, in the event that the bills go through the second reading stage, I foreshadow that I will be moving amendments to the bills during the committee stage.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, before I begin, I should say that whilst I understand that there has been some debate about whether this is just a technical movement as against my opinion that this is an opportunity to speak one’s mind on a very important moral and ethical issue, that is where I will be coming from. If people think that that is irrelevant or that this is just a technical bill, I cannot help that. I will be coming from the point of view that this is an opportunity to speak about abortion, to put my points of view. I understand other people have different point of view, but I am certainly not coming from the point of view that this is merely a technical change. Some of my initial comments will repeat some matters raised in the previous debate over whether the bills should be cognate.
There is no doubt in my mind that treating the Medical Services Amendment Bill and the Criminal Code Amendment Bill as cognate bills is poor parliamentary process. This Legislative Assembly is here to debate all sorts of issues, some minor, some major. Here we have two very important bills that literally relate to life or death and the government has joined them together, making it impossible for anyone to vote yes for the Criminal Code, because they cannot in all conscience vote for the Medical Services Amendment Bill. That is why the bills should not be joined together.
The excuse from the government is that the two bills are closely related and they both need to be passed simultaneously, otherwise it could cause some legal problems if one was passed and one was not. Considering that Labor will, unfortunately, not allow a conscience vote, and the bills will, therefore, pass, why make them cognate? I should also make the point that even if the Medical Services Amendment Bill is not passed, the government could immediately withdraw the Criminal Code Amendment Bill so that existing rights of abortion continue.
Another strange thing which is one of the anomalies in this parliament, is that the previous Attorney-General was both minister for Health and Justice. Now we have bills with different and separate ministers for Health and Justice. That in itself, I would have thought, would be a good reason to split the bills. Each minister could then speak on the bill which is their responsibility. The only reason I can come up with why the government has kept these cognate is that, basically, they believe that it is a technical bill and would like to avoid as much controversy as possible.
These bills should not be cognate and a conscience vote should be permitted. The government has successfully convinced its members that the changes to the Medical Services Act are purely technical and there has been no change. For me, that is not so. The government says that moving the so-called lawful abortion clause from the Criminal Code removes a historical anomaly of a non-criminal matter being located in the Criminal Code. However, there may have been very good reason for that. It may be that abortion was not regarded simply as a medical procedure, but an exemption from what would normally have been a criminal act, which is the destruction of an unborn human life. By leaving it in the Criminal Code it delivered a message that abortion was something serious and normally not permitted unless it fitted certain guidelines. It should remain where it is.
The change is more than technical. At the briefing I had, it was intimated that removal of the so-called lawful abortion clause in the present clause was in line with the Model Criminal Code. If you read the Model Criminal Code you will find that it says the following on page 156:
Here, it was referring to legislation relating to abortion. The statement states clearly that the model code should reflect the model adopted in the Northern Territory. The reason given to remove abortion from the existing code is not true and, in fact, I find it quite the opposite. We are now doing the opposite of the opinion expressed by the Model Criminal Code Committee. If only for that reason, these bills should be defeated. The Medical Services Amendment Bill also removes the need for a practioner performing the abortion to be an obstetrician or gynaecologist. That is more than a technical change. That is a downgrading of an existing standard, so it is not a technical change.
The facts are that the government cannot find anyone who is willing to carry out abortions and is desperate to change the law, otherwise women will have to travel interstate. The government has said under new clause 11.2 that an opinion is required from a gynaecologist or obstetrician unless it is not reasonably practical in the circumstances to get an obstetrician or gynaecologist to examine the woman. This clause tries to allay the fear that a gynaecologist or obstetrician will still not be involved, but the words ‘reasonably practical’ can be interpreted in any way to suit the situation.
In Tasmanian legislation, a registered medical practitioner involved in the certification procedure must have specialised in obstetrics or gynaecology. There are no reasonable practical grounds there, so why do we have it here? To make it easier because the government cannot get our specialists to perform abortions and the present practioner wants to retire.
I make the comment that the words ‘reasonably practical’ are so broad that I guarantee that clause will hardly ever come into operation because ‘reasonably practical’ is such a board term that someone could make up a excuse to why they could not get an obstetrician or gynaecologist. Tasmania has made it a requirement; it should also be a requirement in the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory has removed the need for a gynaecologist or obstetrician to be the ones to carry out an abortion. The government has introduced this clause to say we are still keeping a gynaecologist or obstetrician there, then throw in that little clause at the bottom ‘reasonably practical’. That will certainly be abused, rather than supporting the intention of making sure there is a gynaecologist available.
The government has said the changes will get rid of a convoluted provision, but it does not say where the provision is convoluted. I am reading from the second reading speech:
Where is the convoluted provision? If it was convoluted in the Criminal Code, it is certainly still convoluted in the Medical Services Amendment Bill.
Another change with which I have a concern is clause 3A(2). In the Criminal Code, it said that:
In the Medical Services Amendment Bill, that has become:
The government forgets that it is actually introducing a new abortion bill into this parliament. It is not the same bill. This allows us to debate the issue of abortion, a subject which certainly provokes strong views, but a subject that needs debate in this parliament. This is a time to evaluate, as a society and a parliament, where we are going with this issue, but all the government can say is that this is a technicality.
Abortion is something I believe is wrong and, whilst there may be some grey areas where people may debate that abortion should be permissible, that debate only deflects from the reality of the situation. That reality is that there are over 800 to 1000 abortions each year in the Northern Territory. Since Labor was in power, that adds up to 5000 human lives lost. If they were all born, that would, in economic terms, have meant around about an extra $60m to the Territory from the federal government over the last five years - if you only like to think in economic terms about this issue.
If I thought that this bill would have guaranteed a reduction in the number of abortions, then I would have supported this bill, not because I support abortion but because some human lives would have been saved. Unfortunately, when it comes to reducing abortions, this government is not willing to put into practice legislation that restricts abortions to rare occasions and, instead, supports existing legislation which makes it easy enough for abortion to be used as a form of contraceptive.
There are many people in our society, including those who support abortions, who say there are far too many abortions. I say there are too many abortions. This bill gives the government an opportunity to reduce the numbers. We know that when a person is concerned about being pregnant there can be much anxiety and stress. However, we have to remember that pregnancy is not an illness; it is a human state which allows the human race to continue.
Our government should have a mission statement that says it will work towards reducing the number of abortions: with compassion, it will assist mothers in difficult times whilst, at the same time promoting motherhood as something wonderful; it will show that adoption is a real alternative to abortion and it will try to make adoption easier so that babies can be nurtured in a loving environment; it will change health and family planning guidelines to promote a positive approach to pregnancy rather than using abortion as a form of contraception; it will highlight the physical and mental risks associated with abortion; and it will establish the principle in law that the unborn – the most vulnerable human life - should have a right to live, to be loved and to fulfil its destiny on this earth.
Is it really the case that all the 800 to 1000 abortions could be accounted for under clauses 11B(1) and (2); that is, putting the mother’s life at risk, or that by having the baby - a normal and natural part of the human reproductive cycle - is going to be more injurious than if the pregnancy went ahead? Yes, some of those abortions would have been miscarriages, a small proportion may have been related to the grey areas of rape, incest and abnormalities, but the vast majority would not.
The unborn is a person from the day it is conceived because it has its own DNA, its own features, its own way of reacting, its own special heartbeat, its own soul and its own special love given by its mother by the natural physical bond it has with her. I do not accept the definition that a person becomes a person at birth. It may be a clinically clean and convenient description for the legal fraternity, or for those who do not support the right of the unborn to live, but it is an illogical definition. The natural and definitive commencement of life is at conception. We were all conceived. If we say we are only a person when we are born, then look what happens if you are born premature. Under the law, you are classed as a person because you are born, but another child of the same age still within its mother is not a person until it is born and, therefore, not protected by law. This says if you want to get protection under the law, then you get out of your mum real fast.
What makes matters worse is that when you are dead and not a person, you are still protected because it is illegal to interfere with a corpse. Here we have legalistic madness which says that I am only a person if I am born free from my mother and not dead. I, therefore, have protection under the law because I am a person. When I die, I am still protected because you cannot play around with my dead body. However, from the time I am conceived until the time I am born, I am nothing and am conveniently given the medical terms of an embryo or a foetus. These are all wonderful medical words, but they all conveniently forget that I am a human being. I am not a dog or a cat; I am human. Because I cannot see or hear properly, because I cannot yet play footy, does not make me less of a person than when I am 84 and cannot see much and am as deaf as a door post.
Our humanity is made up of stages, we are continually changing as we move through life. One stage is no less human than another stage. Pre-puberty is no less of a human than post-puberty, 20 years old makes you no less of a person than when you are 50 years old. It seems to me that our legislators have conveniently not protected the most vulnerable of our human race.
Surely, governments of all persuasions have a duty to protect the most vulnerable members of humanity, the ones who cannot speak for themselves, the ones who rely on one human to make sure they are cared for before they are born into the outside world, the ones who will thank us for the right to feel the warmth of the sun and the cool breeze, to hear the beauty of a bird singing, to express joy, emotion and sorrow, and to find a partner to share the same love that caused them to be.
Some may say: ‘You have forgotten a woman’s right over her own body’. That is a good point, but our laws must temper that right with the right of the unborn. Of course, if the unborn has no right, as it appears in most parts of Australia, then it is easy for governments to say: ‘You can have an abortion because an unborn has no rights and is not regarded as a person’.
Will not one government in Australia legitimise and protect the unborn, or would this be at odds with the Model Criminal Code, the policies of federal Labor or our friends at Emily’s List and, therefore, a big no-no? I look at this issue of abortion as something inherently wrong in our society, especially when we claim our country to be one of the great countries of the world when it comes to helping our pensioners, our war veterans, the sick and the handicapped. When it comes to the unborn, we do not seem to give two hoots.
Some may say my ideas come from my religious upbringing, and I have no doubt that it has been an influence on my life. A belief in God and a belief that human life is God given, is not something I am ashamed of. I have also found a need in my life to look for answers based on human reasoning. Sometimes, it is something deep within me that speaks. Abortion, for me, is the opposite of life and what life is all about. Life is something we cannot give ourselves. We cannot conceive ourselves, we do not have the power to create our life, we cannot give birth to ourselves.
Life is given to us to use to the best of our ability. Along with life will come all the emotions that humans experience. It is uniquely our life, like our fingerprints, and is something we should cherish until the day we die. That is why we should protect human life when it cannot protect itself because we are all family - as that song says, the human family. Abortion is simply about the destruction of a human life, a person, and the most helpless of persons.
Strangely, I was at the local pub the other day watching the grand final between the Storm and the Broncos when a constituent friend of mine sat down at the same table and we struck up a conversation. Unluckily, by that time, the Melbourne Storm were losing. I was just sitting at the table having a drink and this lady raised the issue that was coming before parliament this week. I did not know what her attitude to abortion would be but, unbeknown to me, she had an abortion for personal reasons when she was quite young.
Just the other day at a local sporting club AGM, I spoke to a woman aged in her 60s who I only knew slightly. We were talking about different things and I told her about the issues that were being put before parliament today. She then told me how she had an abortion many years ago because she had kidney failure and it appeared as if she could die.
The one thing that left a lasting impression was that although the abortions happened many years ago, they wondered about what might have been. I listened and was deeply moved. I know this issue is immersed in emotion, rights, pain and grief, and I could feel that when they told me their stories, but they still said they opposed abortion.
Why did two women who I only knew because they are constituents of mine tell me their story? I am not sure but, perhaps as a man trying to defend the unborn, I was being given the perspective of two women about the effect abortion had on their lives, its continuing effect, and their views on abortion today for a reason. Maybe it was to convey their stories.
Another case is about a special friend of mine. She told me of how her sister had an abortion, and she weeps when she tells the story. She cries not only for the lost niece or nephew, but because of the effect it has had on her relationship with her sister, and the pain and distress it has caused in her family. You see, abortion is more than a clinical, medical issue. It is not only about the loss of a life, it is about the effects on the mother and others around her. Do our counsellors explain or even know about that?
On Friday morning two weeks ago, a lady was passing by my office and said a young baby boy had died. I could not quite picture the mother, and I did not know the name of the baby. I said that it was terribly sad and made a weak excuse that I could not get to the funeral. However, something pricked my conscience and I felt I should go. A small crowd had gathered at the crematorium and, as the hearse arrived, I instantly recognised the mother. She worked at the local tavern where I occasionally frequent, and had only the week before been showing off her beautiful baby to the patrons. That baby died on the Sunday after mum had fed him and put him down to sleep. The child only lived for six weeks, but those short six weeks of life affected everyone, from those tough old codgers hanging around the pub regularly to people who seemed to have hardly a drop of emotion in them, and people who, like myself, knew mum but not that closely. That child’s life affected all those people profoundly. There would not have been a dry eye in the place. When I met mum at the end of the ceremony, I wept.
I have asked myself: why should so many people be affected? Why was the mother’s pain so great? After all, it was such a short life. Would we not have cried more for someone who had lived to 90? Then we would have known that person. I have come to realise that even though the life was short, it was full of love. That love was not just from the day it was born, from the day it was conceived, from the day its first heartbeat could be heard, from its first kick or movement in its mother’s tummy. The people in the pub followed the pregnancy with interest. They congratulated mum when little Cody was born and, of course, all went silly when she showed him off to the patrons at the pub. That one little baby, so dependent on its mother, brought happiness to so many.
The baby’s personality and the love for that baby was not established when it became a person as legally defined at birth; it was established at conception initiated through the love of the parents, and that was the beginning of the life of the little boy who touched us all. There was a picture of Cody handed out at the funeral with these words attached:
That says it all. Nothing in all the legal arguments I hear will ever convince me that human life and the human person do not start their journey at the moment of conception. It is so logical, so simple, and so perfect. It is from these personal experiences, from an inner feeling based on my own reasoning and study, from the fact of having three children of my own and four grandchildren is such a wonderful thing. It is from an admiration of motherhood which bonds us to our mothers all our lives in a special way. It is from the feeling you get when you see the beauty of a little baby, especially one sitting on its mother’s knee - something so wonderful and beautiful. As politicians, we should do our best to protect them.
I do not claim to have the wisdom or knowledge of a great philosophers of the world, nor am I lawyer with any qualifications, but I am someone who has made my fair share of mistakes in life, as people close to me know. I try to learn from those mistakes. I try to revaluate where I am going in life, and still wonder and question the meaning of life. My critics may say I have become too emotional and lost the plot, but this issue is emotional; it is certainly not technical. Emotions are part of being human. When I see little babies, I cannot help myself. Babies are just beautiful. I go goo-goo, gaa-gaa quite easily.
Surely we can make laws, assist mothers and show our love as fellow human beings to reduce the number of abortions and allow little human beings the chance to fulfil their destiny on this earth and reach their full potential. I will not support these bills for their sakes. I am very disappointed the government has not allowed its members to speak with their conscience on this issue. I am sure the unborn would have liked their help.
The Attorney-General said that I could always introduce a private member’s bill, and that is a possibility. However, if I introduce a private member’s bill, it will need the support of the government. I hope that the government, as the ones who make the laws and set policy, would itself, without me telling them, realise we have too many abortions, and look at positive ways to change the situation. I have spoken about this a number of times.
Why can we not make adoption easier? Maybe I am naive, maybe I am simple, but nature seems to have its way that, for some reason, there will always be people who do not want their babies, and there will be some people who cannot have children. Does that not send a signal that we could mix and match? We could use that to relieve the people who do not want their children to make other parents happy so they can have a child. Is that such a profound thing in life? That is what the role of government should be.
Yes, a private member can propose these things, but I would rather see a government and, in this case it is a Labor government. If I go back in time, my grandmother was a Labor supporter, my father was a DLP supporter and my brother is a Labor supporter, so I come from a background where Labor was regarded as a family party, a party that stood up for the working man. Here, I see a role for the Labor Party to protect the most vulnerable members of our society, to do its darnedest through its policies and laws to help the unborn.
I will be moving an amendment when we come to the Criminal Code saying that a ‘person’ should be from conception to death. Why? Because that is humanity, that is us. We cannot cut ourselves off at nine months and say we do not exist.
I put to the government that, yes, you can say I should introduce a private member’s bill. However, I would rather this government made a commitment in this parliament and said it out loud that there are far too many abortions in the Northern Territory, that it supports the rights of the unborn to be a person, and it will do its best to reduce the number of abortions we have. When I hear that, I will give a loud cheer. When there are not 800 to 1000 abortions per year, I will say: ‘Terrific’.
Yes, we can argue about those grey areas, but they are a very small percentage of what we are talking about. If we believe in peace, then here is an opportunity to really show it. Abortion is anti-peace and anti-love, and we should find ways of helping mothers who are in stressful situations. We should help them with compassion. We should not be judgmental. We should have our goal as helping the unborn, the ones who cannot speak for themselves and the ones who are relying on us, as fellow human beings, to protect and care for them and let them live.
Mr MILLS (Blain): I am surprised, Madam Speaker, as has already been stated, that members opposite sponsoring the bill are not speaking, even to affirm their own position.
As previously stated, these bills being cognate places members in difficult positions. There are two aspects of the bills and, in my view, they are very different, which has been explained before and I do not want to labour those points.
It leaves me, therefore, with no alternative but to oppose the bills. I find myself in a position where I am opposing some aspects of these cognate bills that are supportable and palatable, that do reinforce values and principles that are important. On the very basis that they are cognate, that there are two aspects, that action is unsupportable and unconscionable because no matter how carefully and tidily the arguments are put, I am not convinced that members have truly allowed a proper assessment of the differences between the two. I make that observation with some disappointment. On balance, one matter is more serious than the other; that being the issue of life and death. I have to oppose the bills. I have no alternative, sadly.
I will make my comments based on why I cannot support the Medical Services Amendment Bill and, therefore, oppose the bills. Those who are pro-choice, those who support abortion, would have us embrace an idea that a procedure that results in the removal of a foetus is a medical procedure on the same level as a tonsillectomy. There will also be subliminal messages, and sometimes not so subliminal, that this is ladies’ business and men should butt out. As 50% of the victims of these decisions are male, I have every right to be a participant in this debate.
That abortion is a medical procedure is a proposition that many in our community would reject on moral and ethical grounds. Members opposite, if they truly knew how this will pan out in families across the Territory over time and slowly sink in, will know that it will have an effect. Removing the medical termination of pregnancy from the Criminal Code and placing it in the Medical Services Act, described as a technicality with no change, seeks to diminish the seriousness of a procedure that results in the termination of a human life. It is not just moving furniture around; it is placing it from one context to another. The underlying messages are, therefore, muted or obscured and removed by taking it from one code to another. I cannot support that because of the value that I place upon human life, born or unborn.
The current act provides for medical termination of pregnancy as a lawful exception and, as medical termination results in the death of an unborn child, it should remain in the Criminal Code to reinforce the seriousness of the procedure ...
Mr Stirling: It does.
Mr MILLS: It should remain in the Criminal Code to reinforce the seriousness of the procedure ...
Mr Stirling: It does.
Mr MILLS: With respect for unborn human life, combined with immense reluctance, I do concede that there may be cases, albeit rare, when an abortion is considered necessary. For example, the birth could result in severe and life-threatening complications for a mother. These occasions, as I have said, are rare and they form a very small portion of the 900 or so terminations conducted each year in the Northern Territory.
If you widen the definition of those who can perform abortions and move abortion from the Criminal Code, it may only result in an increase in the number of abortions, something I do not think anyone would support. I cannot see how this could decrease the number of abortions. If we consider that, since 1996 the Territory has lost close to 10 000 children through abortion.
These are also life matters and matters of conscience reflected in the wording of the bill itself, because there are those who are permitted to object when they come to the point of participating in the medical procedure, to decline on the basis of conscientious objection. The same should apply all the way through to the place where the law is debated: this parliament. As members who have spoken have already reflected, debate of this bill would allow an opportunity to reassess, reconsider, revisit, the community’s views on abortion.
I note that the word ‘abortion’ is very rarely mentioned in this, so tidy must the language be that it is made efficient and clinical so we remove that connection. Even the unpleasant word ‘abortion’ is taken away so that it rests more comfortably, perhaps, on the sensibilities of those who face a decision of this nature.
All of us, if we reflect, have had encounters one way or another with those who have faced this decision. These issues feed our broader view of human life and the value that we place on it, though such matters should never be swept under the carpet, made clinical and dealt with in such a technical manner. Other societies and cultures, at other times in history, have dealt with the dispensing of human life in clinical and technical ways. They have changed the language so it may rest more easily on the conscience of those who have made such choices. Those who are listening carefully will know what I am talking about. The language has been changed so it rests more comfortably; it is efficient, it is tidy, it is clinical.
As a society, we must improve compassionate support for expectant mothers, those who are considering termination and, very carefully, assess options and explore them. The member for Nelson outlined some practical considerations. We must also provide care and respect for the smallest and most vulnerable human being, the unborn child.
It is for these reasons that I cannot support the bills and oppose them on two grounds: I cannot countenance the relocation of the practice of abortion from the Criminal Code to the Medical Services Act, and on the broader issue of the action of government to cognate these bills and prohibit proper weighing of these serious matters.
I will conclude by referencing an experience that goes back about 28 years. It all happened in one week. I had left university for a time and I was back on the farm. I went back to Perth to visit some friends. I called in and happened to catch, on the same day, two ladies, friends from university. In one case, I called in and she was alone in her room, very quiet. I inquired why she was so quiet, and she told me that she had had a very difficult decision to face that day and I was the first person that she could share it with. She was not married and found herself pregnant and faced the prospect of proceeding with the pregnancy or terminating it and going down another pathway. She advised me that she had weighed it so carefully; it would have been so convenient and tidy. It would have eased her social embarrassment if she had chosen to terminate. She chose, courageously so by herself, not to. That was 28 years ago. As a result of that one decision, there is a child who is now 28 years of age and has completed university. As I said, I met two girls on the same day, two acquaintances from university. It was an extraordinary event and I had forgotten this until I was reflecting on it during the course of this bill.
The second girl I called in to see was drinking. I asked her how she was and she said she was fine. She skipped along in the conversation but seemed a little distressed. I asked her how had she been. She then stopped and said she was not too well. She had had to make a big decision that day; she had terminated a pregnancy. She quickly skipped on and the conversation was changed. I do not think I provided much compassion, sadly, at that time because I was flummoxed. It was stunning that I had that encounter twice on one day. I was not prepared. I did not have the words to say and, clearly, she was in distress. However, she managed, at that point, to mask over it.
Neither of those decisions were technical. They were not technical, efficient nor clinical decisions; they were very difficult decisions. I am sure the first girl that I met that day is immensely and eternally relieved by the decision that she made. Sadly, the girl who did not, I have not met again. I know that she was largely alone in the environment in which she made her decision. At that point, her mum and dad did not even know about it. I hope I run into her again. It is for reasons such as those that make it not a technical matter, but one that is far more serious.
I only wish that government had allowed at least the integrity of the issues reflected in these debates to be given proper airing. With that, Madam Speaker, I oppose the bills.
Dr BURNS (Health): Madam Speaker, everyone in this Assembly recognises the issue of abortion, of medical terminations, can still be a controversial one. I have listened very carefully to the speeches, thoughts and feelings of members opposite. There have been varying view points. No one can deny that the decisions, particularly such as the member for Blain talked about, are very difficult decisions, often tinged with sadness. They are very deep decisions.
However, as the member for Nhulunbuy pointed out, the debate on abortion, on terminations, happened in this country some 30 years ago. What we have today in the Territory and throughout Australia is the reality of medical terminations, of legal terminations, of abortion. That is the one, as Health Minister today, that I will be addressing.
As the member for Nhulunbuy pointed out, what we have before us today relates to specifics of terminations, a procedure I have said before has been legal in the Northern Territory for over 30 years. These amendments are technical in nature and involve no substantive changes to the law surrounding medical terminations in the Northern Territory.
As such, we believe there is no necessity for a conscience vote on the proposed amendments. I can assure members opposite that this was a matter that was discussed within our caucus. We went through it and agreed exactly what I said before; that the amendments are technical in nature and involve no substantial changes to the law surrounding medical terminations within the Territory. We agreed on that.
We are not here to debate the lawfulness of abortion. That was an issue that the member for Nelson touched on. As I said previously, these debates happened in Australia and in the Northern Territory in the 1970s and were resolved to some degree at that time. The member for Nelson talked about revisiting those debates but, since then, access to medical terminations under strictly defined circumstances has been legal in the Northern Territory and elsewhere in Australia.
We have heard today that some people vehemently disagree with the law as it stands and the law as it is proposed. Others in the community and within this place may agree with the law as it stands and as it is being proposed. I suggest that there are many others in our society who are ambivalent about the issue. Nevertheless, the changes before us today do not change the current legal position in a substantive way.
The technical nature of the changes has been clearly outlined by the member for Nhulunbuy. They are, first, to move the provisions regarding legal terminations from the Criminal Code to the Medical Services Act where they more appropriately sit. As explained by the member for Nhulunbuy, this is part of a broader reform of the Criminal Code. The current section 174 of the Criminal Code regulates lawful medical terminations, which is an anomaly as the code’s principle function is to set out unlawful actions and penalties, not to regulate lawful activity. Of course, provisions surrounding the unlawful termination of a pregnancy will remain where they belong, which is in the Criminal Code.
The second change in the amendments before us surrounding the changing of the role of an obstetrician or gynaecologist in conducting a medical termination in the first 14 weeks of a pregnancy. Under the current legislation, only a specialist obstetrician or gynaecologist can carry out a medical termination in the first 14 weeks of a pregnancy. Under the amended law, a medical practitioner will be carry out a medical termination in the first 14 weeks of a pregnancy. It is not clinically or medically necessary for a specialist to carry out the procedure and no other state or territory in Australia requires an obstetrician or gynaecologist …
Dr Lim: Tasmania does, Tasmania does.
Dr BURNS: … a medical termination. Member for Greatorex, I believe the Attorney-General will address the issue that you raised in relation to Tasmania when he speaks in reply closing debate when I have concluded.
The current restriction was, I understand, introduced into Territory law as a committee stage amendment when the provisions were being debated in 1973. Medical terminations can be, and in other jurisdictions are, carried out by appropriately trained and experienced medical practitioners. Instead, the restriction we have at the moment puts pressure on our medical specialists to carry out a procedure which could be carried out by a suitably credentialed medical practitioner. This restriction also means that should the Territory find itself without a specialist obstetrician or gynaecologist willing and able to carry out terminations in the first 14 weeks of a pregnancy, our health system could find itself in the position of having to send women interstate to have a medical procedure which is legal in the Northern Territory. I will repeat that: the health system could find itself in the position of having to send women interstate to have a medical procedure which is legal in the Northern Territory. Such a situation would be expensive but, more importantly, additionally distressing and possibly harmful to the woman herself.
The current situation restricting the performance of medical terminations to specialists has been a matter of concern for a number of senior clinicians. For example, it was identified in the 2005 Review of Obstetric and Gynaecological Services by Professor Alan Hewson AM, a senior member of the College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and a respected New South Wales specialist. Professor Hewson recommended a revision of the Northern Territory legislative regime to ensure consistency with the situation elsewhere in Australia and in order to guarantee the safety and appropriateness of the medical systems surrounding the procedure.
By making the proposed changes to the law in this instance, our specialist obstetricians and gynaecologists will be able to concentrate on the areas where their skills are most needed: looking after pregnant women. It is important to note several important points in relation to the proposed amendments.
First, the medical practitioner will require appropriate qualifications to carry out the medical treatment and will remain subject to all requirements of current health legislation, procedures and policies relating to hospital practice. I am advised that this would require the practitioner to have, at minimum, a Diploma in Obstetrics and Gynaecology and relevant experience in order to be credentialed to carry out the procedure.
Credentialing is a critical independent assessment conducted by the hospital involving a panel of relevant medical practitioners under the direction of the hospital’s Director of Medical Services. The credentialing process considers the qualifications, skills and experience of the medical practitioner and confirms these through referees to determine what clinical procedures the practitioner may carry out in the hospital. This process occurs in both the private and public hospital systems. Note also that the current legislation states that a person is not under any duty to conduct or assist in a termination if they have a conscientious objection to doing so. This recognition of conscientious objection will not change under the proposed amendments.
Second, the role of an obstetrician or gynaecologist is maintained wherever practicable in the process of the approval of a woman to have a medical termination. The approval of the termination must be by a medical practitioner plus an obstetrician/gynaecologist unless it is not reasonably practical for an obstetrician or gynaecologist to examine the woman, in which case two medical practitioners can approve.
Third, there are no proposed changes to the location where a medical termination can take place. In both the current and proposed legislation, all non-emergency medical terminations must take place in a hospital.
Fourth, there is no change to the provisions surrounding pregnancies over 14 weeks. These are still regarded as emergency medical terminations. Neither the current nor the amended legislation restricts such a procedure to a medical practitioner who is a specialist obstetrician or gynaecologist, nor do they specify a location. This is because these are emergency situations where a termination is immediately necessary to prevent serious harm to a woman’s health or to preserve her life. In passing, I should note that I am advised that while emergency terminations can be carried out in any place, the vast majority of them take place in the hospital setting. We can expect this to continue to be true under the amended legislation.
Fifth and finally, I note there has been concern raised in some quarters that this legislation will somehow open the door to the use of RU486 in the Northern Territory. The proposed changes will have no effect in this instance. Neither the current legislation nor the amendments determine how a medical termination is performed, whether surgically or through any other treatment. All the restrictions applying to surgical medical terminations with regard to approval, location and authorisation to perform the procedure, would apply equally to the use of a drug to produce a medical termination. Indeed, the legality of the use of any drug, including RU486, is a Commonwealth matter under the Therapeutic Goods Administration.
In conclusion we on this side of the House recognise the sensitivity of the issues we are debating here today. Some may have concerns that these amendments will lead to an increase in the number of medical terminations carried out in the Northern Territory. I can assure them that this is not the case. The number of medical terminations fluctuates from year to year, so no one is in a position to guarantee that the numbers next year will be lower than this year. However, there is nothing in the amendments themselves which will lead to an increase in the number of medical terminations.
In describing these amendments as technical, we are not trivialising or down-playing the general issue of abortion; we are merely describing the changes we are proposing - changes which involve no substantive change to Territory law or practice. These amendments keep the current legal position substantively unchanged and it is on that basis that I ask honourable members to support the amendments.
Finally, Madam Speaker, I reiterate what I said: I have listened very carefully to what members on the other side have said. I appreciate and respect their deep feelings and position on this issue, but I have explained the government’s position and mine as Health Minister.
Mr STIRLING (Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I thank all contributors to the debate. The Criminal Code reforms, with each of their amendments, are both important and, in some cases, quite difficult to put out on the floor and debate. I acknowledge and thank each of the members for their contribution today, for their sincerity and the gravity that they brought to this debate. I respect the views of every one of those members’ contributions today.
The bill is one part of an ongoing, quite extensive reform of the Northern Territory Criminal Code. It is a long-term project and it is important to see it like that, and not as some knee-jerk response to any individual case that may have occurred. The bill is designed to ensure that, if you commit murder, you will be convicted of murder. Too often in the past, offenders have been charged or convicted of manslaughter or a dangerous act when a murder conviction, to most people’s view, would have been more appropriate.
There is a community expectation that you ought not be able to use as a partial defence to murder the fact that you were intoxicated or that you have had a specific cultural background. The bill reflects the community’s views on this very serious crime that the offence should be applied the same way, no matter who the offender or the victim may be.
The bill revises provisions currently in Part 6, Division 3, Homicide and Related Offences, Suicide, Concealment of Birth and Abortion. It is scheduled to commence operation at the same time as the first tranche of reforms passed in November 2005. This will give police, practitioners and courts time to understand all of the changes.
The bill will modernise the offence of murder to accord with the Model Criminal Code. It will tighten the defence of provocation, retaining provocation as a partial defence to murder only, and removes consideration of cultural or ethnic background as part of the objective element of defence. The defence of provocation is often criticised for perpetuating and excusing male aggression, justifying violence towards women.
It tightens the defence of diminished responsibility to remove intoxication as proof of defence, and it shifts the focus onto the accused’s ability to judge behaviour as right or wrong and control themselves. It is something that is more easily assessed by a jury.
It removes the offence of constructive murder where an offender accidentally killed someone while committing another crime, and that is covered by new manslaughter offences. It does retain the offence relating to suicide as a composite offence with the penalty of life imprisonment, and it removes the lawful termination provisions from the Criminal Code.
The Model Criminal Code did recommend abolition of these defences, but that was based on a premise that judges could take provocation or diminished responsibility into account in sentencing. When the member for Araluen said that in Victoria they did away with provocation altogether, that is because if a person found guilty of murder in Victoria is up for sentencing by the judge, the judge has complete discretion in relation to sentencing and, if provocation has been used in the defence, the judge can weigh that up and say: ‘Is this a justified partial defence to murder here?’. If the judge were to find that it was, the judge can reduce the sentence accordingly. That discretion does not exist in the Northern Territory. We have a mandatory 20 years minimum sentence for murder. We believe that the community clearly has a view that they want to retain a 20-year sentence for murder, and the government agrees with that view. If you are going to retain a mandatory 20-year imprisonment sentence for murder combined with complete removal of partial defences, that would inevitably lead to unjust sentences being imposed on some offenders.
The principle and premise behind this bill is that the punishment must fit the crime. You cannot say the punishment must fit the crime here but not there. It has to be applicable across the board. In extreme cases, one punishment across the board for all offenders could, potentially, result in juries not finding someone guilty.
Similarly, no lesser person than the President of the Bar Association provided comment in relation to consultation around this bill that issues in relation to partial defences could not be considered without preparedness to abandon mandatory life imprisonment for murder. We do not believe that the community is prepared to do that. This government is not prepared to do that. Therefore, in view of a mandatory 20 years, it is fit and proper, in our view and that of the President of the Bar Association, that partial defences ought be retained. The difference, for the member for Araluen, is that in Victoria where they have abolished altogether partial defences around provocation, judges have judicial discretion when it comes to sentencing.
The government does not have a view that we want the total number of homicide convictions to rise, but we would expect that the ratio of murder convictions compared with manslaughter convictions would increase. Over the past 10 years in the Territory, approximately one murder conviction compared with every four manslaughter convictions has been obtained. That is 18 to 63. The difference is even more marked among indigenous offenders. Government is making a strong statement with these provisions that no matter who the offender, no matter who the victim, murder will be treated as murder. If intent was there to commit murder, then government believes only very specific limited defences should be available.
The government’s consistent position is that every relevant factor should be considered by a judge in sentencing to ensure the most appropriate sentence is handed down, and that includes consideration of customary law, where relevant - outside of murder, of course, which has its mandatory 20 years.
These amendments deal with something very different; that is the defences to murder. It is not appropriate that defences should be available to one part of the community and population in the Northern Territory but not others, nor is it appropriate that one’s intoxication would give someone access to a defence to murder not available to others. By tightening these defences, government is also sending a clear message to the Northern Territory legal system that government is doing everything it can to ensure that appropriate charges are available and laid against offenders.
The Minister for Health set out the features of the Medical Services Amendment Bill, and I thank him for his contribution. He picked up some of the members’ queries, albeit maybe not the member for Greatorex, who I will come to. The rationale behind transferring the provision out of the Criminal Code is that the fundamental purpose of the Model Criminal Code and Northern Territory Criminal Code is to set out unlawful action. It is a bill that is headed up ‘thou shalt not’ in every provision because it is the Criminal Code and that is what it does, except when you get to the enabling provisions around abortions where it says ‘thou shalt under these circumstances’ and lays out the parameters where legal abortion can occur. It is simply incongruous and anomalous to have a ‘thou shalt not’ bill and then get to one clause and find ‘but thou shalt’ under these restricted circumstances. It does not make sense to me and I am no lawyer. However, it is an anomaly and this clears it up.
The fundamental purpose of that Model Criminal Code and, indeed, our own Criminal Code, is to set out unlawful actions. As part of the Criminal Code reform process, we are systematically removing any references to lawful or procedural actions that more appropriately belong in other legislation. The division of the Criminal Code under debate contains that one provision, as I said: the regulation of the lawful termination of pregnancy. It is not about increasing access to abortion. As the Minister for Health said, that debate was resolved in the Northern Territory over 30 years ago. Termination of pregnancy under certain strictly defined situations is legal.
I want to pick up, where I have not, on issues raised by members. The member for Araluen, in relation to the medical services part of the amendments, did not see it as a threshold issue on the question of abortion. She stated she was proud to support that part of the bill, and I thank her for her support. She raised the question of what consultation had occurred in the Northern Territory. The Model Criminal Code itself was a result of extensive discussion between governments, legal stakeholders and interest groups right across Australia. An Issues Paper was released on 27 April 2006 to relevant stakeholders for comment. Letters enclosing the Issues Paper were sent to the President of the Northern Territory Bar Association, the Chief Executive Officer of the Law Society of the Northern Territory, the President of the Criminal Lawyers Association, the Director of the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission, the Director of the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The Law Society advised that they had, in addition, enclosed a copy of the Issues Paper in their weekly electronic newsletter, which is sent to all practitioners. If there was a case where someone was saying to the member for Araluen that it was the first they had ever heard of it, you have to wonder whether they ever check their electronic mail. You would wonder if they had e-mail or ever checked it. I would find it surprising if there was a legal practitioner out there without access to electronic mail being sent out on a weekly basis from the Law Society. I do not accept that consultation was anything less than thorough.
The responses were supportive of the retention of the defences, as I explained, given the Northern Territory’s mandatory murder sentencing, but most agreed with tightening them, as has occurred with this bill. The result now is a code that the Northern Territory can adopt. We can be confident that it represents best legal practice in Australia, noting, of course, necessary amendments to incorporate circumstances.
I touch again on the retention of the partial defence to murder and provocation which the Leader of the Opposition mentioned. She was relying, of course, on the situation in Victoria where these defences have been abolished entirely. I make the point again: that was because they have full judicial discretion when it comes to sentencing for a guilty conviction to murder whereas, in the Northern Territory, there is no such discretion from the Bench.
In relation to gender bias, the amendment removes the clause that it must occur ‘before passion has time to cool’. That previously prevented women referred to as battered spouse - the battered wife syndrome - who may kill their partner at an opportune time, albeit some time after passion has had time to cool because they have waited for an opportunistic time to carry out the deed. There was no defence available to those who you might think might be owed some little protection of the law where they have suffered brutal and ill treatment for, perhaps, a greater part of their life. That act is often going to be after passion has had time to cool. This amendment will allow women in this situation to use the defence of provocation as a partial defence to murder, which is important.
The amendment also removes provocation as a complete defence for non-fatal offences often used by violent men. Again, importantly, where it is non-fatal, there is no defence around provocation.
The member for Araluen also said this does not address homophobic attitudes or homophobia as a defence. In fact, it does. Section 158(5) as a partial defence does, in fact, go with the amendment bill by specifically removing non-violent sexual advances as a basis for a defence of provocation. So, provided the sexual advance was of a non-violent nature, there is no defence. There is no defence for murder; partial defence, in that situation. A man cannot claim he was provoked by a gay man making a non-violent sexual advance. I direct the attention of the member for Araluen to section 158(5), which sets it out pretty clearly. If I can understand it, as a trained lawyer I am sure she will. It will hit her quite clearly in the eye.
The member for Greatorex made a point that Tasmanian legislation does require a gynaecologist or an obstetrician to carry out the procedure. I have a copy of the Tasmanian legislation here and it is exactly the same as that proposed by the amendments this afternoon. It is not true that the procedure in Tasmania has to be carried out by a gynaecologist or obstetrician. In fact, the act says:
However, in sync with what we are proposing here, of the two authorising medical practitioners required, one has to be a medical practitioner specialising in obstetrics or gynaecology. The effect of the amendments today will be to precisely replicate the Tasmanian legislation.
The member for Nelson made a point about a downgrading because the terminology ‘grave injury’ had become ‘serious harm’. I can assure the member for Nelson that it is my advice that in legal terms, in legal meaning, they are exactly the same. There has been no downgrading. The change to the words themselves are to ensure that we do not have conflicting descriptors or words in one act as opposed to those of the same meaning being used - a different set of words - in other legislation which courts could interpret differently. Therefore, for consistency, ‘grave injury’ has become ‘serious harm’ but, in the legal world, that carries the same legal meaning as it did before. So, there is no downgrading there.
The member for Nelson also said that the Model Criminal Code Officers Committee recommended jurisdictions copy the Northern Territory abortion provisions; that is, place them in the Criminal Code. That is not the advice I have at all. In fact, I am advised that the committee stated that abortion offences be formulated by jurisdictions as they see fit. The current section 174 referred to is not an offence. That is the lawful provision. This is about reforming the Criminal Code to only set out those unlawful behaviour offences, and that is the object of the model code: conformity of criminal offences.
The member for Blain also made claims that this is a downgrading of the offence of an abortion where it is an offence, and that the offence of an abortion ought to remain in the Criminal Code. Well, it does - it absolutely does. The offence of abortion, where it is a criminal offence, absolutely remains in the Criminal Code. There is no downgrading here. It is the lawful provisions, it is the parameters under which a legal abortion may be carried out that are being transferred from the Criminal Code, appropriately, across to the Medical Services Act. I assure the member for Blain there is no downgrading. The same offence exists as existed before. It is simply the parameters under which they may be carried out.
Normally, I would not go to a personal situation in debate in this Chamber, Madam Speaker, but I do have a family situation quite close to the heart, as sometimes happens when you are dealing with legislation. Some members might think: ‘What would this guy know? He is only carrying out the directions of the Department of Justice or his predecessor by carrying through reforms that were already in place’.
A couple of weeks ago, my former wife rang and said Talitha, our daughter, was not well. I knew she was in the early stages of pregnancy. She had an absolutely beautiful little boy on 1 February this year and I became a proud grandfather for the first time. I receive regular e-mails of photos of which I am enormously proud. I have witnessed this young fellow’s growth month by month, and the development and the character in his face. You can see it even from e-mailed photos. I take great delight in sharing those photos around. Nonetheless, this was something of an urgent phone call from Diane. She had gone to see Talitha who was in a pretty dreadful state. She had not been sleeping and eating. She had not been eating because she had to vomit every 10 to 12 minutes. She simply could not keep anything down.
Diane was so distressed with her condition, she took her immediately to the Nambour Hospital, which admitted her. She was due to have a scan anyway to check the pregnancy at that time. She was found to be eight weeks and two or three days pregnant, and everything seemed to be normal except for the fact she could not sleep because she was ill, and could not eat because that made her more ill. I was somewhat relieved that at least she was in hospital. I thought: ‘This is the right place for her. They will get on top of this sickness. It is not unusual for women to have sickness, usually referred to as morning sickness, but it is a bit unusual and a bit extreme to be sick 24 hours a day every 10 or 15 minutes’. She was in a pretty drastically weakened state. She had lost 6 kg or 7 kg in that time, and I thank God Diane insisted on taking her to the hospital.
I thought it would be resolved in a day or two. The days went by, seven or eight days, and there was no improvement to her condition. I can tell from my daughter’s voice when I am on the phone as to how she is travelling. In fact, she sounded weaker and more distressed as the days went by - so distressed that she was begging to be able to return to a life of normality, a life where she was not ill, where she could get back to her much beloved new son and where she could, in time, return to work.
She took a decision - a very brave decision in my view; absolutely her decision - that she would seek to have that pregnancy terminated. This started some weeks before she went into hospital, and now after eight days in hospital, she was not feeling any better. So they did. They scheduled a time. I think it was a Thursday morning, 9.30 am that she was to go in and have this procedure. Some might call it fate, some might call it intervention. We do not know what, but she was scheduled to go in for the abortion, but they could not do it because her blood count was so wonky that they did not believe she was in a fit and proper condition to enable the procedure to be carried out.
They rescheduled it for Tuesday of the following week. I spoke to Diane in between. I said: ‘Have you talked about this with Talitha?’ and she had. She confides in her mother and her mother has the same view as myself. As distressing as I might have found that situation, as distressed as I was every time I turned around and I could see my photos of growing Jack, and thinking: ‘We might not have Jack’s brother or sister sitting up there on the shelf’, but I accepted it was Talitha’s decision.
That evening, my daughter rang and she said: ‘You would not believe it’. I could just tell from the strength in her voice how improved she was in that day. In that day, from the time that she was not able to go in and have that procedure, she had had two meals - the first time in about six weeks - and kept them both down. She had been able to sleep in between those meals, the first time in about six weeks. As you would imagine, that would have had a pretty profound effect on a person who has not been able to sleep or eat. She said: ‘I feel much better, I do not think I am going to go through with that procedure’. She went home the next day and, touch wood, she is fit and fine and back on top, and I hope she remains that way.
It is a very unusual thing for me to share something as close and personal as that, Madam Speaker, but I put it on the record in case there is a view that the Attorney-General is a man and what would he know about these things? He is aloof; he is only carrying out the law. Sometimes, these matters come very close to heart and home, and that is an example.
I thank all members for their contribution to debate. I understand there will be amendments put by members, and I look forward to getting into the committee stages and progressing the passage of this important legislation.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Mr CHAIRMAN: The committee has before it the Medical Services Amendment Bill 2006 (Serial 70) together with schedule of amendments No 12 circulated by the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, Mr Stirling, and schedules of amendment Nos 13 and 14 circulated by the member for Greatorex, Dr Lim, and an amendment circulated by the member for Nelson, Mr Wood; and the Criminal Reform Amendment Bill (No 2) 2006 (Serial 71) together with schedule of amendments No 15 circulated by the member for Greatorex, Dr Lim, and an amendment circulated by the member for Nelson, Mr Wood.
Medical Services Amendment Bill 2006 (Serial 70):
Clauses 1 to 3, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
New clause 3A:
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 12.1. This amendment is necessary to ensure that the status quo remains. It makes clear that regulation of lawful termination continues over terminations undertaken at three hospitals: Darwin, Alice Springs and Darwin Private. The amendment continues regulation of lawful terminations over both public and private hospitals.
Currently, the law requires that medical treatment for the termination of a pregnancy which is less than 14 weeks advanced must be provided in a hospital. A minor amendment is required to make it absolutely clear that there is no change to the scope of the application of the provision.
Clause 11 of the bill provides for the medical termination of pregnancy, the current provision dealing with medical termination of pregnancy. Section 174 of the Criminal Code will be repealed by clause 18 of the Criminal Reform Amendment Bill (No 2) 2006.
Amendment 12.1 will amend the Medical Services Act by inserting the words ‘(other than section 11)’ into section 4. This has the effect of ensuring that the new provision relating to medical termination applies with respect to private hospitals which are licensed under the Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes Act. Without this amendment, Darwin Private Hospital would be precluded from the operation of section 11, and it was never the intention that that be the case. Three hospitals currently carry out these procedures. The intention is that the status quo remain and three hospitals remain carrying out these procedures.
Mr WOOD: I would like to comment. I would like to thank my Research Officer who, after the briefing, came across this anomaly. My research officer does an enormous amount of work in going through these bills. Attorney-General, in a debate in a previous sitting, you queried how hard my research officer was working in relation to a bill that we were debating at the time. I point out that my research officer works very hard and diligently. What you see here is a good example of her diligence. I put on record that she is a great person who works really hard for both Independents. I do not know whether you understand that this amendment would not have been before us - even though I have problems about another hospital undertaking abortions - but for her hard work.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, it would be absolutely remiss of me not to acknowledge the member for Nelson’s research officer, Caroline, and the diligence with which she has been able to spot this deficiency. It would have to have been corrected at a later date. It shows the great benefit in members going along for briefings - in this case of the member for Nelson’s research officer being able to go through clause by clause and spot a situation that would have arisen except for her diligence. There are two things: thank you member for Nelson, for going to the briefing. Thank you, too, for bringing Caroline along to that briefing. We all owe our thanks that Caroline is a diligent and hard-working research assistant who has, quite clearly, assisted the deliberations of this Assembly and the making of its laws in a very profound and concrete manner.
Members: Hear! Hear!
Dr LIM: I am glad to hear the minister’s reassurance that Royal Darwin Hospital, Alice Springs Hospital and the Darwin Private Hospital will be the only three hospitals that will be performing terminations of pregnancies. At the briefing, I was told that is going to be the case and I was reassured that termination of pregnancies are not being performed in any other hospital in the Territory. However, I have here some statistics from 2003-04, which says for the Northern Territory, 63.8% of terminations were done in capital cities, therefore meaning Darwin, and remote, 28.1%. I assume that means Alice Springs. Then it quotes other rural areas at 6.3%. In the table, it says public hospitals conducting terminations 2003-04 - and I am happy to provide the minister with a photocopy of the page:
Can the minister explain where those three public hospitals were in 2003-04 and give me an assurance that if there were three public hospitals performing terminations then, they will not be now or into the future and, in effect, he undertakes to guarantee there will be only the Royal Darwin Hospital, the Alice Springs Hospital and the Darwin Private Hospital?
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I can give the member for Greatorex that assurance and the necessity for this amendment to ensure that Darwin Private Hospital remains in here. As I said at the time of moving the amendment, the law requires that medical treatment for the termination of a pregnancy which is less than 14 weeks advanced must be provided in a hospital.
Dr LIM: I understand, minister, that it must be done in a hospital. I am asking whether regional hospitals other than the Alice Springs Hospital will have the right to perform terminations of pregnancies. In other words, Gove Hospital, Katherine Hospital, Tennant Creek Hospital.
Mr STIRLING: That is why I just made the point, Mr Chairman. Nought to14 weeks must be provided in a hospital and the three are RDH, Alice Springs and Darwin Private. However, for 14 to 23 weeks, where there is an element of real emergency about the condition of the mother, then it can be carried out in other places. The act has always been 0 to14 weeks in a hospital and the three that carry them out are those three; 14 to 23 weeks carries with it its own sense of urgency and potentially emergency conditions.
Dr LIM: The minister speaks about emergency abortions. I am sure there are medical advisers sitting there waiting to assist the minister in his responses. I am trying to come to grips with what he means by emergency abortions. Between 0 and 23 weeks, can you advise me in what situation would you anticipate that an abortion is required as an emergency procedure? If you are talking about a life-threatening situation to the patient, it would have to be when the patient suddenly haemorrhages for some reason. That is the only reason I can think of. What other situation might there be, if any?
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I am not a medical practitioner and I do not envisage the sorts of situations that the member for Greatorex is requesting of me, but the law does and the law spells it out. It is quite clear: terminations after 14 weeks of a pregnancy are regarded as emergency medical terminations; 14 to 23 weeks are only carried out if immediately necessary to prevent serious harm to a woman’s health and, over 23 weeks, solely to preserve a woman’s life.
New clause 3A agreed to.
Proposed new clause 3A:
Dr LIM: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 13.1, that there be a new clause 3A. The amendment is to omit in section 4, ‘This’ and insert ‘(1) This’, and at the end, insert:
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I am sorry, I may not have the right amendment.
Mr CHAIRMAN: This is Dr Lim’s 13.1.
Mr STIRLING: Yes. Is this the amendment, Mr Chairman, that would re-insert the provisions into the Model Criminal Code?
Dr LIM: Minister, the current Medical Services Bill proposes to insert clause 4, all that follows about the termination of pregnancies in medical provisions.
Mr STIRLING: The lawful provisions?
Dr LIM: Correct. My amendment defeats your purpose. By supporting my amendment, the Medical Services Act will not contain legislation governing lawful abortions.
Mr STIRLING: Thank you, member for Greatorex. I now understand the intent of your amendment. The government stands by its position, Mr Chairman, that the Criminal Code should set out unlawful behaviour. That is, the ‘thou shalt nots’. ‘Thou shalt’, under these circumstances, simply does not fit in with that type of legislation. The Criminal Code will set out unlawful behaviour. That is the intent of the Model Criminal Code we are adopting. In attempting to re-insert provisions that deal with lawful behaviour - that is, a ‘thou shalt’ under these circumstances - goes against and defies the entire purpose of that reform.
We stand by the position that the Criminal Code deals with unlawful behaviour. Here are the parameters around which a lawful abortion can be carried out and they will be transferred across to the Medical Services Act.
Dr LIM: I ask the minister to explain that advice. It is, obviously, not advice provided to SCAG, to all Attorneys-General, by the committee that looked at the model code. In fact, the Model Criminal Code report Chapter 5, Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person, said:
This is the advice from the Model Criminal Code provided to all jurisdictions, including yourself. Where did you get advice that it is better to move it out of the Criminal Code into the Medical Services Act?
Mr STIRLING: Because of the consistency of retaining the Criminal Code as all of the unlawful activity. The lawful provisions around abortion transfer to the Medical Services Act. The unlawful provisions around abortion remain in the Criminal Code.
This was the mistake made by the member for Blain, who said we are weakening the government view and lowering the bar in relation to abortion because we are taking it out of the Criminal Code. We are not. We are transferring the lawful provisions, the enabling provisions that spell out the parameters under which an abortion may be legally carried out, into the Medical Services Act. The Criminal Code retains abortion as a criminal act wherever it is carried out outside the legal parameters. There is no weakening here at all.
The Criminal Code retains that part that says ‘thou shalt not’, and it is consistent with every other part of the act which says ‘thou shalt not’. The enabling provision, ‘thou shalt’, under these circumstances, goes into the Medical Services Act. That makes entirely logical commonsense to me, and I am not a lawyer. It makes commonsense to me that if you have a Criminal Code, it contains all the things you cannot do. It does not make sense to have something in the Criminal Code with ‘except you can do this’. If you are going to have that provision, it does not belong in the Criminal Code and that is why, for consistency, the transfer to the Medical Services Act.
Dr LIM: Minister, I do not want to labour the point and I am not trying to frustrate things. I hear you, I understand what you are saying. I understand that you want to keep the ‘thou shalt not’ in the Criminal Code and ‘thou shalt’ in the Medical Services Act. I understand that. What I do not understand is the advice you received. You say it is for consistency’s sake. Perhaps, but SCAG, the committee that wrote the Model Criminal Code, states quite clearly that, in fact, our Criminal Code is a good one and the sections pertaining to abortion in the Criminal Code are good ones, that it is a good way to do it. Why, then, are you taking contrary advice to that from a very senior committee of SCAG? I do not understand that. Can you please explain it?
Mr STIRLING: I do not intend to go on with this all night, Mr Chairman, simply to point out the Model Criminal Code Officers Committee of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General Report, September 1998, page 160 …
Dr Lim: 156.
Mr STIRLING: 160:
Dr Lim: Keep reading.
Mr STIRLING: It will make no recommendation to ministers on the issue of abortion.
Dr LIM: Except, Mr Chairman, again I read page 156. You can go to it itself and have a look it:
In fact, an august body has considered Northern Territory legislation to be one of the better models for Australia, yet you are now disassembling it.
Mr STIRLING: Just for the record, Mr Chairman, I refer to page 160, which said that the committee itself would make no recommendations around abortion, as I quoted clearly. If the member for Greatorex turns to page 160 he will see that the decision was taken by that group to make no recommendation. The government has not failed, my predecessor has not failed, and the Department of Justice has not failed to take heed of the advice. Everyone has read page 160 where it says that they will make no recommendations.
Mr WOOD: Mr Chairman, for my own clarity’s sake, I understand what you are saying, minister, but what is wrong having lawful things within a particular code? For instance ‘you shall not drive at more than 100 km/h unless you are an ambulance driver, or a fireman’, etcetera. In other words, it is illegal to drive at over 100 km/h, but it is quite lawful to drive at higher than that speed if you are attending an emergency. Do you move that section to the Road Safety Act because it is quite lawful in those circumstances to drive faster than 100 km/h?
Mr STIRLING: I guess the difference is that these parameters under which a legal abortion may be carried out in the Northern Territory are not a defence. They are not a defence; it is a legal procedure. They do not belong there as a defence to criminal activity because it is not a criminal activity provided it is carried out under the parameters which are written around it. It is not a defence. It is not a matter of: ‘I am not fully guilty because…’. It is legal and has been legal for over 30 years in the Northern Territory. It is not a defence to criminal activity. It is actually legal to do it, provided the conditions are met and it is carried out within the parameters set there. It does not belong in the Criminal Code because it is not a criminal act unless it falls outside those parameters, in which case it does remain in the Criminal Code.
Mr WOOD: I understand; I had a briefing. I am not a lawyer, either, but is it not an offence? It is an offence because if someone accused you of procuring abortion and you said: ‘No, I carried it out according to the section on medical termination of pregnancy and should, therefore, not be charged’, it is the same as if I were charged with driving at more than 100 km/h and said: ‘No, I was lawfully driving at a higher speed because I am a fire engine driver’. Aren’t we splitting hairs? Yes, it is lawful, but it is a defence against someone being accused of procuring an abortion?
Dr LIM: Let me ask one more question of the minister, if I may, Mr Chairman. Minister, would you not concede that if laws pertaining to abortion were to remain in the Criminal Code, it causes doctors and others who participate in abortion to pause to consider their actions? If they were to be in the grey area or whether an abortion was legal or not, would not having criminal sanctions put upon them if this legislation remained in the Criminal Code be something to make them think consider the issue twice before they do it?
Mr STIRLING: Either the member for Greatorex is being deliberately mischievous here or he has failed to hear what I have been saying for about 20 minutes. That is, the illegal provisions around abortion remain in the Criminal Code. The same sanctions that existed before exist now. If he does not understand that or he is not listening, I cannot help him any further than that. The provisions still exist in the Criminal Code. The enabling provisions under which abortion may be carried out legally are transferred. How is that weakening or sending any wrong message to practitioners that it is a lesser offence than it may have been before? It preserves the status quo.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 4:
Mr CHAIRMAN: If you would like to move your amendment, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: Before I move onto my amendment, I have a couple of questions about Clause 11(1)(b)(ii), which says:
Is there a definition of ‘child’ in this case? That infers a child is someone who is not born.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, could I ask the member for Nelson to repeat that?
Mr WOOD: I was asking what the definition of ‘child’ was in this case. Does this mean an unborn child? What does ‘child’ legally mean? I do not believe it is used elsewhere in this act.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I take it that it would be read in the position that the ‘child’ were born, the child would be seriously handicapped.
Mr WOOD: Following on from that, the way I read it is it the ‘child’ could be seriously handicapped because it was born. If it were born, that would cause it to be seriously handicapped is the way I read it:
To me, it is saying this would happen to the child if it were born. I know it has probably been in the act for some time, but the way I read that is being born is going to cause you to be handicapped with severe physical and mental abnormalities.
Mr STIRLING: It is a restating of the current provisions. There is no change. If the member for Nelson has a real difficulty with this, I can only suggest he moves an amendment either during committee stage this evening or at a later date.
The government is being accused of doing something far greater than it actually is doing. These are not technical amendments, according to the member for Nelson. Yet he would open up another part with who knows what type of amendment? It is a bit rich to accuse us of trying to do more than we actually are but, at the same time, off the floor without any advice, suggest that something else has to be changed. Put your amendment. We certainly would not approve or pass it tonight, but it may be considered at a future sittings or you could seek to raise it on a General Business Day. I have no intention, with my limited knowledge of the law, of allowing any opening up of any other provisions, particularly those that have served in the act for the past 30 years.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. I suppose that highlights the fact that the bill has been split between two ministers. That is not my fault.
Mr STIRLING: Not at all.
Mr WOOD: The bill is here in the committee stage. I asked for an explanation of what the wording was. I do not have an intention at present of moving an amendment on that section, but I read through this bill last night and it concerned me that the way it read was quite strange. I was simply asking for an explanation. If that explanation is not forthcoming, I cannot do anything about that. I think the member for Greatorex has something he would like to add.
Dr LIM: Minister, I draw your attention to Clause 11(1)(a):
Mr STIRLING: Bear with me, Mr Chairman. I am sorry, member for Greatorex, could you run that past us again?
Dr LIM: Go to clause 11(1)(b) - sorry, not (1)(a). It is clause 11(1)(b), where you require two medical practitioners to form an opinion. Then go down to clause 11(2) where you say one of them must be an obstetrician or gynaecologist. You do not say that you require an obstetrician or gynaecologist to perform the procedure when, for the last 20 years you have required that. What is your rationale?
Mr STIRLING: I do not know what to say. You fingered the precise reason for the amendment bill. Where have you been? This is the basic reason for this amendment. At the moment, the procedure has to be carried out 0 to 14 weeks by an obstetrician or a gynaecologist. That requirement is being removed, albeit one of the two authorising medical practitioners has to be a gynaecologist or an obstetrician. One wonders where you have been for the past week while this has been explored on radio, in print and on TV.
You are asking me why this is so, why we are proposing this. You should have listened to your leader. She gave a brilliant expose early on. Your leader did not want to see women having to fly interstate to have an abortion. That was not her view at all. That is why, in part, she was supporting this legislation.
There are a limited number of obstetricians and gynaecologists in the Northern Territory. In fact, only a few of them carry out these procedures. It was put to us by Royal Darwin Hospital, the practitioners:
Dr Len Notaras
Medical Superintendent
Royal Darwin Hospital,
cc Robert Griew, Chief Executive, Health
It is as a result of representation from the clinicians themselves, from the people at the coalface working in this area, who have asked government for some assistance and clarification in this regard. No doubt they were a bit bemused to find that it was only a committee stage amendment - and a late committee stage amendment - when the act was originally passed, that introduced the requirement for a gynaecologist/obstetrician, 0 to 14 weeks, but only a suitably-qualified medical practitioner, 14 to 23 weeks.
That is an inconsistency that has existed for 30 years, including some of the time that you were a member of a presiding government, and that you were a minister at the Cabinet table, yet you were happy to live with it for all of those years. You never saw fit to worry about this on behalf of your colleagues. It is your colleagues in the medical profession - your former colleagues at least - who have asked for this and made representations around this issue. They have been listened to by government, and we had no less than the Australian Medical Association on radio today. I do not intend to take up any more time on this, but I could go through the interview with Julia Christensen where …
Dr Lim: Richard Margetson.
Mr STIRLING: Richard Margetson? I thought it was Julia. In fact, the AMA clearly spelt out their absolute support on behalf of their profession, the clinicians, the members of the AMA who have requested this.
Dr LIM: Thank you, minister, for putting it on the record but, until that moment, you really did not explain why you wanted to do it. You never did. You might have been out in the media saying it, but thank you for putting it on the record. It was important that it was on the record.
I appreciate that the Royal Darwin Hospital approached you. What I found curious was I have seen it for 20 years, including the time when the CLP was in government. Before that, general practitioners were permitted to perform terminations at up to 12 to 14 weeks. As far as I can recall, there was no change of legislation 20 or 25 years ago but, somehow, things were reinterpreted and the requirement for a specialist gynaecologist to perform the procedure came into the picture. I do not know why. The hospitals have obviously changed their minds 20 years later. I was curious to find out why.
The letter you read from Dr Len Notaras states clearly that it is about manpower. I hope you will now recognise it is through the failure of the health system that you do not have the manpower to perform the necessary procedures in the Northern Territory.
Mr WOOD: Mr Chairman, what the minister also highlights is the fact that, on one hand, this is a technical change because we want to move this particular section from the Criminal Code to the Medical Services Act. That is missing the point that I have been making all along: it is not simply that. You have changed what was in the Criminal Code and put new criteria into the Medical Services Act because you did take out the requirements for gynaecologists and obstetricians. You have changed some of the wording. It is not exactly the same legislation that was in the Criminal Code; it is different from what was there. Whilst one might argue that it could be a technical change from one bill to the other, I do not believe it is a technical change in the sense of one bill being exactly the same as another bill.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Member for Nelson, would you like to move your amendment?
Mr WOOD: Yes Mr Chairman, I move …
Mr CHAIRMAN: Sorry, minister, are you answering that question?
Mr STIRLING: Member for Nelson, apologies. Just for clarification, have we dealt with the member for Greatorex’s amendment?
Mr CHAIRMAN: Yes, we have.
Mr STIRLING: We did?
Mr CHAIRMAN: Well, we have not got to that yet; we have to deal with the member for Nelson’s amendment first.
Mr STIRLING: But we dealt with the first one?
Mr CHAIRMAN: No, not on clause 4. We are dealing with the member for Nelson, if he would like to move his amendment.
Mr WOOD: Mr Chairman, I move an amendment dealing with clause 11(2) of the bill. That is in relation to the clause that reads:
Under the Tasmanian legislation - which I agree with the minister was not quite what the member for Greatorex was talking about - section 164(5) says:
I believe that is what we should also have, with no clause saying ‘unless it is not reasonably practicable in the circumstances’.
We took out the right or the requirement to have a gynaecologist and/or an obstetrician performing the abortion for the stage at not more than 14 weeks. Then, the government has a requirement to have a gynaecologist or obstetrician in the process of forming an opinion about whether the procedure should take place. It says there must be a gynaecologist/obstetrician. It seems silly to say, on one hand, you must have one and, on the other hand, to say unless it is not reasonably practicable. That is such a broad term that unless the section is removed, it will be a symbolic clause to say that now we have removed the requirements that were originally in the Criminal Code requiring gynaecologists or obstetricians to perform the abortion, but we have put it in later, at least where an opinion is required. That is in there to offset the removal of the gynaecologists and obstetricians at the first stage in this legislation.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman:
Again, this is prosecuted by the member for Nelson that it is somehow a weakening or that people would be able to walk away. It is the law. If they failed to get a gynaecologist or obstetrician to examine the woman and form that opinion, they would have to demonstrate that it was not reasonably practicable in the circumstances. Why would it not be possible to get hold of either an obstetrician or a gynaecologist? I do not know, but there are limited numbers in the Northern Territory and it may be that in the circumstances they simply were not able to get hold of one in the time frame that was required of them, given the condition of the person.
Any number of scenarios could arise but they would be required to meet this test, and the test is to prove and demonstrate that it was not reasonably practicable. There is no walking away from this or saying: ‘They have weakened it’. It is still the law and there would have to be a demonstration it was not reasonably practicable in the circumstances because a, b, c.
I have never worked in the medical world. I do not know how many times this might arise but we are not in Melbourne or Sydney. We do not have hundreds of these people on staff all over the Territory at any given time. The legislation is foreseeing the possibility arising that it was not reasonably practicable to get a gynaecologist or obstetrician to examine the woman at that very time that they required them but, if they fail to, they had better have a record there, that would suggest to me, demonstrating very clearly why it was not practicable.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, Attorney-General. What makes it strange is that in Tasmania, they do not have that clause. Is it more difficult to get someone in Tasmania? We have issues where police have to ring someone to get a warrant in the middle of the night. The Territory has always had these particular issues, but it seems strange to me that one state’s legislation makes it clear that there has to be that person. It seems, in our case, that ‘unless it is not reasonably practicable’ is not defined, which opens it to a lot of interpretation, even if it is used as a defence. Who is to say how much effort must be made to prove that what I was trying to do was not reasonably practicable? It is a legal matter, but I want to make sure that it is not used as an excuse for not being able to get the opinion of a gynaecologist or obstetrician.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, in relation to terms such as that, wording in legislation is not thrown around lightly. It carries a legal meaning. Courts have interpreted all manner of things and have a reading, just as I was saying about ‘serious’ and ‘grave’ before. It is not what it means to you or me; it is the legal definition and how lawyers and judges understand these terms. ‘Reasonably practicable’ would be understood very clearly in a legal sense.
I am further advised, though, it is foreseeing an emergency situation where there is urgency around the case and it is not practicable in that time frame. Generally, it is not going to arise. If it is not an emergency, it could wait until such time as an obstetrician or gynaecologist was available, but if you have an emergency situation and it is not reasonably practical to get hold of them at that time, there has to be the option for them to carry out the procedure in an emergency situation without that requirement and without breaking the law and placing the medical practitioner in an absolutely invidious position.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, Attorney-General. I am not going to labour the point, but perhaps that is what should have gone in the clause: ‘in the case of an emergency where it is not reasonably practicable’ then such and such would apply. I would be happier if something like that was in the clause because then it says exactly what you are saying. As it is, it is too loose and, unless there is a change otherwise, I support it being deleted unless the government wishes to come back later and say they will add the words ‘in cases of emergency’, which I would be happy to do. However, I would rather this clause go through as it is at the present time.
Mr CHAIRMAN: We are dealing with the amendment of the member for Nelson. The question is that the words proposed be omitted be omitted.
Amendment negatived.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Member for Greatorex, would you like to move your amendment 14.1?
Dr LIM: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 14.1, which amends clause 4 with the introduction of a new section 11(3) to replace clause 3(a)(i) and (ii) and (b) and (c) as it appears in the schedule. By introducing this, I am upping the qualification of the doctor who performs the procedure. In the current bill, it reads:
It deals with up to a 23-week pregnancy. I suggest to the minister that a pregnancy at 23 weeks is fairly advanced. I said earlier in the second reading debate that the foetus is now some 0.5 kg in weight. It is about 30 cm in length, fully formed and doing all the things that a baby would normally do inside a tummy by which stage, too - the foetus is kicking and the mother would feel those kicks quite clearly.
The top of the uterus is well above the belly button by that stage so it is quite enlarged. It is thick and soft and any termination of pregnancy at that stage would be fraught with significant complications if it is not done properly. I suggest that you require the services of a specialist to perform that procedure. I do not believe that a medical practitioner with a minimum of a Diploma in Obstetrics and Gynaecology - which, essentially, is a general practitioner - who performs obstetrics, is appropriately qualified. Termination of pregnancy would not be really considered an obstetrics procedure; it would be more a gynaecological procedure. There is not much training in a Diploma in Obstetrics and Gynaecology for termination of pregnancies. However, a specialist obstetrician/gynaecologist would be trained in these procedures. The skills would be at a much higher level than a Diploma in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, hence my recommendation that this amendment be accepted. I believe this provides protection for women and ensures a high level of skill from the practitioner.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, this is actually quite a dramatic change to the law that has existed and, presumably, served the Northern Territory very well for over 30 years - the law that was in place during the time you were a minister of the Crown in this parliament, and you saw nothing wrong, apparently, with the law during all of that time.
In the time since the election of 2001, you have been a member of this Chamber for some five years and have not seen the need to raise this as an issue. In fact, it would be not only a reversal of what the government is attempting to achieve by way of the 0 to 14 weeks, you would be putting something into the legislation requiring an obstetrician or gynaecologist for 14 to 23 weeks, which has never existed. It has never existed in the legislation that has served the Northern Territory for over 30 years.
I am not sure if the member for Greatorex has missed the point that from 14 to 23 weeks, the procedure is only undertaken in emergency situations where there is an immediate risk of serious harm to the mother.
I have already said that in the Northern Territory there are relatively small numbers of obstetricians and gynaecologists - and guess where most of them work? It is not Tennant Creek and it is not Nhulunbuy. Those we have are in Darwin and Alice Springs, the major urban areas. Therefore, if we were to pass an amendment of this nature, it would leave a medical practitioner faced with an emergency situation in Nhulunbuy, Tennant Creek, Katherine or, indeed, anywhere in the Northern Territory where they might be working outside of Darwin and Alice Springs where they could not conceivably get hold of an obstetrician or a gynaecologist. It would leave them in an impossible situation of allowing a woman to die or breaking the law to save her life. That is a ridiculously impossible situation in which to place our medical practitioners, but that would be the effect of passing your amendment. It would leave the law, at best, unclear. It would certainly leave doctors very exposed. I do not doubt that they would choose to break the law in order to save that woman’s life because that is what they are charged with, first and foremost: the saving of life.
By doing that, you would be placing the doctors against the law, and that would be an absurd situation. Failing that, you would severely threaten the safety of women who are in this situation and do not have the good fortune to be living in Alice Springs or Darwin.
Dr LIM: I hope your advisors are cringing. Surely, minister, you do not believe anything you just said. A doctor would not let a patient die. You would do craniotomies even though you are not a neurosurgeon, but you would do craniotomies to save a patient if the patient had a haemorrhage inside their head. Any sensible government would not prosecute the doctor, so do not give me that sort of rubbish about letting a patient die.
Mr STIRLING: Oh, so you would have the choice.
Dr LIM: What a load of rubbish! Let me come back to the point about me not chasing up these abortion laws in the last 12 years that I have been in this parliament. I bet you do not know every item of legislation in this House. Do you? Of course you do not. I am not an anti-abortionist. I do not believe in abortion for myself and my family, but I understand that there are people out there who would make that choice. You think that I am going to follow this through and get rid of the abortion laws to try to make it difficult for everyone? Do not be ridiculous. This is the sort of cynical argument that a minister of your calibre, your seniority, should be above.
It is important to have a doctor with adequate skills to perform an abortion at 23 weeks. I say again that a medical practitioner with a Diploma in Obstetrics and Gynaecology is not adequately trained to do procedures of this complexity. A classic example is Dr Sood, who has a Diploma in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, and who performed operations that caused significant damage to her pregnant patients. It is not a reversal to insist that doctors who perform terminations of pregnancies at 23 weeks be a specialist. It is your responsibility to ensure that women who seek medical treatment at your hospitals are treated safely. This is one way of doing it. By allowing medical practitioners without that sort of qualification will endanger these women. I ask that you reconsider; that you allow that inclusion of obstetrician and gynaecologist into clause 11(3).
Amendment negatived.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 12.2. I believe I might have covered this before. The amendment inserts into proposed section 11 a definition of ‘hospital’ which includes private hospitals for which a licence is in force under the Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes Act, to ensure that the new section 11 applies to those hospitals. In effect, the amendments ensure the status quo with regard to the type of premises where such treatment can be lawfully administered is maintained. I pointed out earlier in debate that if we did not have this provision, Darwin Private Hospital would drop out. It is one of the three hospitals where these procedures are carried out: Alice Springs, Royal Darwin and Darwin Private. It was never the intention of the government to change that but, in relation to the amendments being proceeded with, it is necessary to further amend to ensure that Darwin Private Hospital is picked up.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr CHAIRMAN: The question now is that the clause stand as amended.
Dr LIM: Before you move for the inclusion of the whole of clause 11, may I ask the minister - and I think this is the appropriate place because I do not know where else I could ask this - in passing this amendment as it stands in the Medical Services Bill with the inclusion of the hospitals, will your government put in place appropriate counselling services that will ensure that pregnant women are appropriately counselled prior to them making the choice to proceed with the termination of pregnancy?
Mr STIRLING: Yes, it is a fair question, Mr Chairman. I am happy to respond in as positive terms as I can. One of the reasons for the clinicians putting this view in relation to work pressure on those obstetricians and gynaecologists who do carry out the procedures 0 to 14 weeks, at the moment, is because of the small numbers and because few of them do it. It does put added pressure in and around that counselling, advice and support for the person concerned. By having suitably qualified medical practitioners working alongside in this area of medicine, it increases the number of people who are involved in the first place and, second, available for what I regard as very important counselling, advice and support for the person concerned. Supporting these amendments tonight, I believe, strengthens that guidance, support, advice for the person involved.
Dr LIM: Minister, when you talk about other doctors and nurses could be involved in supporting the patient in counselling, it does not appear to me that it is a formalised counselling session provided for the patient. Are you going to establish an official or a formal abortion clinic with a counsellor, a psychologist or trained counsellor, doing that independent of the doctors who are going to perform the procedures? Is it just an informal ad hoc bedside consultation and counselling? I would like to hear a bit more description of what is going to happen.
Dr BURNS: Mr Chairman, in response to the member for Greatorex’s question, it was a question that was a question that I asked Dr Len Notaras who heads up Medical Services at the hospital. He told me that, as part of these changes, it would certainly free up capacity for more counselling in these cases. Exactly what form that counselling takes, I am unable to tell you at the moment, member for Greatorex, but I was certainly assured by someone who is very senior within the system that this would be the case. It is very important aspect that you raised. It was certainly a concern of mine, and I can only relay what Dr Notaras said to me.
Dr LIM: That does not describe what sort of formal counselling will be provided. I know the federal government has already provided lots of funding to the various jurisdictions to promote counselling and provision of alternative choices for women who are pregnant. I am not certain what the Minister for Health saying that Dr Notaras has assured him that it will free up people to do that means. At the moment, from what I understand, one practitioner, an obstetrician or gynaecologist, is performing all the termination procedures at the Royal Darwin Hospital.
With the passage of this bill, other doctors will be allowed to perform these procedures as well. Where does that free up doctors to provide the counselling and support, unless you are saying the obstetrician who has been performing the procedures up to this stage in time will now be freed up to do the counselling?
There should be a separate counselling service that is not involved with the termination of pregnancy procedural side of the Royal Darwin Hospital. That independent counselling service should be formally provided and the federal government is providing assistance with funding. Would the Health Minister at least give me some assurance that is what is going to be developed at the Royal Darwin Hospital, Alice Springs Hospital and Darwin Private Hospital, if needs be through your lobbying of the Darwin Private Hospital?
Dr BURNS: Mr Chairman, I have been advised that in terms of the law, such counselling services are not mandated but, at a professional level, this would be a matter between the patient and their GP as well as the patient and their specialists. As you alluded to, member for Greatorex, the Commonwealth is funding family relationship services, and I would expect those to be taken up within the Northern Territory. I am prepared to pursue the matter further and give it some attention.
Mr WOOD: Following on from that, will the government consider making it mandatory that counselling does occur as part of this process?
Dr BURNS: Through you, Mr Chairman, I do not believe that it would be appropriate to mandate such counselling, but I believe that within the professional care given by medical practitioners, it would be a high priority for them to suggest it. However, in essence, I do not believe it would be appropriate to mandate it, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. Following on again, considering this is, for many of us, a very serious matter and it does mean that an unborn life would be terminated, could you say why it should not be mandated? Are there any reasons why it should not be?
Dr BURNS: Because it is really a professional judgment and call by the medical practitioner. It comes down to an interaction between the medical practitioner and the patient. There may well be some patients who might not want professional counselling, who might resist it. It might become a sticking point in the relationship between them and their medical practitioner.
Dr LIM: I agree with the Minister for Health that to make counselling compulsory is probably inappropriate, speaking from my own professional point of view.
I want to draw the minister’s awareness to the national study that I spoke about done by the Adelaide-based Sexton Marketing Group in which 99% of respondents to the survey believed that women contemplating abortion should have access to counselling. It is almost unanimous support that a counselling service must be there so that women seeking abortion can at least access that if they so choose. That is something that the Northern Territory government needs to pick up and run with.
Dr BURNS: I acknowledge what the member for Greatorex said. I have taken what both he and the member for Nelson have said on board and I have undertaken that I will give this matter attention and follow up on it as Minister for Health.
Dr LIM: I thank the minister for his response. It was very positive and at least we can look forward to, hopefully in a short time, counselling services being available to those patients who ask for them.
Minister, I wonder whether you have considered also that now you are opening up termination of pregnancies to other practitioners, there may be more requests for ultrasounds prior to the termination to determine the stage of pregnancy. Have you considered what sort of budgetary implications there might be on your health budget for ultrasound requests performed at Royal Darwin Hospital?
Dr BURNS: I am not sure whether I heard the member for Greatorex clearly at the beginning of his question, but I think he might have premised his question on an assumption that there would be an increase in the number of terminations performed.
Dr LIM: No, I did not say that. I said more practitioners.
Dr BURNS: More practitioners?
Dr LIM: More practitioners. That is what your bill is about, to have more practitioners performing terminations.
Dr BURNS: There is a clinical pathway in assessing people and I would not have thought that there would be any increase in the number of ultrasounds.
Dr LIM: I will be interested to find out. Perhaps it is a question that you might want to take on board for estimates, come next year.
Minister, are you aware of how many late-stage termination of pregnancies there are each year; that is, between 14 and 23 weeks?
Dr BURNS: I do not have that information before me at present, member for Greatorex. I am informed that there are fluctuations in the numbers, but beyond that, I have not ascertained the exact numbers of each category.
Hold on. I do have some information here, member for Greatorex.
Dr LIM: Good.
Dr BURNS: You are asking 14 to 23 weeks, member for Greatorex?
Dr LIM: If you have the rest of the figures, I would appreciate the lot.
Dr BURNS: I beg your pardon?
Dr LIM: If you have other figures as well and you are prepared to share them …
Dr BURNS: I have a breakdown by percentage, but I do not necessarily have a number. The numbers vary between years, but what I have in front of me is that pregnancies up to 14 weeks comprise 97% of Northern Territory medical terminations. For those emergency situations - that is, for pregnancies between 14 to 23 weeks - that is 2.5% of Northern Territory medical terminations. For pregnancies beyond 23 weeks, it is 0.5% of Northern Territory medical terminations.
Dr LIM: Thank you.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of bill, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendments.
Criminal Reform Amendment Bill (No 2) 2006 (Serial 71):
Clauses 1 to 4, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 5:
Mr WOOD: Mr Chairman, I move an amendment to this clause to omit the word ‘born’ and insert the word ‘conceived’. This cannot be classed as a technicality by any standard. It is a new section of the act, and it is section 51B headed ‘Person against whom offence may be committed’. It reads:
Attorney-General, I am not a QC, barrister or some eminent lawyer …
Mr Stirling: Nor am I.
Mr WOOD: … and I know that many people have debated this matter, but it is important that some commonsense could come before the House instead of, as sometimes happens, the legal eagles taking over. What I see as a commonsense definition can disappear into mountains of legal debate.
I did not realise this until the briefing, but a person is simply, under this clause, regarded as someone who has to be born completely from their mother - although there are other sections that can be taken into consideration - and has not already died. That is fine. I am obviously a person, but I have rights from that stage. From Stage A to Stage B, I have rights under our law, under this Criminal Code. That is why this section is in this act.
If I am dead, I also have rights. As a corpse, people cannot interfere with me, even though when I am dead I am not particularly sure I will be very worried about it, but the law actually protects something that is dead. In other words, it is saying that we should be respectful of a body; a dead human being. It is saying that we will give that some protection under the law that it should not be mutilated or whatever.
It seems to me this is a great anomaly. The anomaly is that at the other end of life, from conception to birth, there is no protection of that human life. There is protection of the mother. For instance, if a mother was kicked by someone and the unborn child was either born injured, deformed or was killed, the offence would not be against the killing of that unborn child, it would be against the mother as grievous bodily harm. I suppose that would be looked at from a magistrate’s point of view as a more serious offence than if you kicked or injured a woman who was not pregnant. In other words, they would take that into account.
It seems to me that we really should be protecting the unborn child by saying that if someone killed that unborn child, they would be charged with both an offence against the mother, grievous bodily harm, and murder because that human life between conception and birth should be regarded as a person.
Another consideration, minister, is premature birth. We know that science allows a baby to be born at 23 weeks. If that baby is born at 23 weeks, either through a caesarean or whatever, under this definition, that baby becomes a person; it has all the rights of every other human being until the day they die. A child of exactly the same age, conceived at the same time, in its mother’s womb until the full pregnancy term has been completed, does not have that protection. I was not being flippant when I said if I was that child, I would want to get out of my mother very quickly, because my friend, who got out at 23 weeks, has the protection of the law because that child is regarded as a person and has the full protection of the law. Yet, because I stay in my mother’s womb another three months or so, I have no protection. That seems to be silly – just not right.
Why do I have no protection under the law for the first nine months of my life? I cannot answer it because once you are conceived, the DNA that will carry you for the rest of your life is formed at that stage. You are a human; that is it. You might not have a formed beating heart or have ears showing at that stage, but you have set yourself on the path of going through all the stages of life, from foetus to embryo to toddler to tweens - as they call the teenager now - to middle age, to old. It is part of the whole stage of life. Why do we not have protection for that stage of life? That is a great anomaly.
For people who support abortion, it would not make any difference under our law because they would be exempt. Your law allows an abortion to take place. You would say, if I was arguing from that point of view, that, regardless of whether that child has rights as a person, that person can lose their rights under this clause.
We should be making a law that is the basis of protecting human life and, if we want to make exemptions to that, make those exemptions in this parliament. Let us not make an exemption that says this stage of life is irrelevant or this stage of life has no rights. Let us say straight up-front that this stage of life - conception to birth - is regarded as a person. If people then wish to allow abortions to occur or other things to happen with that unborn life, let us cover it within the legislation if that is the way people feel, even though I do not necessarily feel that way.
My belief is that a good government should protect that unborn by changing the word ‘born’ to ‘conceived’. You can read great books like the one that I have here about the pre-natal person and it will discuss zygotes and all sorts of things, but the basis is that once you are conceived, when there is the fusion, DNA for the rest of your life occurs. Why have it more complicated? We all start at that stage. It does not mean that we are going to be born nine months later. Some of us are born anywhere between six and nine months. Why should some people have become a person before other people? This is an opportunity for the government to lead the way by giving legal protection to the unborn and treating them as though they are a person.
Mr STIRLING: I am a bit taken aback, Mr Chairman. The effect of this amendment would be a person against whom an offence may be committed under this code, the Criminal Code, is ‘a person who has been conceived and who has not already died’. My reading of that would be abortion would be illegal in the first sense, second sense, third sense - altogether. Why not just say that you are seeking to make abortion totally illegal in the Northern Territory? That would be the effect of your amendment.
You have explained in debate today that one part of you says abortion ought to be illegal, but there is a practical side to you that accepts that abortion will occur under certain circumstances, albeit you might not agree with all of them. You say that yourself, member for Nelson, but the effect of your amendment would be to make abortion illegal. I do not think that would be your intent. If it is your intent, fine; let us hear you out and we will defeat the amendment, but that would be my reading of the effect of your amendment.
Mr WOOD: As much as I might wish that, as you said, minister, I understand the practicalities. It was not my intention to say that abortion should not be legal. Could you explain why it would be illegal if the amended Medical Services Act says it is lawful for a medical practitioner to give medical treatment with the intention of terminating a woman’s pregnancy? Wouldn’t that be the exemption from an offence against the person? You are allowing an offence against the person in this particular circumstance if you do it exactly as written in this act. That is the way I read it. Maybe I am wrong.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I now understand how the member for Nelson might think this would work because you would have the enabling provisions in the Medical Services Act. You have an immediate fundamental contradiction between two Northern Territory laws: one that says it is illegal because a person against whom an offence may be committed under this code is a person who has been conceived and who has not already died and, if subject to abortion, it would be then murder. Murder is what that would mean. Then, in the Medical Services Act, we have a series of conditions under which abortion may be carried out, but the Criminal Code says abortion is murder.
The wisdom of Solomon would not work that out. We would have all the courts on our backs, saying: ‘Which law do you actually support: the law that says abortion is legal under these circumstances or the law that you have passed that says abortion is absolutely and totally illegal? Make up your mind. Which one do you prefer, government? You had better make an amendment accordingly’.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. We do have laws occasionally that allow us to take someone’s life. For instance, you could have capital punishment, which I know does not exist in Australia at the moment, but that is where a government could say we approve the killing of a human being. We allow someone in the police force or the Armed Forces to kill a person because they would be defending themselves. There are defences to ending someone’s life. I am not necessarily supporting that. What I am saying is that laws do allow certain things to occur and, whether that is palatable in the sense you are moving from allowing a termination of a pregnancy as written here to saying you are allowing someone to terminate someone’s life - which is probably more accurate if you really want to get down to the nuts and bolts of it - what difference does it make? Termination of a pregnancy in actual fact is termination of a life.
If the law of this country says that is legal, what would be the problem with still giving that life the legal status as a person from conception to birth? You are making the exception for when that life can end but, at the same time, you are making a statement that the life has a right, some legal status. I see this as one of the great anomalies. I can be born at 23 weeks and I have more protection than someone who is born at nine months. That seems crazy. A corpse has protection. Who cares? I am dead. I do not care what people do me when I am dead. I am not going to feel anything. Yet we do not give it to the most vulnerable part of human life. We get stuck in these legalities again. Why do we not make this the basic principle on which we stand, a basic principle on supporting this vulnerable life? Then, if you want to, make the exceptions to fit - not the other way around. That is the way it is at the moment.
Dr LIM: If I may assist, I am sure the intention of the member for Nelson is not to prevent abortions. We are all pragmatic enough to know that there will be people who want abortions and we should make sure that they receive them safely.
This is about protection of a foetus. The baby inside the uterus is technically a foetus until it is born outside of the mother. A foetus, at the moment, does not have any rights at all. It is a living, moving being, apart from breathing because it still has no air in its lungs, but it has everything else. It is not breathing because of the nature of things. It just happens that it is in a liquid-filled environment. Had it been in an air-filled environment, it would be breathing. That is the anomaly: a foetus for nine months has no rights whereas a prematurely born baby at 23 weeks weighing 0.5 kg and measuring 30 cm in a humidicrib with all the drips under the sun, with tubes in just about every orifice that is needed to support life, has rights. That is the anomaly.
I believe there is a place to say that a foetus has rights. Perhaps tonight might be the wrong time to discuss this, member for Nelson, because our brains are engaged with the abortion debate and we are not able to clearly delineate one from the other.
There is a major issue here, minister, and I ask you to listen to this: a foetus up to nine months of pregnancy has no rights. The member for Nelson gave you an example of a woman who aborts because of trauma to her uterus by, say, domestic violence, a husband punching her stomach. It happened in Queensland just recently. The baby died and the law could not pursue the perpetrator of the domestic violence for the death of the baby. The only thing they could do was to prosecute the perpetrator of the domestic violence for bodily harm to the woman.
What we are saying is that the foetus should have some rights and, perhaps by doing this, it allows the foetus to have rights. If you look at the inconsistency of our societal values, a foetus in utero, because it cannot breathe because it is in water-filled environment, has no rights. A 23-week premature baby in a humidicrib with all the support structures around it to help it sustain life has rights. It is anomalous.
Mr WOOD: I will say, minister, I understand that this is, for some people, bigger than Ben Hur, but I believe this is a relevant time to move this amendment. This is a new clause in an act. We are not talking about whether we think something is a technical bill, the Medical Services Act. This is a new clause in the Criminal Code and it is an opportune time. I know we are tired.
Mr STIRLING: I am not tired. You can go all night.
Mr WOOD: Oh, sorry. I know we have been going a long time, but it is an important issue. You say it raises some issues, but maybe it signals that the government should look at this. If this is not the place to deal with some of those issues you have raised, the technicalities, then it would be nice to know that the government would at least consider reviewing this part of our law. Why can’t we review it? Why could we not work our way around it? I would rather have three-quarters of what I am after than nothing at all. If at least three-quarters of these unborn children have rights and one-quarter, unfortunately, were aborted, it is better than nothing. At the moment, that stage of life has no protection. I am bewildered about why we have this vacuum when it comes to protection of human life. Some people may say that is because of my objection to abortion, but no. It may have some relevance, but when I had the briefing I just did not realise that there were no rights at all.
I tried to look at it from a commonsense point of view as to how come one part of our human life is not protected, just like that. How come some life is protected at one age and some is not? How come someone is not charged with murder when they kill an unborn child? To me, it is murder. That child will never been able to fulfil the rest of its life, no different from if you killed them at one, or one day old. That child will never be able to fulfil its destiny in life, so what does it matter? The member for Greatorex quoted something from the Criminal Code. What difference is it whether you are 10 seconds from being born and killed, or 10 seconds after you are born and killed?
Surely, that is a question this parliament should look at seriously and consider at another stage if the government is not going to agree to it now. It would be nice to know that this is one of the issues government will look at. I certainly will be looking at it. I might even bring it back as a private member’s bill. I will look at the issues because I know there are a lot of issues. Perhaps the Northern Territory could lead the way in protection of life. Wouldn’t that be great?
Minister, I am fully aware that this amendment will be defeated, but I move it because it is extremely important and it is something that we should work hard to change.
Dr LIM: Mr Chairman, now that the member for Nelson has referred to the Model Criminal Code, I genuinely suggest the minister read pages 161 and 162, which relate very much to what the member for Nelson was talking about regarding rights of the foetus.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, a couple of issues I want to pick up from the member for Nelson: the 10 seconds before and the 10 seconds after-type scenario that he has just described. I refer him to section 170:
Mr Wood: I know that.
Mr STIRLING: Well, if you know that and you nod so knowingly, you are admitting that your 10 seconds before and 10 seconds after example is not a very effective one for prosecuting the case that you are putting in relation to changing ‘born’ to ‘conception’.
This would be the most fundamental change, not just to the Criminal Code of the Northern Territory, but to the entire model code and, indeed, the whole of Australia. These issues have been wrestled with by Justice over many years. There is great consistency across Australia in relation to these definitions for good reason; so that what you do in one state approximates to doing something just as bad in another state.
I intend to write to you about this. I will get Justice to prepare for me some of the background work that they have done over time. I do not think I need to convince you that this amendment does not get you there. It does not get anyone there in what you are trying to achieve. I hope you accept that. If not, we can include the reasons why we do not believe it is going to work. I will get that to you in the next little while - a week or two. We will get that information to you and some of the background of the work that has been done in this area, and why it is so difficult to go where you want to go.
I do not pretend to understand it; I am quite a new minister for Justice. However, there are people who do understand these issues in law and have a whole background of experience and research as to what is possible and what is not. I will get that information to you in the near future.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister, I appreciate that. When I said the 10 seconds before and 10 seconds after, I was not trying to be literal, if that is the right word - I have heard that word debated in some English discussions recently. I was not meaning it exactly as I said it. I was just trying to give an example that there can be stages where, before you are born there is no penalty but, after you are born there can be a penalty. I thank the minister for what he said.
I will be interested in the papers that are sent to me. We may continue this issue on another day. If it happens to overturn what is some sort of legal precedent and we can find a way around it, I would say at least that is something good for the Northern Territory.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 18, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 19:
Dr LIM: Mr Chairman, I move amendments 15.1 and 15.2. What I wish to do is to omit ‘Proposed sections 208B and 208C, note’ and insert after section 208C within Division 8, a new section 208CA, which includes the words that are in the amendment schedule circulated earlier today. It is too long for me to read. I am not going to read it all.
The rationale for doing that is to demonstrate that there is no anomaly for medical termination of pregnancy to be in the Criminal Code. It is stated quite clearly by the Model Criminal Code Committee which said, and I read again:
The committee then has this to say:
They went on to quote the House of Lords and its thoughts on the matter. Again, I urge the minister to read it through, digest it and consider that the medical termination of pregnancy can sit without any anomaly within the Criminal Code. I seek your support.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I point out that the bills that should be passed shortly place these provisions inside the Medical Services Act and removes them from the Criminal Code. The effect of this amendment would be to place back those lawful abortion provisions in the Criminal Code. We would have it twice, in fact - once in the Medical Services Act and again in the Criminal Code. Once we have taken them out of the Criminal Code in order to put them into the Medical Services Act, this amendment is redundant because it seeks to put them back in after the Criminal Code, so it is going back over work that we have already waded through to get to this point tonight.
It is contingent, really, on not transferring it out of the Criminal Code in the first place. You needed that amendment defeated really and, then, it would have stayed in the Criminal Code anyway and this amendment would not have been necessary. It seems to me the effect of this amendment would be trying to undo the work that the committee has worked through to get to this stage.
Dr LIM: It is unfortunate that the Medical Services Bill came up for debate before the Criminal Code amendment bill. I am still trying to convince the minister that it is not anomalous to have lawful terminations of pregnancies legislation within the Criminal Code, and it is supported quite strongly by the Model Criminal Code committee. They wrote it quite clearly. Have a look at page 161, which is quite clear. It is not anomalous to do so.
Mr STIRLING: I do not want to dwell on this, Mr Chairman, but the point is made against the paragraph at page 155 of the report on ‘Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person’:
What they were saying is that was the case in all of Australia except South Australia and the Northern Territory because the Territory has clearly set out regulations. That is what this committee supports, not the legislation where they are located, but the fact that they are so clearly spelt out in law as, I assume, South Australia is in the same case. I further assume, maybe wrongly, that the Northern Territory would have imported South Australian provisions all of those years ago – possibly. Do not take me at my word there, member for Greatorex, but they are saying South Australian and the Northern Territory provide certainty around this area, and that is a good thing, as opposed to the other states. It is not a view and not a recommendation that the certainty ought necessarily be in the Criminal Code.
Dr LIM: Minister, I know how busy ministers are in your position, but it might be worth your while to read the discussion paper in total. I have done that on several occasions and it does say the Model Criminal Code should reflect the model adopted in both South Australia and the Northern Territory. It is saying that the Criminal Code that we have regarding abortion is good.
You are the government, you can do what you like and I have to accept it; I have no other option. You have decided to go against the advice given by the committee on the Model Criminal Code. I encourage you, at your leisure, to read the Model Criminal Code report in its entirety and satisfy yourself what it means. Your officers are showing it to you out of context and you are not getting the full picture.
Mr STIRLING: That is a matter of interpretation. I believe they are saying the provisions are good, not the Criminal Code or the fact that they sit in the Criminal Code. Next year, were a similar report is to come down, they would probably say the provisions are good, albeit they are located within the Medical Services Act. It is the existence of the provisions that they are commending, not where they are located. I am happy to accept your advice and have a look at it for myself and make up my own mind.
Dr LIM: Perhaps, minister, you can also explain why all jurisdictions have retained legislation on abortion within the Criminal Code bar the ACT. They must have a rationale for that. They have not shifted them out. The ACT and this territory are the only two jurisdictions that have abortion laws outside the Criminal Code, whereas all state jurisdictions have it within their criminal codes.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, a quick search of legislation across Australia shows other jurisdictions have or are in the process of moving regulation of lawful terminations from criminal legislation to health legislation. For example, the ACT and WA. The ACT’s Health Act deals with all aspects of lawful terminations. In Western Australia it is Health Act that deals with lawful terminations. Other jurisdictions such as Victoria are looking at making the same changes for the same reasons. We are. Criminal codes or crimes acts are for unlawful behaviour and there is more appropriate legislation available to deal with this matter. So two jurisdictions have it already in their Health Act, and Victoria is looking at making the same change.
Dr LIM: Thank you.
Amendments negatived.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Remainder of bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
Bills reported; report adopted.
Mr STIRLING (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a third time.
The Assembly divided:
Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
Ms LAWRIE (Infrastructure and Transport): Madam Speaker, today I update the House about the Northern Territory’s public transport system.
Our public transport system plays an important role in our community. In the greater Darwin area alone, our bus network carries some 4.5 million passengers per year. Considering our population base, 4.5 million passengers is an impressive figure. In recent years, we have seen some significant improvements to our public transport system, some of which I will highlight today.
The Northern Territory government delivers public transport in some form in most major regional centres, whether that is public urban transport or school bus services or a combination. Our government committed $24.3m this financial year to drive our great public transport network. With our population spread, the bulk of the urban public transport system services the greater Darwin area. This area stretches to Acacia Hills and east to Middle Point. The greater Darwin area public transport system is delivered by a number of bus services, with the largest component being the Darwinbus network. The Darwinbus network is an integrated 45-bus system providing both public bus services and dedicated school runs in the Darwin and Palmerston areas. With a 45-bus fleet, the Darwinbus network currently offers around 600 weekday services and a reduced schedule on weekends. The Darwinbus service is the only government-owned component of our public transport system, with other bus services provided by a range of contractors including Shuker Bus Service, Buslink in the Top End and Dyson Cobb and Co in Alice Springs.
Proudly, the Darwinbus fleet is among the most modern in Australia. Almost 100% of the fleet is equipped with low floor easy access, airconditioning and CCTV. As Minister for Family and Community Services with responsibility for aged care and disability services, I am pleased the government is making it easier for people with mobility challenges to access our public transport. Additionally, if you have lived in Darwin a long time and remember the days when there was no airconditioning on public buses, you will join with me in recognising this is also a significant improvement to our network.
In Alice Springs, the Northern Territory government provides funding to the Alice Springs Town Council to deliver an urban public bus service. As Alice Springs grows, the government will monitor the demands on this service and the current delivery model.
As the Darwinbus fleet demonstrates, the Martin government is focusing on providing a high level of service across our public transport network. We are also committed to delivering affordable public transport and, in fact, the fares on the Darwinbus network are probably the lowest in the country. Revenue raised from the Darwinbus network is just a fraction of the cost of the service, some 21%. This rate of revenue from public transport is lower than most other jurisdictions.
Further, a new simplified fare structure was recently announced by my predecessor, the member for Johnston. The fare system will move from a zonal-based structure with a total of 15 fare levels to a very simple and more understandable structure with only two levels. This will mean even cheaper travel for bus commuters. Under the new fares, an adult bus ticket will cost $2 and a concession ticket only 50. Both tickets will also provide unlimited travel anywhere on the Darwinbus system for three hours. I am pleased that the big winners of the new fares structure are our pensioners and concession card holders. For example, a round trip to the supermarket that can reasonably be undertaken within three hours for a Palmerston pensioner will now cost only 50 compared with $1.20 for two trips under the old zonal system. This is a great outcome for bus commuters, particularly our pensioners and those Territorians on concessions. It is also another example of the Martin government doing more to assist families and senior Territorians.
We are a government that looks to the future and to how we can maximise use of public transport. The new cheaper and simplified bus fare structure is one strategy aimed at increasing bus use by commuters, which, in the longer term, will help free up traffic congestion, particularly in our peak hours.
The recent announcement of new bicycle enclosures at the Palmerston and Casuarina Bus Interchanges will also make it easier for commuters to use public transport. The joint Territory and federal government initiative gives cyclists a safe option for storing their bikes during the day when they catch a bus to and from work.
Along with maintaining a high quality and affordable public transport system, the Territory government also funds free bus services for a number of public events. These events range from the hugely popular V8 Supercars, BassintheGrass, Royal Darwin Show, Darwin Cup, Arafura Games and major football and cricket matches, to events like Seniors Week activities and Anzac Day. These services a highly used by Territorians and not only improve access and reduce traffic and parking congestion at major events, they also provide a safe way home.
In 2005, this government undertook to provide additional bus services for senior Territorians. I am pleased to report that residents of the Leanyer Seniors Village are now enjoying a dedicated bus service that takes them to the hospital and major shopping centres.
This government is soon to introduce a similar service for senior Territorians at the Fannie Bay Seniors Village as part of this commitment. To facilitate the new service at Fannie Bay Seniors Village, a dedicated bus turnaround bay and shelter at the corner of Waratah Crescent and Kurringal Court has been constructed at a cost of almost $80 000. This government will go to considerable lengths to ensure our senior citizens have good mobility.
Again in 2005, the Martin government introduced additional bus services, this time to the rural area, delivering on our commitment to outer Darwinians. The bus services to the rural areas of Noonamah, Humpty Doo, Howard Springs and Virginia were expanded to improve access to public transport for rural residents.
Along with the earlier mentioned CCTV on the Darwinbus network and at bus interchanges, my department is in the process of employing four transport safety officers, an initiative that will be welcomed by passengers, bus contractors and drivers alike. The role of the transport safety officers will include facilitating driver and passenger safety, rolling out national counter-terrorism initiatives, acting as liaison between drivers and passengers in disputes, coordinating efforts with police, and to act as ambassadors for public transport in and around the network. Transport safety officers should be on the job by the end of next month. These officers will represent the first permanent, physical presence on the Darwinbus network to respond to and deter antisocial activity. When combined with the state of the art CCTV systems on the buses and at interchanges, I am sure you would agree that the government is doing everything that it reasonably can do to ensure the personal safety of public transport passengers and staff.
School buses are an integral part of our public transport system. The majority of the Territory’s 40 000 students have access to public transport to get to school. A local school bus system is funded by government in the major regional centres of Katherine, Alice Springs and Gove. The government also provides funding or contracted bus services for school transport in Jabiru, Borroloola, Ti Tree and Alyangula. In addition to the Darwinbus network there is an extensive system of dedicated school transport services operating across the greater Darwin area, which includes mainstream school buses, migrant education services and special bus services for those students with disabilities.
Our specialised bus services provide a very personalised service for students with disabilities. These buses have at least one carer on board in addition to the driver, and are fitted with seating to cater for a range of disabilities, including students in wheelchairs, with mental disabilities and those with severe motor coordination impairment. Some members may be unaware that this is a door-to-door service from the home of the student with the disability to the school or facility that the student is attending on that day, and then return to their home at the end of the day.
The program for students with disabilities changes on a daily basis, as do the personal arrangements of the parents or other carers of these very special primary and high school students. I am proud to advise honourable members that our special needs bus services cater for these daily changing circumstances as a part of normal service provision. This is a high quality service, indeed. The special needs transport in Katherine and Gove is provided by taxis. In Alice Springs, it has been found more cost-effective for special needs transport to fund the operation of buses based in the organisation delivering these special needs services. Two examples are St Mary’s Homes and the Acacia Hill School.
As part of the middle schools implementation, the Martin government has procured an additional 10 buses to cater for changed transport needs at a cost of $1.75m for the 2007 school year and ongoing. These buses will all be new buses in keeping with what is already one of the most modern school bus fleets in Australia. Eight of the 10 buses will be available for the start of the 2007 school year and the other two shortly after. Usually, it takes a minimum of 12 months for delivery of new buses. In this case, there has been a shortened delivery period, thanks to the efforts of my agency.
I am advised that there is unlikely to be a requirement for additional buses in Alice Springs to the 2007 phase of middle schools, but we will, of course, monitor this and provide extra services as required. There will be further additional buses required for middle school changes which happen in 2008, and these will be procured next year. My agency has consulted with school communities, parents and students to develop a proposed school bus schedule for middle schools, and these will be monitored and altered as required.
Besides buses, the Territory government also uses ferry services to help deliver public transport. The Mandorah Ferry Service is a commercial operation, but government provides some funding to secure school transport and some core level public ferry services.
The public transport system is delivered on the ground by our bus drivers. There are 150 drivers working across the Territory to provide a professional and efficient service. Last weekend, I was pleased to be able to wave off the seventh NT Bus Rodeo where local bus drivers compete for the chance to make the nationals. It is a great opportunity for local bus drivers to showcase their skills, and they are impressive. The course is certainly challenging and designed to test a range of abilities expected from a professional driver and reflect actual driving conditions, including vehicle control, passenger comfort, traffic regulations, dress standards and driver safety and efficiency within a competitive time frame. Congratulations to the place-getters from the seventh Bus Rodeo: first place, Mr David Elm of Darwinbus Service; second place, Mr Ernie Burger of Shuker Bus Service; and third place, Mr Ron Terrington of Darwinbus Service.
I mention another bus driver - in fact, the longest-ever serving employee, Mr Ken Wilkshire. Mr Wilkshire started work with the Darwin Bus Service in 1959 and, since then, has recruited both his son, Bradley, and brother, Barry. I am sure his period of service and recruitment activities are a reflection of his dedication and service to public transport. Ken is currently a long-standing supervisor at Darwinbus Service but, when he started with the service, he drove vehicles that were actually converted trucks. I understand that these vehicles were used for a variety of tasks, including gravel truck, water truck and school bus. Over nearly 50 years, Ken has seen passenger transport evolve from converted trucks with crash-box transmission and natural ventilation to the current ultramodern fleet we have today which feature a super-quiet soft ride, automatic transmission and airconditioning. You can even listen to your favourite radio station when you are comfortably riding on these buses.
The Territory government is working towards further improvements to public transport, including implementation of the Transport Standards under the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act. These standards include bus stop and shelter infrastructure requirements like lighting standards at bus shelters and bus interchanges, tactiles for the vision impaired and hearing assistance for the hearing impaired. This is a significant task, given there are 550 existing bus stops and bus shelters in Darwin. These are to be retrofitted over time to conform to standards. In Alice Springs, the Alice Springs Town Council maintains bus stops and will be looking at upgrading those to meet the new standards.
Over the next few months, an audit will be conducted of all our public transport infrastructure against the requirements of the Transport Standards of the DDA and a plan developed to begin addressing this major infrastructure retrofit. The retrofitting of public transport infrastructure will occur over some years.
Another improvement I hope to see on our bus network in the future is the use of green fuels. An alternative fuel trial was undertaken this year, using a blend of biodiesel and normal diesel fuels. The biodiesel fuel is made from a renewable source of vegetable oils and has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The three month trial using five buses consumed approximately 30 000 litres of blended fuel. The blended mix was 20% biodiesel and 80% normal diesel. The full results of the trial are still being analysed; however, results to date show that the biodiesel trial demonstrated that B20 Biodiesel can successfully be run in our buses without any technical difficulties.
Some of the potential barriers for continuing to use biodiesel include an increase in consumption of fuel, the higher cost of the fuel and limited availability of biodiesel at this time. My Department of Planning and Infrastructure will continue to monitor the progress with biodiesel technologies, particularly the development of a biodiesel plant in the Northern Territory, so this renewable, environmentally friendly fuel alternative could become a sustainable alternative fuel for our bus fleet.
The Territory population is growing and, with that, we need to ensure our public transport system is flexible and can adapt to our growing needs. The current Darwinbus schedule has not been comprehensibly reviewed in more than a decade, yet since then the population and geographic expansion has been significant.
To address increased demands on services and ensure we are targeting the services to where they are most needed, a review of the bus timetable is under way. A revised bus schedule will soon be implemented, along with the new cheaper fares and ticketing system. During a two-week transition period for the new timetable, Territorians will travel absolutely free on public buses. The transition period will allow the new ticketing system to be installed in buses and allow bus travellers to acquaint themselves with the new fare structure and how it will operate.
Further to this, all bus contracts are set to expire on 31 December 2008. Many of these contracts have been in place for 10 years. It is, therefore, timely to conduct a comprehensive review of the delivery of bus services in the greater Darwin area prior to entering into new long-term contracts to ensure we are delivering the best possible service to meet our growing population. Consultants, Booz Allen Hamilton, have been commissioned to assist the government with the review. The review is focused both on the effectiveness and cost efficiency of the current integrated Darwinbus network and dedicated school buses in the Darwin rural area, as well as providing for inevitable future growth of services including the necessity for public transport system flexibility and responsiveness.
All bus contractors were advised of the details of the review in March this year, and the consultant has been engaging with all parts of the public transport system and relevant stakeholders. Since there is a considerable lead time - usually at least 12 months - for the manufacture of new buses, procurement will need to happen towards the end of 2007 in order for new contracts to commence at the beginning of 2009.
I will be pleased to update the House on how the Martin Labor government plans to deliver public transport into the future following consideration of that review.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I wish to contribute to this debate in the same manner that the minister made her speech. Public transport affects all Territorians, including our youth and the elderly, who face crippling isolation due to – I cannot do it! – a lack of mobility, with families and parents spending their hard-earned income and precious time driving their children to school.
In order for public transport to be attractive to the community, it must provide a genuine alternative to car travel for everyone. This means that the service quality must compete with the car on fundamental measures like time lines, safety, cost and convenience. It is only by doing this that public transport can seriously hope to attract passengers from across the spectrum. Passengers bring the revenue and impetus for the service improvements that benefit everyone, and reduce public transport’s drain on the public purse.
Of course, it was the CLP that first introduced the public transport system into the Territory and, yes, it started without airconditioning unlike today’s buses. However, the service offered was the best available at the time. Because Territorians deserve the best and they are a discerning lot and expect quality, it is imperative that government keep the fleet up-to-date. It is easy to think time lines and poor reliability are, in fact, the biggest problems facing public transport in the Territory, and are the principal deterrent to higher public transport use. Of course, time lines and reliability are important, but evidence shows that service frequency is the critical factor in people choosing to shift from car travel to public transport. People will not use public transport unless it offers travel times that are competitive with those offered by motor vehicles.
Total journey time on public transport has two major components: waiting time and travel time. Both can and must be reduced if public transport is to succeed. The reduction of waiting time requires better service frequencies. High frequencies must be supported by high reliability so the waiting times shown on timetables actually match the real ones.
At a time when road safety is taking the front page and is the lead story of local news, the principal safety problem for public transport is one of personal safety and, in this regard, one wonders what the government’s position is in relation to putting seat belts on school buses, for instance.
In order to be better utilised by the wider community, public transport must also offer a safe, clean and friendly travelling environment. That is why I am heartened to hear that transport safety officers will very soon be integrated onto the bus system in an effort to decrease vandalism and improve passenger safety. Public transport needs to be effectively coordinated and advertised.
I have noticed more council parking inspectors zapping around on their mopeds in the Darwin city centre, cracking down on drivers who have overstayed their time limit or have simply parked in a no parking zone. While we all get frustrated with this process and what, at times, seems little more than revenue raising, the restraint on car parking is an important role in the promotion of public transport.
There are real hassle-free benefits afforded by using public transport and they need to be better highlighted. The key to improving the economic performance of our public transport is to increase patronage. High quality public transport attracts more full-fare paying passengers which leads to better cost recovery. Public transport in the Territory has poor cost recovery because patronage is largely confined to peak periods. This means high costs to provide staff and vehicles, most of which are not fully utilised outside of these hours for the rest of the day. In addition, the high proportion of concessionary passengers who are the major users of the system, means that the fare receipts stay low.
At present, the Territory public transport operators make little or no attempt to grab market share from the car. The only result can be higher costs as the large fixed cost is distributed between fewer passengers. To attract patrons and keep them, the new ticketing system must be user friendly, simple and reliable. When fuel prices are at record high levels and this government is failing to introduce any positive measures to address the issue, happily pocketing the profits and then whingeing and blaming the federal government, public transport must offer a viable alternative and fares must be set at an economic level.
It is, in part, good to see that the new fare structure is being put in place. It seems, however, that this government is more than willing to offer at least a competitive structure with the cost of tickets but, when it comes to fuel prices which is an issue that ultimately affects private and public transport users, it is crocodile tears from this government. There is certainly some relief it can provide to Territorians, and we have made our views clear on the public record in that regard.
This government will not introduce an LPG subsidy program to ease the squeeze on Territory mums and dads, but it will encourage green buses, a great initiative that is being introduced across the country. Surely, if this government is open to the use of alternative fuels in its bus fleet, then why impede average Territorians?
A motor vehicle can provide unsurpassed mobility and convenience. The elimination of the car is both unlikely and unnecessary. No matter how good the public transport service is, lots of local travel, such as going to the shops, will still largely be carried out by cars. Persuading Territorians to choose public transport by making them realise its social, economic and environmental benefits is the challenge that we all face.
The minister might be interested to hear a report received by my office today via the office of David Tollner; it is an interesting one. I am sure the minister will want to pursue it. The e-mail reported the case of a tourist going into David Tollner’s office. That tourist went in to complain that there were no bus route brochures at the Tourist Information Centre and they sent him to the bus terminus near the Darwin City Council. The tourist attended the terminus to find bus route information on a board and then thought he would try the information kiosk in the Smith Street Mall. They advised that they had not had any for a few months and they were trying to get some. He went back to the terminus and found someone who advised that they were in the middle of changing routes and, therefore, did not have any brochures to give away. This tourist, interestingly enough, said that he found it very difficult to get around Darwin using public transport and that is obviously a difficulty that minister and her departmental officers would, I would have thought, turn their minds to.
We locals know how to get around but we must, of course, given the importance of tourism to the Territory generally and to Darwin, ensure that we make the travel system user friendly for tourists as well. I am not sure that many of us, frankly, have given a lot of thought to that until you hear stories from tourists saying it is hard to get around on public transport.
Madam Speaker, they are the comments I am make in relation to the minister’s statement. I thank her for bringing the statement to the House today.
Debate adjourned.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, this morning, people in Alice Springs woke up without water running from their taps. Lucky we were not there or we would have had to turn up to work without having had a shower. It was not until around 8 am, after work started, when the water came back. Apparently, it was a burst water main. People on the west side of town were still complaining, as of midday today, that water pressure was still very low.
It appears that there are two issues. One was a burst water main and the other was a water gauge being stuck, indicating that the water tank was quite full when, indeed, it was emptying to quite dangerous levels. It got to the stage where the level was so low that the pressure to the western part of Alice Springs was severely compromised.
The CBD of our town, a tourist town, at dawn, could not service the tourists because there was no water. By mid-morning, the pressure was still very low and everyone affected was asked to restrict their usage. They were also asked to keep an eye out in case dirty water came through the taps. This is just unbelievable.
Alice Springs, I venture to say, is the capital city of Central Australia. It caters not only to the resident population of some 30 000, but to thousands upon thousands of tourists and indigenous people who come from the bush. I suppose the best indicator is that the Alice Springs Hospital services nearly 50 000 patients. There we were with a damaged water service.
This is a government that is supposed to be looking after the Territory and its core services by providing power, water, roads. You have to ask: what is happening to all the GST money that we have been receiving in this Territory? Where is the money being diverted? Alice Springs is an old town. It has been there for many years. The infrastructure is some 30 years old and needs to be upgraded. For the last five years, Power and Water have been saying they need to be resourced adequately so they can do the work and get the pipes up to standard.
On top of that, we have sewerage pipes that are collapsing. The problem was that, through condensation, water collects inside the sewerage pipes, and toilet waste that comes flushing through the pipes releases hydrogen sulphide gas, which mixes with the condensation in the pipes, turning to acid, thus burning the pipes, which have been collapsing.
Several years ago under the CLP government, we had some remedial works done to try to ensure the sewerage pipes are well ventilated, and they have made a significant difference. Money was spent by the government to ensure that those sewers remained operational. It is time for this government to spend some money in Alice Springs to make sure that these services continue. Alas, no money has been spent and that is why we face consequences such as what happened this morning: no water in Alice Springs.
While I am talking about water in Alice Springs, particularly in the western areas of the town, there is a nursery out towards Ilparpa that has been faced with the problem of water outages 12 to 15 times a year. The man who operates the nursery needs an adequate water supply to maintain his stocks. Yesterday morning, he did not have any water at all. I am sure if he did not have water, the whole of the estate did not have water. When they have a water outage at Ilparpa, it can be up to six hours. For a person who runs a nursery, six hours without water is bad for his business. Summer months are coming. In these last few months we have had no rain. Once the summer hits - and it has been already hot so early into the summer - this man can lose business in a major way. It is important for this government to address this serious issue quickly so they can get things back to normal.
I am sure the workers at Power and Water are flat out trying to rectify the situation and make sure that water supply is back for the community once more.
Still on Power and Water, the noise at the power station continues. This month is the deadline for Power and Water to fix the noise that comes from the gas turbine at the Alice Springs power station which is causing a lot of community distress, particularly in Range Crescent and surrounding areas.
We have asked over and over again for some sort of a fix to happen soon but, for over 12 months now, this noise has continued unabated. Each time we make a complaint, Power and Water says: ‘Yes, we are doing what we can. We are going to build new baffles for the chimney. We are going to put sound blankets over the turbines so that the noise does not pose a problem’. Unfortunately, every time they try something, we find that the fix does not work.
I do not know whether any of you have been anywhere near the turbine or the homes that have encountered these problems. The noise is like a jet, a 737 or similar aircraft, standing at the end of the runway, winding up the revs in the engine which sets up this very high-pitched whine. For us visiting the airport, in less than a minute the plane takes off and the noise dissipates. Unfortunately, for those people living around the power station, that noise is there for a long time, sometimes all day and all night. Imagine a jet plane being parked in your neighbourhood with its engine running all the time.
October is the month that Power and Water promised they would fix this problem. I have already had calls from people asking what will happen if it does not. The CEO, Kim Wood, has said if it does not work, they will have to consider other options, including shifting of the turbine, probably down to Brewer Estate. I will be paying particularly close attention to this matter. We have two weeks or thereabouts to see if this will work. If not, I will seek that Power and Water and the government proceed as quickly as possible to get the turbines to the Brewer Estate.
If we had an EPA with any teeth, it would have closed down the power station a long time ago. The minister for the Environment said: ‘We provided them with certain advice to make sure that the sound is attenuated and the power station had to keep the noise below the nuisance threshold’. Unfortunately, Power and Water has not been able to comply. It appears that government is not doing anything about it. It is breaching its permits from the Environment Protection Authority and the government, through the shareholder minister, should provide funding to Power and Water to move the turbines. If that is the only way they can fix the noise, the government must do it.
Imagine if I had a pantech truck parked in my driveway, running its refrigerators all night. The neighbours would be up in arms. The town council, and likely the government, would tell me to move the truck. Yet, here we have a jet turbine, almost as close, screaming away all day and the government does not seem to want to do anything about it.
In New South Wales, there are laws which provide for a maximum penalty for corporate noise offenders of up to about $1m. If it continues after the infringement is imposed, a further penalty of some $120 000 applies each day the offence continues. If this was New South Wales, Power and Water would be broke by now, with 12 months of noise infringement which they have failed to rectify. Obviously, there is a problem with the gas turbine or other parts of the machinery that generate power in Alice Springs. It is certain that all the testing was not done properly before the installation.
I believe that because the Ron Goodin Power Station is in a valley surrounded on all sides by hills, the noise was not be likely to be a problem. Unfortunately, the noise travels over the peaks of the ranges surrounding the power station and impacts directly on some houses that are built around the area.
Noise level measurements have been made and, without a doubt, the noise is at levels that are unacceptable. I understand that some measurements have picked up noise levels of up to 60 decibels, some 12 decibels above the background noise or seven decibels above the tolerance level. I do not know if you understand what decibels mean. One to two decibels is doubling the loudness of the noise. Therefore, when you have up to six decibels, it is exponentially one to the power of six. That is what it is. The noise levels are very high. It is important to stop it now. Fix it, otherwise we will have more and more people up in arms and, more likely than not, proceeding with a class action against Power and Water and the government for allowing this to keep happening.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I urge the government to address this urgently. October has 30 days, so we have only 19 days left before the deadline comes about. I look forward to a positive resolution by the end of this month.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, on 4 October 2006, I had the pleasure of being invited to attend a rather special youth activity that was organised through the offices of the Multicultural Council of the NT. It was called Break. Break was an event that was put together by Betchay Mondragon, Project Officer with the Multicultural Solutions school holiday program. Multicultural Solutions helps migrant and refugee families find their way in the community through activities that engage and empower the participants. The project also links up MCNT client communities with service providers.
Break’s main objective was to introduce outdoor activities for young people in the community and get them involved in positive action. DJ Fat Albert is the resident DJ of Hoops for Health, the brainchild of Timmy Duggan who works with NT AIDS and Hepatitis Council, the NTAHC. Timmy is a Darwin born and bred man who has family ties down in the Centre. He has played in the NBL and has a real commitment to working with youth so that they can realise their true potential.
The member for Millner got behind it and canvassed a lot of his colleagues on the Labor benches, including the members for Arafura and Arnhem, along with myself. We chipped in $200 each for the Hoops for Health and had sponsorship on Timmy’s jumper. The member for Millner is a real supporter of the work that Timmy Duggan does. I was happy to be able to contribute to such a worthy cause.
DJ Fat Albert’s presentation was through the facilitation of Hoops for Health in cooperation with NTAHC. DJ Fat Albert was DJ for Ushers’ after-show party in Sydney and toured with Eminem Rap. I spoke to DJ Fat Albert who is a Thursday Island chap who lives in Perth, but he comes up here and has worked with the prisons. They did a big gig in the mall. He is really committed to helping the kids out and is a fantastic DJ. He plays some really good music and had everyone up dancing at the show.
Break also had the assistance of TRACKS Dance Theatre performers through the Style Impressions Krew and other break-dance boys. Ausdance NT helped by providing the loan of the dance tarkett, the linoleum used for dancing. Darwin Symphony Orchestra loaned their platform risers.
A special thank you also has to go to Esperanza Quindara; she was the MC and did a fabulous job. Bernadine Crute was the stage manager. I have known Bernadine for many years. I have been watching her grow up. Bernadine is probably about 19 or 20 years old, and I can remember her singing at the member for Johnston’s functions. She has also sung at a couple of functions that I have had. Bernadine won a scholarship to carry on singing but she has come back to be with her family right now. She is a fabulous young woman and wants to get out and sing and do a few gigs. If anyone knows of anyone looking for a great little singer there is one in our midst now - young Bernadine.
Thank you also to Ken Hutton, the Orchestral Manager for Darwin Symphony Orchestra; David McMikken and Tim Newth, the artistic directors of TRACKS Dance Theatre Performance; Sarah Calver, the Executive Officer of Ausdance NT; and Clare McHugh von Steiglitz, the Senior Case Manager of the Juvenile Justice Diversion program of the YWCA.
The week before, I received an invitation from Clare for the YWCA garden party, which I will talk about later. It was great to meet Clare and talk with her about the work she has planned for the youth, both boys and girls. Clare is also undertaking a project for the Darwin City Council, looking at a proposal for a youth-type centre at the council depot at Leanyer for ongoing use. I will be watching with interest her recommendations to council as far as getting something for youth at Vanderlin Drive. I am a supporter of any such initiative. The more we can do for youth, as long as it is targeted correctly as with everything else, is great. I would certainly like to say that in Malak, Sanderson and around that area, the projects that we have for youth are excellent. We really need to have an audit to determine exactly what we have.
That is something that you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, as Chair of the Sport and Youth Committee, might care to get your teeth into. That is something we should be looking at.
The dancers were the Style Impression Krew, or SIK; namely Erwin Fenis, Marko Taopo, Byron Low, Emmanuel Dado, Astin Low plus Wesley and Phillip. I should also recognise the great effort of my electorate officer, Therla Fowlestone, who gave up her own time to support the great work of MCNT and help me cook up all of the sausages that I was happy to donate for the event.
It is a great and wondrous job that all of us here get from time to time: to donate sausages and, if possible, cook them up. I have a good little portable barbecue. I was able to get that there. I was able to borrow the member for Port Darwin’s portable barbecue and we set those up and were cooking up a feast. We had everyone lined up and getting a really good feed so it was a great little sausage sizzle that we did. It was no problem and I was really happy to be doing it.
Although the crowd was a relatively small, it was a success in that it set a precedent for future youth and community activities at the Malak Shops. Another great support of the event was the Malak Shops owner Henry Yap. He has some really good ideas about how to work with youth; he is not all about punishing and punitive action by police. He works with the kids and gets some great results, and I would like to see his style emulated by a lot of shop owners around the place.
I am told that the MCNT, through Multicultural Solutions, will continue to create activity that will not only engage the community in positive action, but will also provide entertaining experiences from a cultural perspective.
After Break, a wonderful dinner of Sudanese-style meat, rice and beans, Indonesian gado-gado and Filipino steamed rice cakes was laid on in the community room. It was a truly international ending to a truly wonderful evening of international music and eclectic dance styles. Congratulations to Betchay Mondragon for all her tireless work. She is a great community worker and I cannot speak highly enough of her.
Across the road from the Malak shops is the Malak Centre located at 11 Malak Crescent, Malak, formerly the Tardis Centre, which houses several programs of the YWCA. They are looking at starting up a youth recreation activity soon and have undertaken some renovations as a first step in preparation for that.
I had the great pleasure on Friday, 6 October, to be invited to the Malak Centre’s garden party. It was a great little event held to thank the hard-working volunteers of Greencorps who have just finished renovating the centre’s gardens. Under the direction of the team leader, Chantal Bramley, volunteers Jaimee Templar, Caitlin Krohn, Eve Simmance, Nick Mark, Patrick and Michael Hunter laid pavers and granite, removed weed trees and put in native garden plants and irrigation.
Greencorps is a federally funded program for 17- to 20-year-olds. These volunteers receive an allowance and attain Certificates I and II in Conservation and Land Management, and they go on to jobs with councils or golf courses so it is a good stepping stone for youth.
The YWCA Malak Centre has been refurbished in preparation for its new programs. The Sisters Project is for 12- to 21-year-old women and will use craft and music and performance to build skills, support, self-esteem and social links. Recruitment is under way for a recreational program for youth at risk. The centre also houses these YWCA ongoing programs: Juvenile Justice Diversion Program, Independent Living program and Life Skills programs.
The Malak Centre has a very strong commitment to engaging with the community and encourages and welcomes volunteers. I am very pleased with this approach and commend Clare McHugh von Stieglitz, Senior Case Manager with the Juvenile Justice Diversion Program, and her staff for their efforts developing our youth into happy, well-informed and positive individuals within our society.
There are a lot of good initiatives for our youth and the people who run them are really committed. We should do all we can to help by lending our support, the resources in our offices, by promoting programs to the wider public. I have said before in different speeches that youth get too much of a caning in the media and from some of our members. Politics is made of some poor behaviour in some of the group. Let us get off the politics for youth and get on to doing a really good job: let us do something that gives them a good environment and something to aim at, gives them the light on the hill instead of portraying our youth as a creature of the night who are hell-bent on getting into trouble. It is not the case. We do ourselves, our community and youth no good service by talking them down all the time.
I will take every chance to sing the praises of groups such as that headed by Clare and the work she does at the YWCA, Betchay Mondragon with the MCNT, and traders like Henry Yap. I commend them and encourage them to keep going so that all of us can ensure that our kids grow up to be good, healthy, well-adjusted people who contribute to our society in the future.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise you of the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery and the Ministerial Officers’ gallery of family and friends of the late Mr Eddie Quong. I particularly acknowledge the partner of the Administrator, Ms Nerys Evans; the Bishop of Darwin, Bishop Ted Collins; the widow of Mr Eddie Quong, Ms Greta Quong; and three of their children, Terry Quong, Marie-Louise Pearson, and Donna Quong. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
CONDOLENCE MOTION
Mr Eddie Quong OAM
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly express its deep regret at the death of Eddie Quong, a highly respected and long-time member of our Top End community. I place on record the Assembly’s appreciation of his significant and sustained contribution to the Northern Territory over more than 60 years.
On 24 August this year, after battling to recover from a serious car accident a year ago, Eddie Quong died. He will be greatly missed by many Territorians. Eddie was an extraordinary man who had a real passion for life. He was devoted family man, a proud Territorian, an active member of our Top End community, and a much-loved and highly-respected figure in Darwin’s Chinese community. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that Eddie was the embodiment of the multicultural mix that is Darwin.
As his friend, Tom Pauling, our Solicitor-General who is here today, observed:
- He was a man so bloody Australian you were surprised and amused when he played the Chinaman as an innocent abroad … and he was a Chinaman who could out-swear a Greek in Greek and is now buried in the Greek Orthodox section of the McMillan’s Road Cemetery.
Our Administrator, Ted Egan, a friend for more than 50 years described him as ‘more ocker than Paul Hogan’.
Eddie Quong was born in Pine Creek in 1925 and was one of 13 children. Soon after his birth, his father moved the family to Darwin to work a market garden in Parap. It was a real struggle back then so, in 1932, they moved again to Queensland to make a new start, but always with the intention of heading back to Darwin one day.
Eddie never lost sight of these early days and his market garden heritage. He became a keen vegetable gardener later in life and produced a wide variety of mainly Chinese vegetables. He believed the secret to successful gardening in Darwin was to start preparing your beds in January, and the sheer volume of his crops would have silenced any doubters.
The family did return to Darwin in November 1945 and they never looked back. Very soon they had opened the town’s first post-war bakery, Quong’s Bakery, under the family’s house in Smith Street West. The bakery soon became a great social venue, especially on Wednesday nights when the mail would arrive via Guinea Airways. Our businessmen would pick up their mail in the afternoon, head back to their offices to answer the urgent letters and get them ready for the next day’s plane. They would then drop in at Quong’s Bakery on their way home at around midnight and stay there until the early hours of the morning, eating freshly baked bread straight from the ovens and washing it down with whiskey.
An advertisement for Quong’s Bakery appeared in the very first issue of the NT News on 8 February 1952 with a slogan that would become very familiar to Territorians over the years: ‘Quong’s for Quality Never Queried’.
Eddie married Greta in 1954 and they had four children, Terry, Marie-Louise, Rodney and Donna, as well as eight grandchildren. Eddie sold the bakery just before Cyclone Tracy destroyed the building in Smith Street. He turned to selling insurance and devoted himself to serving his community.
The extent of Eddie’s community service is too extensive to list here, but let me just mention a few of the groups and organisations he worked with over the years. There was the Red Cross, in which he was involved for 40 years, a truly amazing effort. He was a member of the Royal Darwin Hospital Advisory Board for 24 years, including 21 years as Chairman. He served on the Darwin Private Hospital Advisory Board and was co-founder, with Greta, of the Darwin and Districts Spastic Centre, now Carpentaria Community Services. Eddie was also the Commissioner of Electoral Divisions for the NT for six years. He served on boards with the Automobile Association, the Australia Day Council and was the Chairman of the Arafura Games Advisory Board. There are many more organisations I could mention, but time does not permit me to list them all.
Eddie’s passion and incredible energy and his extraordinary service to the Darwin community will never be forgotten, and was formally recognised when he was presented with an Order of Australia Medal. In 1999, at the age of 74, Eddie was named the NT Senior Australian Achiever, a very proud moment for Eddie and his family. At the ceremony in Canberra, the highlight for Eddie was singing the National Anthem with Slim Dusty, who was named Senior Australian of the Year.
Madam Speaker, as you know, the Chinese are an integral part of our Darwin lifestyle. They helped build and shape the city we have today and Eddie and his family were among our early pioneers. There is no doubt that we, and many others, owe them a debt of gratitude. Eddie was a generous man, and very generous with his time and advice, and everyone - absolutely everyone it seemed - knew Eddie. In fact, with such a big family and wide network of friends and acquaintances, Eddie developed some mechanisms to get him over the initial recognition stage when bumping into people. His favourite was to greet people with: ‘I know you’. All his nieces - and there are a few - were his ‘bubby girls’.
By all accounts, Eddie was a great cook, and loved nothing better than cooking up a storm for the family. One of his favourite dishes was Gai Ju, which, roughly translated, means Brandy Chicken. Katrina Fong Lim, one of his ‘bubby girls’, said his generosity of spirit was only matched by his generosity with the spirit when cooking this dish. Brandy Chicken is a traditional dish for christenings and, needless to say, the new mother and baby were always guaranteed a good night’s sleep after one of Eddie’s spirit-laden servings.
He will certainly be missed by very many people, most of all by Greta, Terry, Marie-Louise, Rodney, Donna and his grandchildren. On behalf of all members, may I extend my sincere sympathy to Eddie’s family and friends. Our thoughts are with you. We will all be able to cherish our wonderful memories of Eddie, and we wish you all the very best for the future.
Members: Hear, hear!
___________________________
Distinguished Visitor
Honourable Austin Asche AO
Distinguished Visitor
Honourable Austin Asche AO
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the Speaker’s gallery of the former Administrator of the Northern Territory, Hon Austin Asche AO. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
__________________________
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, we support this condolence motion. We have seen a number of condolence motions in this parliament, but if ever a condolence motion was required, it is required for Eddie Quong. The Chief Minister has referred to many aspects of Eddie’s life, and I will do likewise.
The Quong family has long been a part of the history of Darwin. Their legacy is the Asian influence which still touches Darwin. The Quong family has been a part of that history since the 1880s. Eddie was born in Pine Creek in 1925. His parents, Chin Shu Hong or Henry Quong and Ethel Low Oy Quong, were both born in 1900; his father at Pine Creek and his mother at Yam Creek. Eddie was one of 13 siblings and quickly made his mark on the community.
In late 1945, following the announcement of victory in the Pacific, the Quong family were among the first civilians to arrive back in Darwin. For 20-year-old Eddie, it was the beginning of what proved to be a very exciting life. Eddie’s family came back to help rebuild Darwin in November 1945 and, at that stage, the Army was providing all of the food and essential services. As we know, Eddie’s father was a baker and the Army was very keen that he should start a bakery to supply the town so that they could withdraw from their field bakery at the old Vesteys Meatworks. Quong’s legendary bakery was possibly the first private business to get started again in Darwin after the war.
The Army supplied a couple of ovens and a mixer, and helped the Quongs to set up under the old family home in Smith Street West. The bakery was always advertised, as the Chief Minister has said, with the slogan: ‘Quongs for Quality Never Queried’. Eddie’s father died in the middle of 1946 and Eddie took over. Fresh bread was one luxury for the people of Darwin. The bakery became a great gathering place, especially, I understand, on Wednesday nights. Business people would get their mail from the south on Wednesday afternoons via Guinea Airways and they would rush to their offices to answer urgent letters so that their mail could go south on the returning plane the next day.
Eddie’s magnetic personality attracted people from different backgrounds and spheres of Territory society. Quong’s Bakery, as the Solicitor-General said at Eddie’s funeral, was the social hub of Darwin for the next 20 years. When the pubs shut and all the gambling joints closed at night, people would go up to Quongs for a drink - several in many instances - and the prospect of hot bread coming out of the ovens. After the bakery was destroyed in Cyclone Tracy, Eddie turned to selling insurance while devoting himself almost entirely to the service of this community.
Anything that was a good cause, Eddie found the time and the energy to be involved in it. Both Eddie and Greta were renowned for their tireless charity work, with 40 years of service to community organisations such as Rotary, Apex, Red Cross, Lions, and the Northern Territory Spastic Centre, to name a few. Eddie worked tirelessly on the boards of Darwin’s private and public hospitals and was passionate that people could have access to good hospital services in Darwin.
Eddie served on the boards of 15 separate groups over the years, including 24 years on the Darwin Advisory Board, 21 of which were as Chairman. He was also a Parole Board member for 20 years and, in recognition of his extraordinary community service, he was the first person of Chinese origin to be awarded the Order of Australia Medal in 1980 and was Senior Territorian of the Year in 1999.
Eddie was a Life Member of Apex International and the Automobile Association of the Northern Territory and a recipient of the Red Cross Medal. He was also heavily involved with the Australia Day Council, the Australia-Britain Association, Centenary of Federation NT committee, the Chung Wah Society and the Charles Darwin University Foundation, again, to name but a few.
In a life of good fortune, Eddie valued above all the gracious gift of his wife, Greta, always by his side for some 52 years. If Eddie Quong created a better community, it was because of the community others created for him. Greta had that quality which was essential for life with Eddie: a sense of humour, and she was always there for him. Her love for him provided much of his strength, and their love together helped transform Darwin. The partnership of Eddie and Greta was an institution which proves that the key to happiness is a sense of humour and an optimistic outlook coupled with patience and, perhaps most important of all, generosity of sprit.
In 1951, Eddie became very sick with flour on his lungs. He went to Brisbane for treatment and, while he was there, friends introduced him to Greta, a nurse who was organised to show him around. After the treatment, Eddie was given a clean bill of health and he came home to Darwin. However, he was not cured of his love sickness. He and Greta wrote to one another for a year. Eddie pursued her to come to Darwin for a month’s holiday, and Greta never went back to Brisbane. Eddie got her a job at the hospital - no surprises there - and then he persuaded her to marry him.
In 1955, Eddie and Greta built a house at the corner of Shepherd and Wood Streets, where they lived for the remainder of their married life. For them both, their family was a fortune beyond calculation. Eddie is remembered as a loving and deeply devoted family man by his wife, four children - Terry, Marie-Louise, Rodney and Donna - and their eight grandchildren, including two sets of twins. Eddie’s dedication to his family above all else, and his belief that family were the most important part of his life, is best summed up in this quote from a recent documentary on Cyclone Tracy:
- If Tracy comes along, who cares if I have built a shelter to ensure my family are safe?
The Northern Territory lost a true multicultural icon with the passing of Mr Eddie Quong. Known by many as ‘Multicultural Eddie’, this is only heightened by the fact that he managed to buy a plot in the Greek section of the cemetery. He very much believed in his Chinese heritage and culture, but always, he was a fierce and proud Territorian and a very staunch and proud Australian. Eddie Quong was a true Territorian. He once told a journalist:
- Look at Darwin today. It is a lush tropical city where people are paying in excess of $1m to buy waterfront apartments. Why would I live anywhere else? There is no smog or traffic, the restaurants are great, it is never cold, fish jump on to your hook on Darwin Harbour.
It has been said that Eddie Quong was simply all of the good things about Darwin and he has impressed a mark on the Top End, and Darwin in particular. At a time when it seems so many great Australians are being taken from us, Eddie Quong will be remembered for his commitment to improving life in the Northern Territory, and the Territory is much better for the presence of Eddie Quong. Eddie was a revered and much loved patriarch of the Darwin community and will always be close to the hearts of many Territorians.
Madam Speaker, I remember when I first met Eddie. It was many years ago. I had heard lot about this bloke, Eddie Quong. It was difficult not to hear a lot about Eddie Quong. When I met him, he was like a rocket, full of energy, full of life, full of enthusiasm and passion - and always smiling. I had the good fortune to speak with him over the years. He was an impressive man, a great man. All of us share the family’s sadness. We know things are always difficult at a time of loss, but please accept our heartfelt condolences and our sympathies.
Mr HENDERSON (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I am very privileged and proud to speak in celebration of Eddie’s life in this motion. It is very fitting that Eddie’s life is commemorated in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, the House of the people. I pay tribute to Eddie Quong, a great family man, a great community man and a great Territorian.
As we have heard, Eddie was married to Greta for 52 years. Greta, that is a huge, tremendous and wonderful life together - 52 years. I have been married 17; there are 35 years to go. As Greta just said, it only gets better. They had four children - Terry, Marie-Louise, Rodney, Donna - and eight grandchildren.
Eddie was a great Territorian who had a huge passion for the history of the Chinese people. Chinese emperors left great dynasties; Eddie has left a great dynasty in Darwin. Eddie spent over 60 years in the Territory and almost all of that time was spent serving the Territory in some way or another. His community work, as we have already heard from the Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, is legendary.
Madam Speaker, as you probably know, almost everyone has a great Eddie Quong story, and I would like to mention a couple. I was saying to the Chief Minister that, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, I cannot specifically remember the first time that I met Eddie because he was just always there. I came to the Territory in 1982 and have been in Darwin since then. Eddie and Greta and the family were always around and Eddie just seemed to be everywhere you went.
The greatest memories that I have of Eddie and Greta and the family is that whenever I did bump into Eddie - and Greta was normally there - there was always a smile, advice and encouragement. Those are memories that will stay with me forever.
There are a number of stories of Eddie, and I did a bit of research through the paper over the years. Actually, when you do that research, the number of clippings about Eddie Quong and the stories that were written about him are too numerous, but there are a couple that I would like to recount today.
Eddie always said one of his greatest honours was when he was extended a royal invitation to a dinner with the Queen, Prince Phillip and Lord Louis Mountbatten on the Royal Yacht Britannia when it visited Darwin in 1973. His retelling of the story is a great Territory yarn. His new car broke down 30 minutes before he was due to arrive so, in true Territory style, he borrowed his son’s car - which was fresh from a round of geese hunting, and not the newest car on the block - to drive to the wharf. He arrived late and his excuse for keeping the royal party waiting was: ‘The bloody car broke down on me’. That drew a great laugh from Prince Phillip.
The Chief Minister has spoken about Eddie’s life and family history. From many discussions I had with Eddie over the years, I know he was passionate about China and Chinese history. In 1988, Eddie visited China, which he said felt like a different world. He saw the 13 tombs of the 13 dynasties and, as Eddie put it – and this is a magnificent quote:
- The age, the continuity, the massive grandness, the superb civilisation, that existed years ago – it gives you a sense of smallness.
What fabulous words they are; what great insight, reconciliation, language and description of a great nation and a great people. That description came from Eddie Quong.
When Eddie was asked how he felt when he was taken back to the Chinese village his grandfather Chin Wah Too left, he replied in the classic Eddie style – and this is fabulous:
- That could have been me, but for the smartness of my grandfather. He shot through.
One of Eddie’s driving passions was championing the cause of Chinese people in the Territory. Eddie was one of Darwin’s leading Chinese figures who cut a swathe through the racism and suppressive attitudes of the early Territory days. His great attitude, personality, and tenacity helped rightfully establish the Chinese community as a key ingredient to Darwin and the Territory.
It was not until well after World War II that attitudes towards the Chinese community changed for the better. In Eddie’s own words:
- The Chinese were never given much opportunity in the early days of the Territory. We were held down, prevented from moving ahead and making our own way. I was the fourth born of 13 children and we were all born at home with my grandmother in attendance. At that time, Chinese were not welcome in white hospitals.
After the war, the authorities ordered Pine Creek to be bulldozed to remove all the traces of the yellow hordes. Pine Creek would have had a Chinese population of 6000 people. The Chinese lost their homes, places of worship – everything. The authorities also ordered China Town in Darwin to be removed and the land was reacquired. We were treated like third class citizens.
I became determined to change how the Chinese were treated. I became one of the original founding members of the Hospital Advisory Board and I was there for 24 years, the last 23 of which I was Chairman. The main reason I took it on was to change the image of the health system so everyone could receive equal treatment.
That is a fabulous commitment to our Territory.
It is very obvious today that in a large part because of Eddie’s great work, the Darwin Chinese community is now one of the most respected and integral components of Darwin’s multicultural identity as a whole. I can say that is a large part of why I, and probably many of us here, have chosen to make Darwin our home: because of the great multicultural nature of this place and the commitment of people like Eddie Quong to build a truly diverse multicultural and harmonious community. I certainly would not live or bring my kids up anywhere else.
Eddie loved Darwin. He is quoted as saying:
- Dead stubbornness is going to make this town one of the greatest cities in the world.
My best wishes and condolences to Greta, Terry, Marie-Louise, Rodney, Donna, and all of Eddie’s grandchildren. He loved his family and our great Northern Territory and his life has left the Territory a better place. Darwin loved him, too; a true icon. I will end by giving you the credo by which Eddie lived his life:
- If you can’t do anyone a good turn, don’t do him a bad one.
Vale, Eddie Quong.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I pay tribute to Eddie and his family, who are here today in the Chamber. We all try to think of the day when we first med Eddie and, like the member for Wanguri, it is hard for me to put a particular time on it. My most memorable recollection of him was in 1997, and I will come back to that.
When I think of Eddie, I think of a man who is a Darwinian; first and foremost a family man; a Top Ender; a true Territorian; a man who called Bishop Ted Collins ‘Cuz Ted’. When we think of Eddie, we think of a man who has an OAM, is a former Senior Territorian, an Apexian, Chairman of the Royal Darwin Hospital for 23 of the 24 years he was on it - and for good reason: he was there to ensure that everyone had equal access to such an important facility in our town. He was a man of modest means, but with a very generous heart.
The Northern Territory News wrote of him as its headline ‘A True Hero’. When you speak to people around Darwin, that is a recurrent theme: a giant of a man, short though he may be; third generation Chinese born in the Territory, and he kept that heritage right through his life and for his family.
Tom Pauling said in his eulogy that Eddie was strongly Chinese yet fiercely Australian, and asked what better advocate you could have for the Territory than a man such as Eddie. He was respected, revered, much loved in this community, especially among the old Chinese families in Darwin. The best example of that was in 1997 at a Chung Wah Society Chinese New Year banquet, as we traditionally have. Donna was the MC as usual - and she does it so very well. We always play a game, and that year it was a game of Celebrity Heads. Several people were picked from the audience, and Eddie was one of them. I cannot remember who the other two were, but Eddie and two others wore on the top of their heads a cardboard cut-out with the name of the person they represented. Unbeknown to Eddie, the card he wore identified Eddie himself. The people sitting facing the audience had to ask questions to try to identify who they represented. They were questions like: is the person still alive? Is the person hard-working? Is the person prominent? Is the person a family man? Is he still married? Has he many children? I remember Donna trying to give him as many hints as she possibly could. In the audience was the then Chief Minister, Shane Stone. Shane yelled: ‘He is fat, short and dumpy’, and immediately Eddie retorted: ‘I am the Chief Minister!’. Eddie brought the whole house down. We all held him in high regard, obviously, and the way the game was played was so incredibly amusing. Then we said: ‘No, you are not the Chief Minister. Bad luck’. The game went on and eventually, I think we had to tell him that he was wearing his own name. That is symbolic of the regard in which Eddie was held.
The member for Wanguri quoted a little story, which I had planned to relate, about his late arrival at dinner with Prince Philip. There was an article written about the same occasion, and it comes from a periodical called Migration, dated September-December 1991:
- An expansive and genial raconteur, Quong likes to tell of a conversation aboard the Royal Yacht Britannia, to which he was invited in 1973. The subject of race arose, Prince Philip instancing his own mixed ancestry as encouragement to other guests to tell their stories. ‘What are you?’ he asked Quong.
‘Well, we’ll start with the wife,’ came the good-humoured reply. ‘Her grandfather was Irish, her great-grandfather was Japanese. And his father was Chinese. And her aunty is married to a Filipino.’
Prince Philip looked at him, and said: ‘What can you trace back to?’ and I said: ‘As a matter of fact, I can’t … my mother’s full-bred Chinese. My father is full-bred Chinese’.
‘You are the only pure-bred bloke in Darwin!’, said Prince Philip.
Quong laughs uproariously. ‘Basically, this is what the world is coming to’.
In China, however, he was reminded he was Chinese. ‘They were saying: “You are an Australian. But are you?”’
To which he answers: ‘I am an Australian. I’m third generation Australian, my children and my grandchildren.’
That was written by Diana Giese.
To the Quong family, this is a man of whom we should be speaking in this manner when he was alive so that he could hear it. Unfortunately, he is not, and I hope some of the words we utter here today will bring some comfort to you, Greta, Terry, Marie-Louise, Donna, Rodney and everyone in the family. My condolences. I pay tribute to a man who will be sadly missed in the Territory.
Dr BURNS (Health): Madam Speaker, I join with all other members to celebrate the life of Eddie Quong - and what a life, as we have heard today – who was held with great respect in the community of the Northern Territory.
We have heard this morning about someone who was Australian and Chinese - fiercely both - and multicultural; one person who made a fantastic difference to the lives of others through doggedly sticking to a position and being an advocate by his own personality and integrity. We have also heard about someone who has given life-long service to our community through a number of avenues, and I will come to that.
We have also heard about someone who was a fantastic family man. What greater testimony is there for someone being married to his wife for so many years, his children Terry, Marie-Louise, Rodney and Donna, in themselves people who are well respected and well known in Darwin and held in the very highest esteem. That is a fantastic testimony for any parent to have children of that stature - and, of course, eight grandchildren who I know will carry on the good name of the Quong family.
Eddie, who was a Member of the Order of Australia and, as has been said, was in 1999 Senior Territorian of the Year. He was a Life Member of Apex. When he finished with Apex - because you can only go to 40 years of age with Apex – at 41, he joined the Rotary Club. He was not wasting any time and he received Rotary’s highest honour, which is the Paul Harris Fellow. He had 40 years of service with the Red Cross, a fantastic organisation, both locally and internationally.
Eddie would give his time and effort to a whole range of charities, organisations and causes. I last remember him speaking at a prostate cancer support function. With his own earthy humour, of course, Eddie won the day and certainly convinced me, along with others - Dave Tollner was there - that we should be having annual check-ups. He was very direct, but he did it with a great sense of humour and I appreciated that.
I have a couple of Eddie Quong stories. I have got them from Brian Woodrow, who is a friend of Eddie’s and a member of the same Apex and Rotary Clubs. Brian told the story of how, in 1963, there was a delegation of several hundred Australians who went to the Apex convention in Kuala Lumpur. In the morning, they had to give blood - and, of course, Eddie gave blood - and in the afternoon they had to work very hard building a whole range of structures, including concreting drains and erecting stalls for the goats. Eddie worked very hard and there was absolutely no sign of him being fatigued from giving blood earlier in the day.
After the Apex convention, Eddie and others travelled to Thailand and Hong Kong and that is where Eddie tried to show off his command of the Chinese language to a waiter in a Hong Kong restaurant. I am told the waiter finally lost patience with Eddie’s poor attempt and told him to speak in English.
Eddie was a well-known card player, and I am sure he only played in legal card schools. He loved a game of poker. He was a member of a school which played every two weeks at different houses around Darwin. As we know, Eddie was a baker and he could not always attend those card schools, but he was a very enthusiastic and exuberant participant when he could make it to the games. According to our sources, Eddie was probably best described as an unorthodox player. He did not bring a classic poker face to the table; he was always boisterous and he also tended to hide the cards he had in his hand through his boisterous manner.
He had a tendency to go for outside chances. For instance, he had the capacity to get a flush after buying two or even three cards, or drawing an inside straight. As most poker players would know, that is a pretty mean feat. He must have been pretty good at it because the school had a saying for anyone who managed to pull a hand like that - it was called ‘doing a Quongy’ so he was legendary in his poker school.
The school he played with included, at various times, senior public servants like Martin Ford and Jim Gallagher; Fred McCue Snr, who was Ansett Manager; Jim Kuskey, Ansett Freight Manager; Bob McNaughton, who was Kwikasair Manager; Cec Vandeveld, TNT Manager and occasionally Alec Fong Lim.
As we have heard today, the Quong family, through Eddie, has a very proud part in Territory history. Eddie features in three songs written by our Administrator, the most notable of which is Characters of the Outback, but also Bloody Good Drinkers and Granny, so his legacy has been immortalised in the songs of our Administrator. He was a larger than life person, a pioneer, and I am sure everyone in this House joins with me in extending our sincere condolences to Eddie’s family.
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Economic Development): Madam Speaker, I today I pay tribute to a true Territorian, a person who epitomised the cultural character of Darwin and Northern Territory, the late Mr Eddie Quong. Eddie passed away in August at age 81, but he will always be remembered for his love for life, his great sense of humour, and his friendship to many Territorians of various ethnic and cultural backgrounds.
I cannot remember when I met Eddie for the first time; I always felt I knew him all my life. I do, however, remember very well where I met Eddie for the first time. As it always happens in Darwin, the most likely place to meet a local Chinese is at the Greek Glenti. It was at the Greek Glenti in the mid-1990s when Margaret and I met Eddie for the first time. We were introduced to this jovial Chinaman who spoke English with a broad Australian accent and who, when I asked him what he did in Darwin before, he told me in fluent Greek he was a , or psomas, which is Greek for ‘baker’. Seeing my surprise, he explained that after the war and until 1974, he ran a bakery. Eddie knew most of the old Darwin Greek community. It did not take him long to realise that bread is a staple food for the Greeks, and fresh bread was always available at the table. So, off he went on his bike, carrying a basket with fresh bread, heading for what he called the ‘Greek town’, calling out in Greek for all the Greek housewives to come and get their daily bread.
Eddie soon made more new friends in the Greek community when the Kalymians arrived after the 1950s. He was also involved in construction of the Greek Community Hall at Cavenagh Street where he further enriched his Greek vocabulary. He was always demonstrating this knowledge of Greek language to me after a beer or two. Unfortunately, I cannot repeat some of the words because I am pretty sure they are unparliamentary because Eddie, as anyone who learns a new language, learnt the swear words first.
Eddie was a walking social encyclopaedia of Darwin and its residents. He knew most of the people here, young and old, and all the stories associated with them. He had many cousins of various ethnic backgrounds since, for Eddie, anyone who lived in Darwin or fitted into the Darwin lifestyle, was part of a big family. Just like the Chinese community, where you have a big family, you have lots of cousins, Eddie had lots of cousins here in Darwin. He was very popular, not only amongst his own people, but with the whole community. His shop was a gathering place not only when the mail arrived by plane in the 1950s, but also for religious celebrations, be it Chinese New Year or Greek Easter.
Eddie was fun loving, and had a wicked sense of humour that often drew attention. I know that one of the family’s favourite photos of Eddie is one that graced the cover of a fishing magazine. It was a photo of Eddie holding a huge barramundi that he had ‘caught’ from the person who threw it at him to hold for the photograph.
At a tea party at Government House, Canberra, when he was honoured as a recipient of the Order of Australia, Eddie commented graciously to Lady Stephen on the quality of the food and the service, and thanked her for the hospitality and, in a lighthearted moment, suggested that he thought this High Tea would be an opportunity for him to sample cucumber sandwiches. Lady Stephen enjoyed his company, and a short while later, cucumber sandwiches appeared.
Eddie and Greta were involved in a fateful accident in 2005 and, whilst Greta made a full recovery, Eddie did not. Last time I saw Eddie, it was at his daughter, Marie-Louise Pearson’s home for a New Year gathering. He was once again laughing and, for a little, was like the old Eddie I knew.
Eddie is now resting at the McMillans Cemetery in the Greek Orthodox section. You might wonder what a Catholic like Eddie is doing in the Greek Orthodox section of the cemetery. My sources advised me that Eddie, in the good old days, put a bet or two on with a Greek bookmaker. On one occasion, the bookmaker did not have the money to pay Eddie his dividend, so they kept to an agreement: the bookmaker gave Eddie his family grave at the Greek Orthodox section and Eddie forgave the debt - not that this caused any problem for Eddie; the Greek Orthodox section is next to the Chinese section and Eddie knew very well that, eventually, he would be resting there and he would be amongst old friends from both communities.
Eddie lived an interesting life and always declared himself a true Australian, a true Territorian, a true Darwin person. It is most appropriate that we remember Eddie today here in the Northern Territory’s parliament. Eddie, with Greta’s help, of course, passed his knowledge, his values, his love for Darwin to his children, Terry, Rodney, Marie-Louise and Donna.
I am very proud to be friends of the Quong extended family. We knew them for a long time, first through Eddie’s grandson, Lennie Quong, who was training in martial arts with my son, Alexander. They were both six years old and the shortest in the group; they were always sparring partners. Also, later, through his other grandsons, Shaun and Stephen Pearson, once again Alexander’s great mates. I feel very privileged to have known Eddie and shared with him a joke or two, or listened to some of the interesting stories about the old Darwin. I extend my sincere condolences to Greta, Rodney, Terry, Marie-Louise and Donna, but also to the Territory community on a loss of such a great man. I also farewell Eddie. I farewell you, Eddie, in the same way your Greek mates would have done if they were here today, with a traditional Greek saying for the occasion: . God rest his soul.
Ms SACILOTTO (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, on Thursday evening, 24 August 2006, the Darwin community and the Northern Territory lost one of its treasures. Mr Eddie Quong, OAM and 1999 Senior Territorian of the Year passed away.
Eddie was born in Pine Creek in 1925. He was one of 13 children. After World War II, he and his family opened Quong’s Bakery in Smith Street West.
At the age of 21, Eddie took over the bakery after the death of his father. The bakery is well remembered by old locals. The smells of baking bread would attract many dedicated hot bread lovers and the bakery became a regular meeting place for late-nighters. After the bakery was destroyed in Cyclone Tracy in 1974, Eddie embarked on a new career selling insurance. He retired from full-time employment in 1992, but his love of helping others kept him very busy and he dedicated himself to serving his community.
Eddie’s service is legendary. He was a Life Member of the Apex Club Darwin. He gave 40 years of service to Red Cross. He was also a member of the Royal Darwin Hospital Advisory Board for 23 years and served as its Chairman for 21 of those. Eddie was a dedicated family man and he found lasting love and companionship when he married Greta Yow on 25 September 1954 at St Mary’s Star of the Sea Cathedral. Their wedding was attended by around 250 people and, at the time in Darwin, this was quite a major social occasion. Eddie and Greta raised four children in Darwin. I extend my condolences to Greta, Terry, Donna, Rodney, Marie-Louise and their families.
In 1980, Eddie was formally recognised for his extraordinary service to the Territory community and was awarded the Order of Australia Medal. A truly remarkable Territorian, he was again recognised for his community service in 1999 when he was awarded the honour of Senior Territorian by the Australia Day Council. I am told a highlight of this award was a special dinner in Canberra with the Prime Minister, John Howard, minister Bronwyn Bishop and Slim Dusty, who was named Senior Australian of the Year. Apparently, at the end of the evening, they all rose and sang Advance Australia Fair with Slim and Kamahl leading. Eddie was a Slim fan and he thought this topped off the evening.
Eddie, as you could imagine, was a great source of history and information. In light of this, it was natural that the Australian actress and author, Judy Nunn, would be introduced to Eddie when she was in Darwin researching her book Territory. Eddie is mentioned in the foreword for his contribution and Judy has provided this quote on hearing of Eddie’s passing.
- Eddie Quong will be sadly missed by all who knew him. A colourful, vibrant and generous personality, once met never forgotten. I would like to offer my personal condolences to the members of the Quong family who gave me such a warm welcome in Darwin. My deepest sympathy to you all upon your loss, Judy Nunn.
My condolences are extended to Greta, Eddie’s family and the wide circle of friends Eddie made over his 81 years and to the Darwin community. We will all miss this extraordinary Territorian.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I thank you for your contributions in this important motion on the sad passing of Mr Eddie Quong on 24 August 2006. He was a prominent Territory and I know that he will be greatly missed. Honourable members, I ask you to stand and observe one minute’s silence as a mark of respect.
Members rose and observed one minute’s silence.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, morning tea will be served in the Main Hall for family and friends who have joined us for the condolence motion. On behalf of honourable members, thank you for joining us today.
Motion agreed to.
PETITIONS
After-Hours Bulk-Billing Medical
Services in Palmerston
After-Hours Bulk-Billing Medical
Services in Palmerston
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 2057 petitioners relating to funding for after-hours bulk-billing medical services in Palmerston. Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- To the honourable the Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory we the undersigned respectfully showeth that the Northern Territory government no longer provides after-hours bulk-billing medical services at the Farrar Medical Centre in Palmerston. Medical services in Palmerston have been reduced and there are insufficient after-hours services for the community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that we the undersigned ask the Minister for Health, Dr Chris Burns MLA, to restore funding to this valuable community service. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
Sale and Use of Fireworks - Ban
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 218 petitioners praying that the sale and use of fireworks be banned. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders.
Closure of Farrar Medical Centre
Mr WOOD (Nelson)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 228 petitioners relating to the closure of Farrar Medical Centre. Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- Closure of Farrar Medical Centre.
We the undersigned request the Northern Territory government restore the after-hours bulk-billing service at the Farrar Medical Centre, Palmerston.
Non-Support of Aboriginal
People for Abortion
Mr BONSON (Millner)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 84 petitioners relating to the non-support of Aboriginal people for abortion, or bills serial 70 and 71. Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- To the Northern Territory parliament:
We the undersigned Aboriginal people do not support abortion and do not support the amendment bills, Medical Services Amendment Bill 2006 (Serial 70) and the Criminal Reform Amendment Bill (No 2), 2006 (Serial 71) that are presently before the Northern Territory parliament.
RESPONSE TO PETITION
The CLERK: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform honourable members that a response to Petition No 38 has been received and circulated to honourable members:
- Petition No 38
Modernise subdivision process
Date Presented: 23 August 2006
Presented by: Mr Wood
Referred to: Minister for Planning and Lands
Date response due: 29 November 2006
Date response received: 25 September 2006
Date response presented: 11 October 2006
Response:
Facilitating development which is environmentally sustainable is an issue of importance to my department and the Northern Territory government. The planning system is currently undergoing transition to ensure that a framework is in place to better assess and control applications for subdivision according to environmental, social and economic merit.
Foremost of those changes will be the introduction of the proposed Northern Territory Planning Scheme, affording greater protection to the environment than can be achieved within the current array of town plans. Development will be required to meet standards of best practice environmental management, and sustainable use of land and water resources.
In addition, guidelines are currently being prepared which deal extensively with the principles of sustainable urban residential development and water sensitive urban design. It is intended that these guidelines would be referenced in the scheme and provide an additional level of detail to support enhanced environmental and social outcomes.
Development in specific use zones will be subject to the same stringent controls as other development applications under the Northern Territory Planning Scheme.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
NT Export and Industry Awards
NT Export and Industry Awards
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, last week’s 2006 Chief Minister’s NT Export and Industry Awards marked the beginning of a new era in how we recognise business excellence in the Territory. This year, for the first time, the former export awards and the new manufacturers’ awards have been combined. It is recognition of the clear link between our manufacturing sector and the Territory’s export performance. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s aim in revamping the awards was to get more businesses involved and participating, and they certainly succeeded on that front.
As patron of the awards, I take this opportunity to congratulate and thank the Chamber’s International Business Council and Manufacturers Council for managing and organising the awards.
Territorians have always been successful traders, making a significant contribution to the Territory’s economy. Last year, the estimated value of our exports was around $3.5bn and we are taking our businesses to all corners of the globe. For example, in the last financial year our products and services were traded to over 60 countries, and our businesses have shown they can match it with anyone anywhere, and they can adapt and respond to the changing needs of their customers.
Let me tell you about last week’s winners. The winners of the Territory-FM Small to Micro Business Award was the Mbantua Gallery in Alice Springs. Mbantua Gallery exports Aboriginal art to all corners of the globe, and the paintings of Utopian artists like Barbara Weir, Gloria Petyarre and Minnie Pwerle will be shown at the upcoming Shanghai Art Fair, where over 55 000 people attend each day. Congratulations on that award to Tim, Jan and Dale Jennings for all their hard work.
The Commonwealth Bank Services Award was won by the Charles Darwin University. CDU has continued to expand the number of international students they take and, therefore, their export revenue. Congratulations to Dr Claire Baxter, Executive Director of the Business Development Unit and her team for their great work in this area.
The NTICN Manufacturer’s Industry Award and the Darwin Port Corporation Agribusiness Award was won by TAAU. Bell Huang is the Director of TAAU and his agricultural farm near Berry Springs produces top grade spirulina, 90% of which is exported to Asian markets.
The Austrade Arts and Entertainment Award was taken out by Maningrida Arts and Culture. Maningrida Arts and Culture made history this year with the first Aboriginal art exhibition in Bahrain. The work of artists like Samuel Namunjdja and John Mawunrdjul made a big impact and are in great demand. Congratulations to Apolline Kohen and her team for their vision and dedication.
The Perkins Shipping Minerals and Energy Award and the Southern Cross Television Exporter of the Year Award were won by Alcan Gove. The massive expansion project at Gove is great for the Territory and is turning the company into one of the world’s largest and most efficient alumina producers. Congratulations to Alcan’s site manager, David Buik and Jim Irvine, the General Manager of Human Resources, and their team at Alcan.
The AusIndustry Emerging Exporter Award went to Guppytraders.com. The Director, Darryl Guppy, produces stock market tracking software for the Chinese stock market and its traders. It is a unique Territory product that is really going places in one of the world’s fastest growing economies.
The Manufacturer’s Council Small to Medium Manufacturer’s Award was won by Australian Crocodile Products. These unique Territory products are in hot demand in Europe, the USA and throughout Asia. Director, Heather Brown, and Store Manager, Samantha Ptakarios, have worked extremely hard in establishing these export markets.
Madam Speaker, we will continue to support new and existing exporters through our Trade Support Scheme. The scheme assists businesses in offsetting the costs of their export marketing activities and, in the past 12 months, over 68 businesses have used the scheme. Congratulations to all nominees and winners in these awards. It is businesses like these that keep the Territory economy moving ahead.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I also congratulate those who have been mentioned, and I have a note of all those who are award winners. Behind every one of those award winners is the enterprise of Territorians who are seeking to take that next and most important step of exporting our product to the wider world.
The stories behind each of those are an inspiration because it is the small business enterpriser who has a vision and belief and takes a risk. That is why it is so important that government provides the right atmosphere and environment so that the risk can be minimised. I acknowledge the great risk that is taken by many who aspire to take that next and most important step.
The population of the Northern Territory is very small when you consider the size of the market to our immediate north. With some 200 000 to 200 million people at a distance of about where Tennant Creek is from Darwin if you start in Timor and move up through the archipelago, there is immense opportunity. We are blessed to be so strategically placed. The opportunities, however, can be further explored by government to consider that the AusAID budget distributes about $85m into our immediate region and, at this stage, there is very little acquitted in the Territory. I call on government to provide greater efforts to see how we can acquit ourselves of that additional and very large revenue stream.
To revisit the MOU between the eastern provinces of Indonesia and the Northern Territory, I know there is growing willingness, particularly of those in Nusa Tenggara, Timor, to advance that issue.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Blain, your time has expired.
Liquor-Related Pilot Strategy
Dr BURNS (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Speaker, in December 2005, Cabinet approved the development of a targeted strategy to address liquor-related issues surrounding suburban liquor outlets, including hotels and supermarkets.
A 12-week pilot strategy was developed by Racing, Gaming and Licensing in consultation with the Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services, and implemented during the period June to August 2006.
Two specific areas were chosen in which to conduct the pilot strategy. These were Parap/Fannie Bay and Jingili/Wagaman/Moil. These areas were chosen because there was an existing high level of concern about liquor-related antisocial behaviour expressed by police and residents, strong community support for action, and because the areas were easily defined.
Parap/Fannie Bay has a high concentration of licensed takeaway premises within a small area in close proximity to high density accommodation. Jingili/Wagaman/Moil is predominantly suburban residential with a small number of liquor takeaway outlets in the area, but with major outlets in close proximity at Casuarina and Hibiscus Shopping Centres.
The objective of the strategy was to target maximum resources into two defined geographic areas for a 12-week period in order to reduce liquor-related antisocial behaviour in and around areas where liquor outlets are located. The pilot strategy combined targeted regulatory activity by RGL inspectors and police, with responsible liquor service training for liquor licensee employees and community engagement activities. The community engagement activities included public meetings and neighbourhood visits by licensing inspectors.
Specific activities included:
- (1) engagement with licensees and their respective representative bodies such as the Australian Hotels Association and the Liquor Stores Association;
- (2) direct regulatory action taken with licensees where problems were identified;
- (3) frequent visits to the targeted areas and to licensed premises in the area by licensing inspectors and police to ensure licensees were aware of their obligations;
- (4) covert surveillance by licensing inspectors to identify use of book-up sales, sales to intoxicated persons, out of hours sales, and other breaches of the Liquor Act by licensees;
- (5) engaging with drinkers regarding liquor issues;
- (6) development of a liquor accord for the areas;
- (7) engaging with residents and community organisations to increase public awareness of the intervention and complaint processes; and
(8) delivery of two Responsible Service of Alcohol courses for persons involved in the sale of liquor in the targeted areas at no cost to licensees.
The pilot strategy was evaluated through: public meetings to obtain feedback from the community, licensees, and other stakeholders; police statistics collected over the period for the relevant areas; the number of complaints received by the Director of Licensing; information from other agencies such as Darwin City Council, sobering-up shelter and Community Harmony staff; volume and type of liquor sales data received from wholesalers; and observations by licensing inspectors.
There has been a notable reduction in liquor-related antisocial behaviour near liquor outlets in both targeted areas; however, this has not been accompanied by any significant reduction in overall liquor sales by licensees. The Director of Licensing received no complaints from either inspectors or members of the community in relation to licensees or licensed premises located in either targeted area through the period of the pilot strategy.
Licence inspectors reported the movement of itinerants away from the general public areas into more secluded drinking areas. The feedback from community organisations and residents has been very positive. I attended a number of those meetings and it was, indeed, very positive.
The next series of operations will be in Alice Springs and suburban liquor outlets located in the Gap area, Todd Mall and surrounds, north Stuart Highway, and some parts of Gillen area have been targeted under the strategy. A public meeting was held in Alice Springs last night at Witchetty’s, Araluen Centre, and the strategy will continue until 4 December 2006. I congratulate liquor outlet owners and their staff and residents for their support.
Madam Speaker, this is part of this government’s strategic initiative to reduce liquor-related harm and harmful liquor consumption in our major centres.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, yesterday we had assertions that all things are going reasonably well out there and crime statistics are trending downwards. Now we have a report of a very proactive response of government, which is largely driven, I suspect, to bolster the community perception of action and addressing an issue of concern to constituents. Noticeably, we are working actively in the northern suburbs where we need to bolster our perception in that community.
We know very well that if we are going to make any substantial and long-term change, we are going to require real courage. We are going to have to look at what happens in Groote Eylandt and places like that and start to make some deeper and harder decisions. These sorts of things are good to hear but, in all honesty, minister, they are unsustainable.
You are going to have short-term efforts and concentrated resources to address an issue here and now. Granted, there is going to be data feeding back into the system, but that data should do more than create an impression of activity. We have to start getting serious about this and putting in some deeper planks that will change behaviour now and forever.
You told us yesterday that crime statistics are trending downwards. At the same time, you are telling us there is grave concern and you are required to bring in this kind of effort to deal with hot spots, and to turn around issues of great concern to families in the northern suburbs. You are at odds with yourself.
Dr BURNS (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Speaker, in answer to the member for Blain, this is a government that has a strategic approach to alcohol issues. Alcohol management plans are currently being developed. The member for Blain mentioned a couple - Nhulunbuy and Groote Eylandt. This is a government that is very focused on these alcohol issues.
This is a government that will be looking at a complete rewrite of the Liquor Act next year and I hope the opposition will participate in that. This is a government that realises the importance of reducing harmful alcohol consumption in our community.
As I said yesterday, as Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing, I am committed to it. As minister for Police I am committed to it, and as it knocks on into health areas, as Minister for Health, I am committed to it.
Regional Arts Australia National
Conference – Alice Springs
Conference – Alice Springs
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arts and Museums): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to report to the House that Alice Springs will stage the next Regional Arts Australia national conference. The 2008 conference, to be called Art at the Heart, will bring major benefits to the Alice Springs with an expected attendance of 1000 people, and an economic benefit of around $2m.
The cultural benefits to Central Australia will be considerable. It will provide a major showcasing for Territory artists and their organisations. A handover ceremony to Alice Springs was held last month in Mackay. Some 750 delegates and officials from around Australia witnessed an exciting presentation by Territory artists demonstrating the strength of the Territory’s art community and enticing them to come to Alice Springs in 2008.
In 2005, Arts NT, in partnership with Tourism NT, and with strong backing from the then Arts minister and Chief Minister, commenced bidding for the RAA national conference. It had overwhelming support from the Central Australian arts community for which I would like to thank them.
The RAA conference is held every two years and is a national event focusing on regional arts practice and related issues. It is attended by regional arts workers, practitioners, volunteers and arts administrators, and national policy and decision-makers. The growth of the conference has been staggering since its inception in 1998, growing from 250 in that year to 750 who attended this year.
We are looking to 1000 delegates for Alice Springs. The conference will spotlight Territory art practices with traditional and contemporary, young and old artists working side by side and sharing experiences and ideas. It will offer us the opportunity to show Australia what we do and how we do it. The conference will inject an estimated $2m into the Central Australian economy, with ongoing benefits to business, tourism, hospitality and employment for the region.
In 2008, the Territory will host the Cultural Ministers Council, bringing together Arts ministers from around Australia and New Zealand. It is my intention to time this meeting to coincide with a conference to focus the arts debate on regional issues and to encourage new partnerships across borders through Art at the Heart - a great way to celebrate 30 years of self-government for the Northern Territory.
In Mackay, regional art representatives from around Australia were treated to a rich presentation of Central Australian artists speaking with passion about their art and the influence of people and the environment on their work. This story was captured by local film makers Craig Mathewson and David Nixon through amazingly beautiful and haunting images and honest, intimate interviews with local artists.
Drum Drum followed with a powerful performance of traditional song and dance from Papua New Guinea and North Australia, reflecting the multiculturalism that is the Territory. Arts NT along with Music NT produced a compilation CD featuring original contemporary music from 10 Territory artists, with visual artist Bronwyn Wright providing a stunning cover image, Her Master’s Voice.
The CDs were giveaways at the 2006 conference to invite delegates to the Territory and to showcase the strength of the contemporary music sector in the Northern Territory. It will be a great event for Alice Springs and, indeed, for the Northern Territory. Madam Speaker, I table copies of From the Edge to the Heart DVD and the Art at the Heart CD so all members can experience the magic and promise of the 2008 Art At the Heart conference.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I welcome the report. First, I ask if the minister would update the House on any progress with the very important issue of authentication of indigenous art. I have raised this each time the minister has made comments on this very important area of indigenous art. We need to progress the central issue of the value of the art only being enhanced if we make sure that we have proper systems in place to ensure authentication. There are very innovative practices and proposals on the table. I am aware that the minister and this government have been asked to become involved in this, and that there is some work being done federally on this. Until we get that settled, we cannot realise the full potential that will flow back into indigenous families.
Second, I ask whether the minister is aware of an approach being made by a group of French investors in the art area with a connection to the medical field who want to establish a link with Royal Darwin Hospital. If you are aware of that, I am interested to hear what approaches have been made to the minister’s office.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arts and Museums): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Blain for his comments. In terms of authentication, there is a lot of work that has been done with both Desart and ANKAAA. The code of conduct has now been produced and circulated to all art centres, artists and anyone involved in the industry. The code of conduct has been widely received, driven by the industry and the sector - which is important - rather than by government.
There are discussions between the federal and the Northern Territory governments in terms of authentication. It is early days, but it is being worked through.
This will be good news for Alice Springs in 2008. It will bring an $8m boost. If we look at the Masters Games, which is estimated to be worth $6m to the Alice Springs economy, coupled with this $2m that could come in from this conference, that is an $8m boost in a matter of three weeks, so it is good for Alice. It is good for the artists and the economy.
I will get back to the member for Blain on the issue of authentication. There is work being done and we will follow that through.
Gold Mining
Mr NATT (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I inform the House of a topic close to many people’s hearts: gold. Members may be aware that gold has been mined in the Territory since 1870 when the rich Pine Creek goldfields were discovered during construction of the Overland Telegraph. Today, gold is still mined in the Territory, particularly around Pine Creek and in the Tanami.
In 2005-06, the Territory produced 390 000 ounces of gold with a value of $271m, which is about 15% of the value of all mining in the Territory.
Companies searching for gold today can take advantage of some of the best pre-competitive geoscience information in the world provided by my department’s Northern Territory Geological Survey. This wealth of cutting edge information is available free as part of the Northern Territory’s major exploration and investment attraction program, Building the Territory’ Resource Base. This cutting edge geoscience, along with increases in the gold price, has broken the gold mining stagnation of the late 1990s and focused exploration into the most prospective areas of the Territory, and the results are significant.
Canadian listed company, GBS Gold Australia, has consolidated gold tenements in the Pine Creek region and has announced a global resource of 3.5 million ounces. The company has spent $10m on exploration in the region this year and has already opened two mines, Rising Tide and Brocks Creek. Last month, the first gold from these mines was poured at GBS Gold’s Union Reef Mill. The company is so confident of the future of this region that its exploration budget for the next five years is $34m. It is, moreover, considering reopening mines at Fountain Head, Cosmos Deep, Princess Louise, Chinese Howley and Maud Creek. This means jobs, wealth to the economy and a welcome return to boom times in the Pine Creek region.
Add to the GBS venture the exploits of Renison Consolidated Mines, which has recommenced mining at Tom’s Gully near Mt Bundy. Renison made its first gold pour on 23 August this year. In the old days, this would have been called a gold rush.
In the Tanami Desert, Newmont Australia, which runs one of Australia’s largest gold mines at Callie, is exploring deep underground extensions to the ore body. This has already led to the discovery of increased resources to the tune of 4.3 million ounces of gold.
Regional exploration in the Tanami has been revitalised by the recent Tanami Seismic Survey, which was partly funded by my department in a fine example of private-public sector cooperation. This survey has already generated many new exploration targets. Explorers in the Tanami like Tanami Gold and Ord River Resources can now take advantage of new data and apply new exploration models. This is the very essence of modern exploration.
Meanwhile, exploration for gold in the Tennant Creek region is being revisited by Adelaide Resources and West Gold Resources. These companies are themselves following new exploration models and are hopeful of positive results. Once again, the NTGS is there, and based on the strike rate of their information to date, I am sure we will soon be hearing more about Tennant Creek.
There are also totally new greenfield areas under exploration. In the Western Arunta region, at the Tekapo prospect site on Aboriginal land near Lake Mackay, Tanami Gold recently announced an exciting new gold discovery. This is to follow up the geophysical and mapping programs undertaken by the NTGS, which highlighted the prospectivity of this previously unexplored region.
Gold exploration holds the promise of considerable wealth and brings positive flow-on effects to the region and the entire Territory. The Arunta discoveries are particularly exciting as they occur in regions where gold was previously unknown. The Arunta discovery confirms that the Territory contains vast tracks of poorly explored land, awaiting new data, ideas and activity. The rewards are, potentially, very high and my department is assisting every step of the way. The assistance and information we are offering is really solid gold.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I rise in the absence of Mrs Miller, and I am sure she would join with me in congratulating the minister on his first ministerial report in his capacity as mining minister.
The minister and, indeed, his colleagues, will be aware that after the ministerial reshuffle that occurred at the end of the last sittings, there was a great deal of concern that the very important mining sector had been given to a junior minister. That concern continues. Why do I know that? Because people in the mining sector, pretty much from far and wide, continue to tell me. It goes pretty much around the Territory.
We have heard in this Chamber this minister’s predecessor say how vital the mining industry is to the Territory, what it represents to our Territory economy and so on. Yet, in what can only be described as a slap to the mining sector, the Chief Minister deigned to give this vital portfolio to a new bloke.
Wasn’t it a mistake? In the first couple of weeks, we saw the minister make a couple of mistakes. That leads, obviously, to the McArthur River Mine. He shot from the blocks and said words to the effect of: ‘Oh yes, bring it on, bring it on. McArthur River is vital to the Territory’. Then he got slapped, and he has been pretty much stumbling ever since, trying to be seen to be playing with a straight bat. I hope you have learnt from that experience, minister. It is not your fault that this important portfolio has been given to a junior minister. However, the industry expects a much better performance, minister. I hope you improve and, not to put too fine a point on it, you can do no worse than your predecessor.
Mr NATT (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, in reply, there are exciting times ahead in exploration. With metal prices high on the commodities market at the moment, many big international companies are currently investing in the Territory.
It is amazing that the Leader of the Opposition notes that I am a junior minister. That is in her eyes. I can assure the members of the opposition that I will be stepping into the big shoes filled by my predecessors, and I will be undertaking all endeavours to ensure the mining industry does prosper in the way that it is in the moment.
Reports noted.
MOTION
Medical Services Amendment Bill (Serial 70) and Criminal Reform Amendment Bill (No 2) (Serial 71) – Consideration of Questions for Second Reading, Committee of the Whole and Third Reading Separately
Medical Services Amendment Bill (Serial 70) and Criminal Reform Amendment Bill (No 2) (Serial 71) – Consideration of Questions for Second Reading, Committee of the Whole and Third Reading Separately
Mr MILLS (Blain)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that separate questions be put for the second reading, the committee report stage and the third reading of the Medical Services Amendment Bill 2006 (Serial 70) and Criminal Reform Amendment Bill (No 2) 2006 (Serial 71).
The need for this motion is clear, I hope, to anyone who has taken the time to assess what is being asked in this bill. First, we have been presented, as a parliament, with a decision made by government to cognate two bills. The consistent argument, once inquiries were made, was that the bills only deal with technical matters. You may say that all you like, and even attempt to believe that it is only dealing with technicalities, but there are those in this House who hold a distinctly different view. I suspect that there will be members on the other side of this House, if provided the opportunity to reflect individually and freely on the questions at the heart of a proposition to deal with two bills in a cognate manner, who would have a different response. I could digress on that point. I will constrain myself because, as a member of parliament, I endeavour to be true to my own conscience, my own beliefs, to speak truly and pay heed to the way this parliament starts and conduct my business, in every respect, in accordance with certain principles.
I cannot accept that these two bills have sufficient in common to warrant them being cognate. The arguments by the minister when presenting the bills to the House were sparse. The reasons they were sparse is because there is an element of trust that operates in these matters. Generally, when a minister moves a motion that bills are cognate, it is because the changes relate to the same issue across bills. That is generally the case; that is the convention. Generally, ministers are not pulled up and expected to give explanations because members trust them to be honest about the need to have bills taken as cognate. Therefore, there is an element of trust. The reason for this is that, in some instances, several bills are affected by a changing law and it is pointless to have to bring two or more debates on the same issue. It is obvious there are times when a bill needs to be cognate with others because they all relate to the same matter.
Once again, I know the view of government, which is dissimilar, I suspect, from individual views. Another story is that these are bound together by a similarity in one very loose and, I would say, superficial sense. It relates to the Criminal Code. There is a similarity but, then, to take it to the next stage and say it is a mere technicality, it is a tidying up, and sweeping under the carpet important questions that are not permitted adequate expression in this Chamber, is immensely troubling.
Whether you like it or not, we deal with moral and ethical issues imbedded in this decision to cognate two bills. Moral and ethical issues may, if you are predisposed to do so, be swept aside and put into another category. Some do not have the so-called liberty to do that. To be true to our view as members to represent that which we deem to be important is compromised by the approach that has been taken by government.
Now we are using words such as ‘the government has decided’. There is a trap in that because no one is accountable. Government generally is. There are members of this Chamber who have made a decision of convenience to cognate two bills, and then perpetrate a line of argument that is satisfactory and convenient to sustaining a position. So, it is not a government position. Individuals, whether they are active or inactive, have given consent to this matter. It makes it immensely difficult to properly address issues that are dissimilar.
Now to the point of similarity and dissimilarity: that which is common at this point is that they both relate to the Criminal Code. They both belong to the Criminal Code at this point until we go through the debate in the Chamber, because matters in this cognate bill all relate to life, and they rest collectively on the fundamental principle of do not kill. The converse of that is affirmation and value of life. That is why they are together in the Criminal Code now. It is because that context, the value of life, is the fundamental. That is what it rests upon - a matter of convenience or inconvenience perhaps to be able to shift that. To use a term that has been bandied around a lot recently, I bring you back to an inconvenient truth, and that is that matters to do with the termination of a pregnancy relate to life.
Some may hold a completely different view. You use superior numbers and the collective view of members on the other side of the Chamber to have nodding assent to a position - and we have seen it happen throughout the course of history. There is no reference, encouragement, acknowledgement of ethical and moral considerations in this debate: ‘Let us keep it technical, let us keep it tidy, let us combine the palatable with the unpalatable and see if we can slip it through’.
It may be convenient to achieve a particular end, but it is inconvenient. It is wrong and I cannot abide by it. I call on all members to respect the deeper principles that give meaning to all that we do. We are dealing with the fundamental value of life. That is why I am at odds and have immense difficulty. The debate will continue at a later stage on aspects of this bill. There are parts of the bills that I can support because they are cognate. There are some aspects of the criminal reform proposals that are supportable. On the other hand, I have moral and ethical questions, which are completely different from the other propositions. These are issues that grip many families, mums and dads across our Territory, deeply, and to deny the opportunity for those two issues to be properly assessed and articulated in isolation is plainly wrong.
I urge members to permit us the dignity of at least talking about the two aspects of these bills because they reflect two different questions based, at this point, on a single principle: the value of life. That is what they have in common.
Life is fundamentally valued to the point that to remove a life is the worst possible crime that can be committed. Conventions of society have given rise, wrongly or rightly - that is a matter of debate - for acceptance in the minds of some that it is okay to terminate a pregnancy. Some hold that view with some comfort; some do not at all. To put these two things together is wrong. To mask it over is unconscionable.
Not to allow proper development of issues in the minds of the community by being a bit ambiguous about when this was going to be brought before the parliament - you will deny that, I am sure, but we see it from this side – means that the community has not really been aware of what this about. Yes, it is the responsibility of opposition to do so. We have done the best that we can. So have Independent members. Generally, when government wants to bring some grand reform, they pump a lot of energy into ensuring that the community is fully aware of what they are up to. This time it was quite different. It seemed to disappear beneath the surface. Aspects of it were amplified; other parts of it were hidden. The implications of this were obscured.
The same technique, this violation of a convention of parliament, was perpetrated in this very place by this same government, these individuals, when we had the gay law reform debate. The palatable and the unpalatable combined together and endeavoured to be passed through. Once again, that was unconscionable. There are members who reflect deeply on issues and like to think about issues from other perspectives and, yet, at that time, there was great and deep consternation from members who believe in liberty and freedom of expression, and the right and the dignity of being able to discuss issues properly, who were put in the undignified position of having to throw out and reject a bill that had very supportable elements because, embedded in it, in defiance of a convention, was a moral and ethical matter. Members in the ascendency with the greater numbers believed, though privately expressed some variance to the collective view, the same thing, conveniently, and through it went.
Great credit goes to members of the community who awakened at that point and put appropriate pressure on members of this Assembly to reflect more carefully about the decisions that we make.
We must reflect carefully on the decisions that we make because the purpose of our decision-making is not to manage it in the most clinical, technical and efficient ways so that you can slip through to the next election without troubling too many people so that we can be re-elected. Wrong, wrong, wrong. The decisions that we make here affect other people.
Consider other regimes and discussions that have occurred in other arenas of a similar nature. You can conveniently exempt yourself from the implications of your decisions. ‘Other people can do what they like, everything is relative. We are only parliamentarians, we have a part in process, other people have a different part in the process’. I do not believe that. I believe the decisions that I make have a direct effect, therefore, I have responsibility for the consequences of our decisions. As a moral and ethical position, it is practical. I cannot easily exempt myself from the effect of my decisions on other people. Therefore, when I consider that, what is being proposed contains a critical principle that should apply equally here as it does in the operating theatre.
In the Medical Services Amendment Bill, Clause 11(6) reads:
- A person is not under any duty to terminate or assist in terminating a woman's pregnancy, or to dispose of or assist in disposing of an aborted foetus, if the person has a conscientious objection to doing so.
No person, in any operating theatre, should ever be put under pressure to do something that they conscientiously object to doing. If that applies in an operating theatre, it must apply here. It must! It emanates from here; this is the source. How can it be different here than it is in the operating theatre? It cannot be. It is wrong - it may be convenient, it may be technical, but it is wrong. It cannot occur and you will not be comfortable with it. To put these two bills together is wrong. You will not get away with it - politically, for a time, perhaps. You will not get away with it; it is wrong.
As a member, I am faced with a proposition. What do I do when the bills are cognate out of convenience? Do I ignore aspects that may benefit our community in one part of this debate at the expense of another issue that moves me deeply? It arises from my view of the value of life. That is why it is in the Criminal Code as far as I am concerned. There is an exemption, a legal assent given, under certain circumstances, where a termination can occur. It sits in the Criminal Code because it feeds that notion of the value of life. That question is dismissed, wiped away, by joining these bills, talking about technicalities, and putting it somewhere else in the same category as medical services, debt collection, movement of patients, tonsillectomies, etcetera. It is just a medical procedure for some. It is not!
The moment fathers learn the news that their wives are pregnant, changes them. You do not have a different view some time later. From that point on, magic occurs. That is my view. Practically anyone here would not be unmoved by that proposition.
A member of this Chamber said to me in the lift yesterday: ‘I am going to be a grandfather tomorrow’. I bet the moment he heard that his daughter or son and their family were going to have a child - from that moment it was confirmed - there was excitement. From that moment, there was excitement. Be honest. It is from that moment we know that there is a child: ‘Oh, it is a child; it is a life’.
When we have a condolence motion – for Steve Irwin, Peter Brock, Eddie Quong and others who are close to us - we spend so much time reflecting on the value and the quality of their life. We tell little stories about the funny and interesting things they did, the contribution they made, the influence they brought to bear upon other people. I wonder, at times like that, on almost every occasion, how is it that we wait until they have gone before we value their life? How is it that we wait until it is too late? It was mentioned in the condolence motion this morning. They have a story to tell, but for those, from my view, who have not yet been able to tell their story, from the moment we know that there is something magical happening, their story is yet to be told.
By joining the bills, calling it a technicality, providing a convenient mechanism by superior weight of numbers in this parliament where individual members, whatever they have done with the plausible arguments and whatever happens with group think, we are in a position today where, sadly, these words will be uttered in this Chamber, and I fear they will have little practical effect. Members will listen respectfully, they will see a man who is quite passionate about certain things speak, and probably give a couple of compliments over a meal: ‘Oh, that was really good. I liked that, but this is my view’. Fine. One begins to reflect on why one is here.
I will stay here and continue this because this message must be continued about the genuine reflection on our duty as members of this parliament; what it means to be a representative of our community. What is our real purpose in being here? It is not to use convention to bring bills together to achieve a technical, efficient and convenient end; that is, slipping something through so that you can then move on and tick a box.
Anyone who is a student of history should be able to hear echoes of other times and other places where such group thinking existed - matters of convenience, tidiness, put it aside, others make the decision; it was not me directly; I am not directly responsible. We are directly responsible because the decisions that we make in this Chamber affect others.
I ask members to consider the motion once again. I ask for this parliament - I am not asking government; I am asking members of this parliament - please, in the interests of recognising what lies at the heart of this, what some members may find offensive, in the interests of dignity, of considered and careful debate about life, you will permit this: separate questions be put for the second reading, the committee report stage, and the third reading of the Medical Services Amendment Bill. I urge members to consider this request. I only hope that I have made my point clear enough.
There are many ways to tackle a matter like this. I fear that the responses will be of a legal and technical nature and that will, perhaps, be seductive and persuasive in one sense. However, I ask members to remain alive to the idea that there are moral and ethical issues that sit underneath that have been covered. They can easily be covered. Our minds can play games because, if we change the terminology, if we add well constructed arguments that are plausible, we can easily become confused.
As in a legal arena, if there is any doubt, if there is any question, why not separate them so at least we can be true to ourselves as members who represent other people? Even if there is any doubt, why not go ahead and have the two questions, so that we will strengthen the dignity of our office as elected representatives?
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support everything the member for Blain said. He spoke from the heart and as a true parliamentarian. If I can speak as well as that, I would think I have done a good job. I accept the fact that doing a good job here may not win, which is the sad thing about all this.
The government knew, when it decided that these bills would be cognate, exactly what it was doing. The government is not stupid. It takes advice from various people and it consciously agrees or disagrees with that advice. That is what it has done in this case. It knew that there were two bills here that literally deal with life and death. How much more fundamental can you be with legislation in this House? The whole basis on which we are here is based on life and death. Nearly all our laws to some extent affect life and death. Yet, we have been treated with contempt as parliamentarians by the government deliberately putting two bills together, knowing that many of us could not support one section of one bill. We know that is about abortion.
Legalities, rules, party discipline are totally irrelevant at times. We cannot stand here oblivious to the fact that we are human beings, that we, as parliamentarians, have the power over that life and death, and to cover it up with legal arguments or party political rules, to me, is totally irrelevant.
When I leave this earth, I do not get extra points for belonging to the Labor Party or the CLP or being an Independent. I hope that someone judges me on what I do as a human being. Being in this House is just a passing phase of life. I was a chook farmer once. I am a politician now. I do not know what I will be in the future. Hopefully, with all the mistakes I make in life, I will try to do things better in each phase or my life. This is a new phase of my life during which I have an opportunity to support the fundamental principle that human life should be protected. I will be moving an amendment to the Criminal Reform Amendment Bill which says that a person is a person from the moment of conception until the moment of death because there is no way I can accept that a human life has a stage when it is not protected and a stage when it is protected. I will come to that when we come to the Criminal Code debate.
Returning to the issue of these bills being cognate, the government is saying that this is just a technical change. It is not just a technical change. On the Criminal Code side, you have a whole lot of clauses relating to manslaughter and murder. That does not relate to the Medical Services Act. The only thing that relates to Medical Services Act is that you said you will take the lawful part of the Criminal Code and put in the Medical Services Act. However, what you have done is put before us the very act of abortion. You have put before us the laws of this parliament that allow the termination of pregnancy. You have allowed us, as parliamentarians, the opportunity which has rarely come before this parliament, to give an opinion on whether you agree with the life and death matter that is abortion.
You cannot just look at this law and say: ‘It is only a technical thing’. It is not. You have the fully-fledged act of when you can allow termination of a pregnancy. You cannot avoid that. Here is an opportunity as a parliamentarian to say I agree or I disagree but, no, it is just a technical movement from one act to another. No, it is not. It has come before us as an act. Every section of that act, we can debate. This whole act, we can debate. The principles on which it is based, we can debate.
I cannot accept abortion. I do not accept abortion. I understand in a secular society other people have a different point of view, and I accept that. I am not asking people to take on what I believe, but I have the right as a parliamentarian to express those views, and that is what I want to do today. What saddens me the most is that we will not hear that from all 25 members of parliament today.
I do not mind if people disagree with me, or are vehemently opposed to my point of view, but I stand in this parliament believing that we represent the conscience, to some extent - whether it is different from mine or not is irrelevant - of the community. They want to hear what our elected members stand for. If I am not elected at the next election because people disagree with me, that is the business I am in. People would like to hear what you have to say on serious matters of life and death. Whether it is euthanasia, capital punishment or abortion, people would like to hear their elected representatives say what they believe.
Because the bills are cognate, it makes it extremely difficult. If I vote no for this section, I do not vote for the good sides of the other bill. If I vote yes to the Criminal Code amendment, I am voting yes for abortion. Why did the government do this? Because it wanted to put this through quickly and non-controversially. Why, for instance, has the media not taken up this issue? I wrote and e-mailed a letter to the NT News last Wednesday. It has not appeared in the paper. I put my point of view simply so people knew what it is. Surely, someone must have made a decision somewhere in the media - whether it was in the media out there or some influence on the media side of government - that said: ‘It is technical. Do not worry about the arguments’. They were convinced that there was no big deal about it. Therefore, we discuss the issues of criminal responsibility, manslaughter and murder. That is the bit that was the big ticket item, the headlines, not the abortion issue.
I find that very strange. As the member for Blain said, elsewhere in Australia when this issue has come up, it has created headlines, controversy, and debate, and surely that is what should happen, regardless of whether people get stuck into me about my views – that is irrelevant. People expect us to debate these serious issues properly, and this is improper use of parliamentary procedure. This makes it very difficult. The government should consider the member for Blain’s motion because it is a considered motion based on all things the member for Blain has said.
I ask the government: just for once, change your mind. Make these bills separate so that we can debate them separately. We can support the good side of the Criminal Reform Amendment Bill and, for those who wish in conscience to reject the Medical Services Amendment Bill, they can do that, too. However, to leave them together is an abuse of political process. It is a sell-out of the people of the Northern Territory who expect us to debate these serious issues properly, with dignity. The way these bills have been presented does not allow us to do that. I ask the government to please change its mind and support this motion. I certainly will be supporting this motion.
Debate suspended.
MOTION
Medical Services Amendment Bill (Serial 70) and Criminal Reform Amendment Bill (No 2) (Serial 71) – Consideration of Questions for Second Reading, Committee of the Whole and Third Reading Separately
Medical Services Amendment Bill (Serial 70) and Criminal Reform Amendment Bill (No 2) (Serial 71) – Consideration of Questions for Second Reading, Committee of the Whole and Third Reading Separately
Continued from earlier this day.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I do not have a lot to contribute to this debate, but there are some points I want to make fairly strongly. This motion is not one that government should not or could not support. All it is doing is allowing members who have strong opinions about one particular topic in these cognate bills to have a say and to vote on it in a way that they can allow their conscience to do so. By lumping them all together and having to vote as one, you are not giving them their democratic right of voting within this House. This is a House of debate. Sometimes, we have personal opinions, sometimes the opinions of our electorate but, most of all, we should be voting in the way that we feel we should. To put people at the disadvantage of having to vote for both these bills at the same time means that they may, in fact, be voting against something they believe in for the sake of their principles.
When we use suspension of standing orders to put two bills together, sometimes we do not realise exactly the implication of what we are doing. This process to have the bills debated together before this parliament has even seen them seems to undermine our democratic rights as members of parliament. Had we known what these bills were before the motion to suspend standing orders occurred, perhaps there could have been debate then and government may have realised that there was a lot of passion about them. The process of suspending standing orders denies us, as members of this House, to fully understand what the bills are.
You are, basically, putting the cart before the horse. You are saying to everyone here in this House: ‘Let us suspend standing orders and debate them as cognate even though you do not know what they are all about’. That is the process that we have followed a number of times and, for the most part, it does not really make any difference because the bills do fit. However, when they are as controversial as these are, it is something we should rethink. This has been normal procedure as long as I can remember being in this parliament, which is now 12 years. It has never been a big question, perhaps with the exception of one other bill which might have been the gay reform bill.
Perhaps it is time for us to rethink. In future, members will not be racing to support the suspension of standing orders on bills that they know nothing about. They have done it in good faith because it has been the procedure in the past, and because government has basically said: ‘This is a good thing’. Usually it is but, in bills such as these, the government has been either unaware or a little blind to what they are doing.
It was not until the second reading speech by the Attorney-General that members were given an idea of what they had agreed to. If they had known the implication of debating these bills together, perhaps the alarm bells would have rung. There is a problem with the process that we are undertaking in this House. I am not sure what happens in other parliaments but, obviously, we need to review it.
The process of debating these bills as one has raised the debate about abortion, which was not the original intent of the bills. By debating them as one, it has taken the focus off what they intended to do. In any debate on abortion, people have different ideas and views. I am one who agrees that changes should go into the Medical Services Bill. Do not get me wrong on that. It is the right place for the relevant clauses. However, I do respect other people’s points of view. It is unfortunate that some people will now vote against this motion and the bills because of their concerns on one aspect of the bills.
What has happened is a reflection of the control that is occurring in this parliament by the government exercising control over their members. It is also an indication of that control and the fact that the only person on the government side who seems to be going to speak to this motion is the Attorney-General. Does that mean no one else on the government side has an opinion on this matter? Are they always so silent? I am quite sure there are people on the government side who will look at this motion as simple and straightforward, and say: ‘Yes, okay. I agree with this. I agree to have separate questions at the second reading stage, at the committee stage, and a third reading on these bills separately’.
This motion is not a big deal. It is purely giving people the right to be able to vote on separate aspects of these two bills separately. I cannot believe that there is no one on the government side who, in their own conscience, would like to see this motion supported by government. However, I believe that the government will not allow their members to do that. I do not suppose the Attorney-General is going to agree to this motion. If he does, wow! We will take our hat off to you and, as the new Attorney-General, we will say: ‘Here is someone who is listening and has a lot of commonsense’. We will be listening to you, Attorney-General.
I support the motion, perhaps not for the same reason as the member for Blain who moved it, but because members of this parliament have a right to debate bills in a manner that gives the bills the best scrutiny. As members of this parliament, we have the right to debate bills in a way that allows us to consider all aspects of the bills. That has been denied. Government should be careful that they do not go down this line too often if they really wish to be considered sincere and transparent and fair. They have the numbers. It is not as though they cannot get their legislation through. They always will, but they should not lose sight of the fact that the members in this parliament have a role to play when legislation is introduced and debated.
As members of the parliament representing our electorates, we have the right to be able to debate things in a logical manner and we are being denied the right to vote on these bills separately. It is as simple as that. I say to government: think about it. This motion is not a big deal. If you do this, you will at least say to people out in the community that you understand and that you are prepared to allow people to vote separately. Doing that, you are still going to get your bills through; you have the numbers. It is not going to make any difference to the final result, but at least it will show people that you are listening and you are a fair government.
I intend to raise the issue of the procedure of moving a motion before members have had a chance to see the bills at the next Standing Orders Committee meeting. It is something we have to look at. Although I understand that once standing orders are suspended, anything can happen and anything can be moved, this will make members more cautious about agreeing in the future. I will ask the Clerk to advise of the process in other parliaments and I will ask the government to consider the implication of the motion and why they needed to make these bills cognate.
The member for Blain’s motion should be supported by the government. It will indicate their willingness to at least have an open vote on these two bills separately. By not allowing that, they are only increasing the passion and the strength of the debate on abortion, which these bills are not about. Abortion is legal; it is as simple as that. That is not what we are debating, but the issue has been confused by lumping these two bills together.
I am talking about process, Madam Speaker. It is time we thought about it. Previously, as you know, the first reading was read by the Clerk in parliaments long ago. We no longer do not that; the Clerk only reads the name of the bill. The way it stands is that we have agreed to debate these bills together as cognate without really understanding what they are about. That is my problem. The process has created the situation that it need not have.
This is not a difficult motion to support. It will allow those people who want to vote separately on these issues to do so. I know you will not allow a conscience vote, but at least you will understand that there are some people in this House passionate enough who want to vote separately on these bills. I ask you to consider it in light of the fact that it is good government, good governance, and open and honest, if you allow that. By not allowing it, you are basically saying again: ‘We do not care. We will do it our way. We have the numbers. So what?’
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I am surprised. I was hoping that the Attorney-General would respond to the motion of the member for Blain. I was looking forward to listening to his response before I got to my feet. Obviously, that is not going to be the case and, once again, the government, with its absolute majority, is ramming through legislation as it sees fit.
I support the comments made by the members for Blain, Nelson and Braitling. There is no need for me to repeat their words. The motion is quite clear; that we should break up these bills so that the House can freely debate both of them in the fullness of time.
I want to make some observations. When the member for Blain was speaking so passionately about his beliefs and the anger that he felt, the disappointment that he felt, with the government joining the bills, thus preventing clear and open debate, I was watching the faces of members across the Chamber.
The member for Blain raised the point of Medical Services Amendment Bill, and I will read it:
- A person is not under any duty to terminate or assist in terminating a woman's pregnancy, or to dispose of or assist in disposing of an aborted foetus, if the person has a conscientious objection to doing so.
He read that and said that we, in this House, are the first step towards a law that allows abortion, but also a law that says that if you are a conscientious objector, you can refrain from participating. That was such a pertinent point and it affected members in the Chamber. I could see the emotions in their eyes …
Ms Lawrie: In your mind.
Dr LIM: I pick up the interjection from the member for Karama, ‘in my mind’. That is the problem. She has a position and that is fine. I accept that. People have a choice. It is their choice; I cannot stop them. I cannot tie them up; I cannot lock them up in a room. It is their choice. That is not the issue. The issue is there are people out there who would make the opposite choice and this government has refused to allow that. Not only have they refused to allow it, they need to think about the implications of the decision that there will be no conscience vote. Every member over there, whatever they believe, will now be a participant, whether they object conscientiously or not, in abortion. They will be a participant in the act of abortion because, once this law is passed with their assent, they are implicated in it. They are part of the whole process. That is what the member for Blain was driving at.
Members opposite cannot understand that whatever law is passed in this Chamber, they are part of the whole process. It is as though they consented, condoned and did the procedure themselves. That is what this clause in the bill states; that is what it is about. If you object to it, if you have a conscientious objection, you stay out of it.
Members in government cannot. If they can live with their conscience, that is their choice, that is fine. I am not here to judge them; I am saying let them be their own judges. If the government refuses to allow a conscience vote, they are locked in - 19 members of government, all locked in. I know the government is going to drive this through irrespective, as per the Chief Minister’s comment today at Question Time, that it is all a technicality. Chief Minister, if you are listening to this, it is not just a technicality. I will be raising those points later on when the bills come on for debate. It is not a technicality. There is more to it than that and, if the Chief Minister believes it is a pure technicality, then I sadly say she has been misled by her advisors, whoever they may be. Perhaps her advisors have a political agenda of their own, I do not know. The Chief Minister should read through the literature, abundantly available on the Internet and from the Parliamentary Library Service. They will be able to produce enough information for her to consider. You could consider that, as I said, in the fullness of time if the bills were not cognate.
I support the Criminal Code amendment bill. I thought they were very good amendments but, because it is cognate, I cannot support them - absolutely not - because I do not support the amendments to the Medical Services Act. Therefore, I seek the government’s cooperation. This is one time that you can get above it all and do the right thing. I look forward to hearing the Attorney-General’s comments and, while it is not possible for us in opposition to respond to him, his words will live in Hansard forever.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I will be brief. I have made it known that I will be voting in support of the legislation. I am proud that we have afforded ourselves a conscience vote. It is disappointing that the government has elected not to do so.
However, I want to make it clear that, even though I will be voting in support of this bill, I accept and respect the views of others and their desire to have the bills separated. Whilst I will be supporting the legislation, I believe in the principles enunciated by members who have spoken so far. Whilst my views in relation to the bill are different, I will be voting in support of the amendment. The views of the speakers who have spoken so far are not mine in relation to the bill itself; however, the principle of separating the bills is one I support.
Mr STIRLING (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, it is the government’s view that it is entirely appropriate that these bills be considered and debated as cognate bills. The bills deal, at least in big measure, with the same subject matter in relation to the repeal and transfer of the lawful termination provisions. There is no substantive policy or legal change in this Medical Services Amendment Bill. This is a technical, but essential, component of a wider Criminal Code reform, and is directly connected with reform of this division. There is, of course - and this may be the origins for the mover of the motion - the risk that if you dealt with the bills separately and the Criminal Code reform was to pass and the Medical Services Amendment fail, provisions dealing with lawful terminations disappear from the Territory statute.
If that is the motivation behind the move for this motion, be honest and say that. The member for Nelson did, and I respect him for his views. I disagree with his views, but he has every right to stand here and say it as he sees it. He did, unlike other members in support of this motion who wishy-washied around the issue of abortion without stating clearly whether they support it or not. I understand. I can recall being in opposition in years past on similar provisions with other items of legislation where you might have wanted to vote for a substantive part of the bill, but there was something in there that you could not support, so you did not support the bill. However, it is proper legislative process that bills of this nature, which are so closely interrelated, need to be dealt with at once and passed together.
I want to quickly go across some of the comments made in the debate. The member for Blain talked about an element of trust, as if my predecessor, the previous Attorney-General, and I were attempting to mislead parliament in some way. Nothing could be further from the truth. These bills have had the same process that bills always have: a second reading into parliament, and out there for the world to see.
If you accept at heart that the amendments and the transfer of the lawful termination provisions do not go to the central issue of abortion itself, then the question of having to separate the passage of these bills does not arise; that is, if you accept that the law on abortion as it stands is basically sound, the question of having to separate these bills does not arise. If you are totally opposed to abortion, as the member for Nelson is, then I can recognise and see a difficulty for a member who may want to support the other Criminal Code amendments, but not the aspects around the transfer of the abortion provisions from one item of legislation to another. That, in itself, is a deceitful approach and an abuse of parliamentary procedure in the way that I was alleged to have abused parliamentary procedure by the member for Braitling. You have to accept that the question of abortion - legal or illegal, yes or no - is not the issue here today. It is not the subject of debate here today. They do not substantially change either the policy or the law.
Support for the Criminal Code reform and defeat of the Medical Services Act in a separate handling process, as the member suggests, would, of course, just leave the legal provisions around abortion in the NT in a very uncertain state. The proper process for a member who has a difficulty like this, who cannot live with these provisions, is to bring into this House a private member’s bill as Marshall Perron did in 1995, or even earlier, around euthanasia; as Kevin Andrews did in the federal parliament with the counter bill killing off the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act. That is the process. If you are so opposed to abortion that you do not think it should be on the statute books, you have every right, as a member of this parliament to introduce a private member’s bill …
Mrs Braham: It is members’ rights to debate and vote according to the way they want to.
Mr STIRLING: Well, the member for Nelson said he wanted to hear the views of every member of this House. If he wants that full debate, he introduces, as he has every right to do, a private member’s bill to outlaw abortion in the Northern Territory. To use this debate and these amendments to overturn the legal provisions around abortion is entirely inappropriate. To try to distort the relevance of these amendments as a question on abortion itself is equally inappropriate.
What this bill does is transfer the lawful termination provisions from the Criminal Code to the Medical Services Act. It changes the requirement for gynaecologists or obstetricians to carry out the procedure as required in the 0 to 14-week category to one where it may be carried out by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner - not just a medical practitioner as referred to today - and at least one of the authorising medical practitioners be a gynaecologist or an obstetrician where that is practicable to achieve.
The member for Braitling talked about a loss of parliamentary democracy of the right of members to exercise their democratic rights with the cognate handling of these bills. Every member has the opportunity to exercise their democratic right to vote for or against every one of these amendments in the committee stages of the debate. That is the opportunity. That is the proper opportunity for members to put their views, to move their own amendments, to change the amendments that are on the table today. Indeed, members have that right and that is the proper process in the committee stage of debate: discuss and put your views to support or against each of the amendments and, indeed, put your own.
There is no loss of right. There is no loss of democratic practice or procedure. There is absolutely no loss of rights of members in dealing with these bills in a cognate fashion. Where bills are closely related, as these two are, it is the normal and appropriate means of handling them. The same level of scrutiny applies to these bills as, indeed, any bill - and perhaps a little more given the sensitive nature of them.
The member for Braitling also stated that this side of the House disallowed a conscience vote for our members. That is simply not true. In fact, if the question was about abortion, yes or no, then Labor Party rules applying across Australia clearly specify a conscience vote. There can be no tying of Labor members in parliament around the question of abortion itself. However, members on this side of the parliament clearly recognise that this is not a question about the central issue of abortion being right or wrong, but amendments that by and large retain the status quo around abortion on our books as it has been for many years.
Even then, had one member - just one member - expressed enough disquiet or discomfort in relation to this to say: ‘Perhaps there ought to be a conscience vote’, I have no doubt at all that it would have been discussed by the caucus, by the party room, and a conscience vote would have been allowed.
However, to say that we have disallowed it or have stood on our members or whatever is simply not true. Each member of caucus has had an opportunity to put their view and, if there was a level of discomfort such that their conscience would not have allowed them to support the nature of these amendments, they had every right to do that. I daresay discussion would have followed and a conscience vote allowed.
It is a simple matter of following the process of the passage of these bills through all normal stages, as any legislation proceeds through here. Second readings go down, members declare their views during the second reading stage, then we go into committee. There are a number of amendments that have been circulated by members. They are dealt with, including the committee stage amendment from this side, and members make up their mind to support or not support those amendments as they come up one by one. Then, of course, is the decision to support or oppose the bill as a whole at the end of that process. I look forward to that debate.
The government does not see the need for these bills to be separated. There are many occasions on which bills are cognate because you are dealing with a principal act and an amendment. That flows to other legislation and every other item of legislation that is affected by the change that you are seeking to effect in the primary legislation, necessarily, makes those other bills cognate. I have done this as minister for Education many times, as have each of the ministers in here. In fact, it is more often the case that if you are amending one item of legislation, there are implications for others and they become cognate. More the case here, in fact, where it is the same subject matter in relation to the repeal and transfer of lawful termination provisions.
Madam Speaker, we will not be supporting the motion.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I have little more to add nor the energy to do so. However, one simple matter has been carefully overlooked: the nature of the debate relating to medical services is the principal question as to whether, in fact, the transfer of that which is legal in a Criminal Code to another code.
It is the underpinnings of that very decision that are not permitted to be investigated, valued, respected, and it is that matter that was not responded to by the only speaker from government. It shows a disregard for the sensitivity of this matter, which I find distressing. If the minister who spoke, representing the collective voice of government, is of the view that there are wishy-washy members over here and there is only one who values life to the point and finds it greatly discomforting to move the termination of a pregnancy from the criminal context - which is couched in terms that values life - then I am another. I simply cannot comfortably sit with that convenient and tidy decision of government with no consideration of the deeper underpinnings of that decision.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 5 Noes 17
Mrs Braham Ms Anderson
Ms Carney Mr Bonson
Dr Lim Mr Burke
Mr Mills Dr Burns
Mr Wood Mr Hampton
Mr Henderson
Mr Kiely
Mr Knight
Ms Lawrie
Ms Martin
Ms McCarthy
Mr Natt
Ms Sacilotto
Ms Scrymgour
Mr Stirling
Mr Vatskalis
Mr Warren
Motion negatived.
MEDICAL SERVICES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 70)
CRIMINAL REFORM AMENDMENT BILL (No 2)
(Serial 71)
(Serial 70)
CRIMINAL REFORM AMENDMENT BILL (No 2)
(Serial 71)
Continued from 31 August 2006.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I propose to deal with the parts of these bills relating to termination of pregencies which move the provisions as they currently exist in the Criminal Code to the Medical Services Act.
The opposition, unlike the government, has elected to have a conscience vote on this issue. Accordingly I, like my colleagues, will vote with my conscience. Unlike Labor members, Territorians will hear from each of us and know what our views are with respect to these changes. Like the age of consent legislation in the last term, Labor has not allowed its members a conscience vote. Instead, Labor members are all taken to agree to these changes. I do not know for certain what their views are, but I encourage people in the Northern Territory to ask them.
In any case, the opposition acknowledges that there is a divergence of views on this issue and, in modern Australian politics, issues such as termination of pregencies ought properly be a matter for the individual conscience of members of parliament. For my own part, I have no difficulty with the changes proposed. I note the second reading speech of the former Attorney-General and the public comments of the new Attorney-General.
I am not troubled by these amendments. In my view, the nature of the amendments does not require a debate about the threshold issue of abortion, or whether one is pro-choice or pro-life, although I know that there are some who have a contrary view, and I respect their right.
I note that the government has received advice from senior clinicians requesting this change. Put simply, I do not want to see a situation where women who want or require terminations need to get on a plane and head south. This is not the Northern Territory that I want to live in. I am supportive of the removal of the historical anomaly of a non-criminal matter being located in the Criminal Code. It is, in my view, appropriate.
May I take this opportunity of thanking those Territorians who took the time to write to me expressing their views on this matter. I know that I will please some and disappoint others. I have voted with my conscience before in this Chamber, and I am proud to do so again today. It is a shame that members opposite are prevented from doing so.
Having dealt with that part of the bills, I move to other parts of the proposed legislation. I propose to deal with the other parts of the changes in considerably more detail. There is so much to say and, in some respects, it is difficult to know where to begin. The obvious place is to address what I consider to be the government spin that has hijacked considered debate about the changes dealing with murder, manslaughter and defences. While some of the changes are laudable, for the most part the changes proposed have been lost in the spin machine which has become the hallmark of this government.
The Attorney-General has said that there has been widespread consultation about these changes, or that he imagines that there has been. There has not been, because the President of the Criminal Lawyers Association said when he was interviewed recently that: ‘real consultation – it did not exist’.
It is important for me to put on the Parliamentary Record that this government has disgracefully pedalled a line that somehow, murderers have been getting away with murder, and these changes will fix this. That is arrant nonsense. I ask: does the government seriously expect us to believe that for the last five years, Cabinet ministers have been sitting idly by and watching murderers get away with murder; but only after five years this government has decided to act? I think not. If this bill is really about stopping the huge number of murderers getting away with it, then any responsible government must surely have acted, or would have acted, before now.
In the Attorney-General’s media release of 2 October, he said:
- Offenders will face the full arm of the law under the revamped Criminal Code.
It is absurd, as it is laughable. Does the Attorney-General, who has been Deputy Chief Minister since Labor came to office, seriously assert that in the last five years offenders have not faced the full arm of the law? That is, in essence, what he is saying. It follows, therefore, that we and other Territorians are compelled to ask: why on earth has not government acted until now? If this was the situation over the last five years - that murderers were getting away with it – then, presumably, that was the case under the CLP. Accordingly, we ask: why was not that the first thing Labor addressed when it came to office? Surely, if offenders were not facing the full arm of the law, any responsible government would have acted immediately. The government did not act immediately because it is not true to assert that offenders were not facing the full arm of the law in the last five years, or that in the last five years, murderers were getting away with it.
These changes are spun along the lines that they will increase the conviction rate for murder. No, they will not, and there are many reasons for that. The conviction rate for murder in the Territory has been surprisingly low for many years. In some cases, the reason for that is that offenders elect to plead guilty to manslaughter rather than chance their arm at copping a life sentence. The debate about the different sentencing dispositions that follow convictions for murder and manslaughter are best left for another time, but it is dishonest to spin these changes as somehow being a response or, indeed, an answer to low murder conviction rates.
Lawyers know that this is the case. Department of Justice personnel must know this is the case. Surely, the minister’s advisors know that this is the case. Yet, these changes are somehow pitched to represent that the answer to the Territory’s low conviction rate for murder will be found in this legislation. They will not. Territorians should not swallow the hook, even if certain media organisations or journalists have chosen to do so.
I would like to deal with the defence of provocation. Much has been made of the changes to the defence of provocation. The first point to note is that this government has relied heavily on the change to the ordinary person test, and how a person’s ethnic or cultural background can no longer be relied upon. I was very interested to see the use of this language by the government. Much of it mirrored the language that I and others have used when arguing for the removal of customary law by the courts in sentencing. In fact, much of the language was the same. I have said that cultural factors in relation to customary law are not an excuse, and that it is unreasonable for violent Aboriginal men to rely on it when seeking to mitigate their sentences. It shows how opportunistic this government is. They do not want a bar of the sort of language that is associated with the arguments made by me and others when debating the removal of customary law, yet they use the same or extremely similar language for their own political ends and use it mischievously in the context of provocation. I note that this has not received much, if any, media comment.
I would like to spend some time talking about the defences of provocation and diminished responsibility which are retained, despite contrary recommendations of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General and their abolition in other jurisdictions. Before doing so, however, I remind members of the government that they, through their former Attorney-General, have consistently made comments that support the implementation of a national Model Criminal Code. So often when law reform has been undertaken, this government has said: ‘This is part of a national Model Criminal Code and it is a good thing’ or ‘We are supportive of a national Model Criminal Code’.
In answer to a question from me in the committee stages of a bill at the last sittings, the then Attorney-General lauded the fact that the government had introduced Chapter 2 provisions of the national Model Criminal Code. I refer members to his comments in answer to my questions on 22 August. He said that all jurisdictions were considering ‘harmonisation of the national Criminal Code’. He went on to say and I quote:
- There are three code jurisdictions now that have adopted the model code or are in the process of doing so: the Commonwealth itself, the ACT and us.
In 1998, the Model Criminal Code Committee recommended the removal of the partial defence of provocation. Since then, however, there has been a review undertaken by the Victorian Law Reform Commission that recommends the abolition of the defence of provocation in its entirety. I note that in this bill, it changes it from a partial defence, but the Law Reform Commission of Victoria suggests that it be abolished in its entirety.
What is concerning is that there was really no explanation as to why government has not done so other than a relatively short statement made in the second reading speech by the former Attorney-General, where he said and I quote:
- It is necessary to retain them …
That is, the defences of provocation and diminished responsibility:
- … in Northern Territory criminal law because of the existence of the mandatory life imprisonment penalty for murder.
That is not, with respect, a satisfactory explanation, particularly when one looks at the great research undertaken in the report of the Victorian Law Reform Commission, and I will come back to that.
It was a somewhat mischievous comment because murder attracts a mandatory life sentence, but a defence is a defence. The government has, in my view, very deliberately and subtly mixed up the language and the message. Put simply, they have mixed up sentencing with a defence. Other jurisdictions do not have a mandatory life sentence for murder, but they do attract maximum life sentences.
I am well aware that the comments that I have made so far and, in particular, the comments that I am about to make when I extract what I consider to be a very important recommendations from the Victorian Law Reform Commission report are of no media interest, or very little media interest. I also appreciate the fact that there would be relatively few people in the Chamber who would understand the issues. I do not mean that to sound discourteous, but I know these issues are not commonly understood by members of parliament or, indeed, many people in the Northern Territory. That is because they are, essentially, legal issues.
However, as a lawyer I am compelled to put my case, as it were, on the Parliamentary Record. Whilst the matters that I have referred to so far - and will refer to shortly - are legal issues, it is also a political issue. It is important for me to put my comments into a political context, and that is very easy to do. Put simply, the government has fallen short. The government has lacked the courage to remove the defences of provocation and diminished responsibility. What, members may ask, does this mean? It means that the government is spinning in a most duplicitous way, and spinning its reasons for not abolishing the defence of provocation. Why? Because to do so would be to incur the wrath of criminal lawyers. Why? Because to remove this defence, particularly provocation, would make it harder for murderers to be acquitted. That is why. In other words, this government would prefer to distort the truth, and that I regard as scandalous.
I need to outline why the defence of provocation should not be retained. I should say that these arguments are not mine, although I agree with them. The arguments to support the abolition of the defence of provocation come from others. It is referred to throughout in Chapter 5 of the Model Criminal Code 1988 but also, and interestingly, most recently in the work done by the Victorian Law Reform Commission, commencing in about November 2003 until 2004, the effects of which I understand were seen in Victoria with the abolition of the defence in 2005.
The arguments to remove provocation are persuasive and have particular application in the Northern Territory. There has been a great deal of work done in this area, but I will briefly outline some of the arguments in support of its abolition. In a nutshell, it is recommended that the defence of provocation should be abolished, and I quote from page 55 of the Victorian Law Reform Commission’s Defences to Homicide Options Paper. There are a series of bullet points under Arguments Against Provocation:
provocation is gender biased;
provocation is homophobic;
the defence is conceptually uncertain and lacks clarity;
provocation is an anachronism; and
provocation is open to easy fabrication.
I support the arguments put by the Victorian Law Reform Commission and others in support of each and every one of those points. I do not propose to go through all of the objections to the defence of provocation or, indeed, diminished responsibility. However, in relation to provocation, there are some particularly compelling arguments from that list that favour the abolition of it.
The gender bias issue is one of particular interest and application in the Northern Territory, given the high rate of male on female violence. I want to read some particularly germane aspects from the Victorian Law Reform Commission Options Paper, which says at page 56:
- The main criticism made of the partial excuse of provocation is that it operates predominantly to excuse male anger and violence towards women. This gender bias is seen to manifest itself in two ways. First, it is argued that the test is framed in such a way as to usually preclude women from its use. Secondly, it is claimed that the contexts in which provocation is used by men and women are also gendered.
It goes on:
The requirements of the provocation defence, which have developed in the context of men killing both other men and women, are said to be based on male aggressive responses to provocative conduct. A sudden violent loss of self-control in response to a particular triggering act … is seen to be the archetypal male response to provocative conduct. Despite changes that have been made over time, it is argued that this test remains very difficult for women to use.
On page 57, the authors go on to say:
- The argument that provocation is gender-biased is often supported by statistics which show that men rely on provocation far more often than women. This is partly because men kill more frequently than women, but it is also alleged to be due to the circumstances in which homicides take place. The circumstances in which women kill are often not seen to be conducive to raising provocation as a defence.
In the event that anyone is interested in pursuing that aspect further, I commend to them an article by Jenny Morgan from the same university as I. The title is moving and compelling. It is called Provocation Law and Facts: Dead Women tell no Tales, Tales are Told About Them, (1997) 21 Melbourne University Law Review 237.
I do not propose to quote extensively for much longer, but this final quotation in relation to provocation is also of great interest and importance as to why it is that the defence provocation should be removed. At page 60 of the report, the authors say:
- In addition to the impact that provocation decisions are argued to have on some women’s lives, provocation may also perpetuate the myth that spousal killings are about a ‘loss of control’. On the contrary, many commentators claim that anger can be a way of gaining control over women by instilling fear. Through a display of anger, men are able to make their partners ‘behave’, because failure to ‘behave’ will result in violence. This type of violence can be instrumental — a deliberate and conscious process, intended to ensure control over women. The defence of provocation conflicts with such an idea of violence as instrumental, relying as it does on the notion of a ‘loss of self-control’. It is therefore seen to be a ‘very powerful tool used in justifying a husband’s dominance and control and in removing indignation about his resort to force in securing, maintaining and punishing challenges to his authority’.
I commend this report to anyone who has an interest. If a case has not already been made that one of the many reasons for why the defence of provocation should be abolished because of its gender bias, then the arguments are strong and they are certainly there. I would be grateful if, in his reply, the Attorney-General would advise, in the deliberations of him and his predecessor and the department, whether regard was had to the Victorian Law Reform Commission report, and if he would be good enough to advise why it was that, notwithstanding what I regard as compelling arguments as to why the defence should be abolished, government did not share that view.
I said earlier that Victoria has now got rid of provocation. I say again that, given the very high numbers of male on female violence in the Northern Territory, I ask whether government might be minded to go down this path in the future in any event.
I also ask what level of research has been undertaken in relation to the defence of provocation. I ask, in particular, whether the Domestic and Family Violence Advisory Council established by government has been asked to consider this bill and, if not, why not? Going to the heart of this issue is: might they not have some views on this matter? I am sure they would, and I am sure that other women’s groups in the Northern Territory would have views as well, so I ask whether these groups were encouraged to contribute to the bill that we have before us.
Another argument in support of the abolition of provocation is that provocation is homophobic, something that I would have thought would have been an issue of concern to this government, given its changes to the age of consent laws in the last parliamentary term. In this regard, I quote from the Victorian Law Reform Commission report as follows, at page 66:
- Unwanted homosexual advance is not itself a legally recognised defence. It refers to the situation where an accused claims to have acted under provocation, in response to a homosexual advance made by another person. The argument is that a homosexual advance … may be seen by some people to be such a gravely provocative act that an ordinary person could have formed an intention to kill or cause serious injury in the circumstances. Critics argue that this is homophobic, particularly in light of the fact that there are few, if any, cases where a woman has killed a man in response to unwanted sexual advances and relied on a similar defence.
- This indicates that there is a high level of prejudice against gay people within Australia. This prejudice can lead to problems with the defence of provocation, which relies on an ‘ordinary person’ test, because the ‘ordinary person’ may be one who is homophobic. As a result, violent responses to homosexual advances may be sanctioned. Alternatively, the jury’s own homophobia may influence its verdict, reducing murder in cases involving a violent response to a potentially non-violent homosexual advance to manslaughter.
It goes on over pages 66 and 67:
- While perhaps a sexual attack could properly ground the defence of provocation, it is argued that a non-violent sexual advance should never be seen as sufficiently provocative to lead to the use of lethal force. The failure to differentiate between attacks and advances may be ‘linked to biased community attitudes toward homosexuality, and notions about the protection of “male honour” and “masculinity”’. ‘This is seen to be unacceptable in today’s society, because it ‘reinforces the notion that fear, revulsion or hostility are valid reactions to homosexual conduct’.
As I said when I went through the reasons why provocation should abolished, there were seven bullet points. I will go through them again:
provocation is gender biased;
I have touched upon that, although not at great length:
provocation is homophobic;
provocation is an anachronism; and
provocation is open to easy fabrication.
I have simply selected two of those seven very significant objections to retaining the defence of provocation. I did so, I guess, because it is no secret, I do not believe, that this government has courted women’s groups and gay groups, in Darwin in particular, and I guess to a lesser extent in Alice Springs. The question is one of consistency. If a government that courts, among others, those two groups is not persuaded by two of these quite powerful objections to retaining the defence of provocation, I would like to know why. I am sure those groups - both women’s groups and gay groups - would like to know why as well. I am hopeful that, in his reply, the Attorney-General will provide me and others with a comment. I have, however, simply highlighted just a couple of those six or seven points.
The lack of consultation has been disturbing. One wonders whether women’s groups and gay groups have been consulted. Perhaps the Attorney-General could comment on that as well. It certainly does not appear, from my inquiries, that those groups have been encouraged to do so or, indeed, the Women Lawyers Association of the Northern Territory.
Victoria has abolished the defence of provocation and I understand that some other jurisdictions are moving to do so as well. Similarly, in relation to the defence of diminished responsibility, I think it is suggested in the Model Criminal Code that it be abolished. I believe only two jurisdictions in this country, Western Australia and Tasmania, retain those defences. We should ask why they do, but this government is electing not to, given our very high murder rates and our very low conviction rates.
Mr Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, if this government is serious about the Model Criminal Code - and they have certainly always said they are - why have they retained these defences? Why have not they gone further to remove these defences, and what has been the extent of consultation?
Whilst I accept that this government embarks on political spin, I do not believe that it makes for good law or good policy, nor does it, in my view, represent a considered approach to true law reform. I hope that the Attorney-General takes my comments in relation to the substantive matters regarding the defences of provocation and diminished responsibility in the spirit in which I bring them. I am sure he will appreciate that those issues are regarded by me as very serious.
Having said that, I support the bill because, as I said, some of the other changes - and of course I have just highlighted these defences but there are other changes as well - are laudable and supportable. However, I do ask the Attorney-General to give me a response to the matters I have raised. With those comments, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have nothing to add and I look forward to hearing from other members.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, I feel compelled to contribute to this debate. In the first instance, I said earlier and I say again: running these bills as cognate is wrong. It prevents open debate over what is at the very core of our society’s belief system. There are two bills to be debated on two very significant matters which this government has chosen to cognate, thus reducing time to consider issues that go to the very heart of our society: law and order, sanctions for murder, and abortion. I know I will not have time for both or to do either justice. Others on this side of the House will speak on the Criminal Code Amendment Bill. I will concentrate on the Medical Services Amendment Bill.
I note, however, that the Chief Minister is not leading nor contributing to this debate on which her government has chosen to embark; a journey that is fraught with danger to the very social fabric of the Northern Territory. The irony of it all is that the media has swallowed the line the Chief Minister put today; that it is a mere technicality. The bills were introduced some six weeks ago. Until a couple of days ago, we heard nothing about the issue from the media. If this issue were in parliament in any other jurisdiction in Australia, it would feature in the newspapers and the electronic media of that jurisdiction on several occasions. One needs to ask the question: why has this been so? One needs to ask if this has been a well orchestrated media manipulation by the Northern Territory government through its well-resourced media unit in the Office of the Chief Minister. If this were so, why did it need manipulation?
I thank the people who have written, e-mailed and spoken to me. I thank the people who have given me advice. At the outset, let me say that I am opposed to abortion and, therefore, I am opposed to the cognate bills. Abortion is not something that I would choose for myself or for my family, but I am pragmatic enough to know that there will always be people who will choose to have an abortion for whatever reasons they may have. As a medical practitioner of over 30 years, I speak today from a position of having been personally involved. I am not speaking from a theoretical basis. I have lost count of the number of terminations of pregnancies that I have personally performed. I hasten to add that I mistakenly said that I performed hundreds to a question from the media today. In my haste, my response was wrong. I lost count, but it was more likely to be in hundred-plus than the hundreds, meaning more than 200. Anyway, I will no longer perform them.
While I no longer support abortion, I also recognise that we cannot make all terminations of pregnancy illegal. This will only prevent abortions from being performed in a lawful and medically controlled environment. I could never support a return to the days of illegal and non-medical back-yard abortions. For that, I support the government for keeping legislation governing unlawful abortions in the Criminal Code Act so that these unconscionable practioners can be prosecuted to the letter of the law.
Let me go to the former Attorney-General’s second reading speech when he argued that the Northern Territory should remove the requirement for an obstetrician gynaecologist to perform an abortion so that we are consistent with other jurisdictions. The spokesperson on women’s issues of the Australian Medical Association of the Northern Territory repeated the same position on radio this morning. The advisor in the briefing I had in the Attorney-General’s office declared only the Northern Territory requires an obstetrician/gynaecologist to perform the procedure. That is not true, is it? It is not true because Tasmania still requires a specialist obstetrician/gynaecologist to perform the procedure. The officer’s concern as expressed at the briefing was that if this legislation does not go through, the whole service at the Royal Darwin Hospital will collapse. Why will it collapse?
The officer said that fewer and fewer obstetrician/gynaecologists are doing terminations of pregnancies and his estimate was four in Australia. I do not know if that four in Australia is correct. I wonder whether he meant the Northern Territory. The question he needs to ask himself, the Chief Minister to ask of herself and her government of itself, is: why are there fewer and fewer specialist obstetrician/gynaecologists doing terminations? Perhaps there is a message in this.
The former Attorney-General then went on to demand that the removal of lawful abortion laws from the Criminal Code, even though every jurisdiction in Australia, with the exception of the ACT, has retained them. The former Attorney-General, the government and the AMA spokesperson cannot have it both ways. If they pleaded consistency with other jurisdictions, the Northern Territory should comply on both counts. That is, removing the requirement for a specialist obstetrician/gynaecologist and keeping it in the Criminal Code.
The former Attorney-General also asserted that abortion in the Criminal Code Act is an historical anomaly of a non-criminal matter being located in the Criminal Code, and so said the Leader of the Opposition. Abortion is unlawful in the Territory, except insofar as it is carried out under strict conditions. The point about it being in the Criminal Code is that the community still regards abortion, at best, as a necessary evil under certain circumstances. The Attorney-General gave no reason for his assertion that it is an historical anomaly. He spoke as though abortion, in general, is regarded as a totally acceptable medical procedure like any other procedure. Well, it is not. It involves the killing of a human foetus, which many in the community still see as immoral and wishes were unlawful.
Australians believe there are too many abortions and want the numbers reduced by non-coercive means. A qualitative study by Adelaide-based Sexton Marketing Group undertaken across the nation found that while choice was paramount, some 64% to 73% of those interviewed believed that the abortion rate of over 90 000 per year across the nation was too high. They regarded abortion as immoral in nearly all situations and would prefer women chose differently.
The location of abortion in the Criminal Code significantly reminds us - including the medical profession and politicians - that abortion is, at best, a necessary evil and ought only to be performed after fully informed consent, and only after a woman has been properly and expertly counselled on all of the alternatives. For those doctors who are performing abortions lawfully, it is also important to have in their minds that the operation is not just a another surgical procedure, but a procedure that will terminate a potential life if done before 20 weeks of pregnancy, and a survivable life if done after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Therefore, let us not trivialise abortion; it is not a medical procedure like any other. Other medical procedures do not involve terminating a potential human life. The specific and peculiar aspect of abortion - and particularly when a doctor engages in medical misbehaviour such as the Sood case - means that the supervision of the criminal law and the stigma which a criminal conviction carries with it, is necessary for the protection of women, of the public’s sensitivities on this matter, and of the common good.
As I said, the present Attorney-General, the Deputy Chief Minister, said to the media that the amendments are necessary to ease the workload of the only obstetrician gynaecologist who is performing the procedure at Royal Darwin Hospital. That confused me. Is this legislation for the common good of Northern Territorians, or is it about medical manpower and the obstetrician/gynaecologist at the Royal Darwin Hospital? Are we making this law for one particular doctor? If we are, it is a tragic way to deal with legislation.
I will give members a few examples of patients who, through their requests for abortions, have caused major ethical conflicts for their doctors. However, before I do, let me observe that the number of terminations of pregnancy among indigenous women and girls has gone through the roof. Ten or 15 years ago, there were few. It was not something within their culture, I suggest to you. We are now told that some 25% of pre-14-week abortions in the Northern Territory are performed on Aboriginal women and girls. Cultures may change, and I would expect them to do that, but I cannot accept that such a radical change has taken place in so short a time. It begs the question: are abortions being offered to patients when seen at medical centres and health clinics as early choices? For instance, when a girl or woman is confirmed to be pregnant, are they offered an abortion as the first option, or does the health professional keep his or her comments open ended and allow the patient to initiate the request? These are the many issues that need to be considered.
I will now give some examples of patients approaching doctors for abortion. For instance, a young woman in her mid-20s who consulted the same doctor on three separate occasions, each time seeking the termination of a pregnancy, using the procedure as a form of contraception because she chose not to use any other form of contraception. She made a choice, but where was her responsibility to herself and to her pregnancies? What dilemma did she cause the medical practitioner?
Another example: there is a couple who had three consecutive miscarriages, who tried and tried to have their first baby with no success. Finally, a decision was made to investigate the couple to find out whether there were any causes for their failure to have a thriving pregnancy. The woman was found to be absolutely normal and, while waiting for the results on her spouse, the young couple proceeded to adopt a baby, and they were successful in that. While still waiting for the results, just after the adoption, the woman fell pregnant for the fourth time. The results then returned that the husband, unfortunately, had a genetic abnormality which, if passed through to the baby, would have a risk of one in four chances of abnormalities to the heart, lungs, kidneys and brain. A decision was made to do an amniocentesis to find out if the baby was affected knowing that the husband, while having abnormal genes, to all intents and purposes was perfectly normal. The genetic studies came back and, yes, the baby was carrying the same genes as the father. No technology could tell us then that the baby was going to be normal or abnormal. The couple chose to proceed with the pregnancy. A perfectly normal baby was delivered. That was a happy ending.
The third story is of a young woman who was a midwife and fell pregnant for the first time in her mid-30s. Being a midwife, you would expect that she would understand the potential complications of a termination of pregnancy for a woman of her age whose biological clock was ticking away. Her spouse demanded that she have a termination of pregnancy. She saw the doctor, who counselled against the termination, but she was trapped in the situation where her spouse demanded it. On the next visit, the patient brought her spouse along and they had further discussion with the doctor to see whether they could work through this situation. She wanted the baby, you could see that, but the husband was determined not to proceed. When the question was posed to the couple ‘Could this marriage not be strong enough to support a baby?’, the husband, in front of his wife, said: ‘No, it cannot’. Imagine the pain and the hurt for the woman.
Anyway, the couple left the doctor’s surgery and went home to discuss the matter further. The patient presented for the third time, still within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, to say she needed to have the termination; there was no option and she had no choice. The doctor agreed to perform the termination, and then lost touch with the patient. You just wonder whether the marriage would have lasted anyway. You wonder whether, if the nurse had the baby, today she would be better off with a child of her own that she would love than a husband who had spurned her and, largely, that the marriage did not last anyway. However, she lost the baby because she went through an abortion.
Finally, a woman who suffered serious autoimmune disease - that is disease of the soft tissue of the body as though one were allergic to oneself - which flared up into a major life-threatening illness when she was pregnant for the first time. Fortunately, she was able to progress with the pregnancy and the baby was delivered - a healthy strapping young boy - and she recovered from the illness. She and her spouse then consulted me on the possibilities of having another baby and the risk that it would pose for her and the baby. Knowing the history and complications that she had with her first pregnancy and delivery, I counselled against it; that they should not consider another pregnancy as the risk would be too great and her life would be at great risk. Unfortunately, soon after, the couple discovered they were pregnant. I do not know whether it was planned or it was accidental, but she was pregnant. They chose to continue the pregnancy and have the baby rather than having a life-saving abortion. The baby was born fit and healthy. The baby is now completing her senior school studies and, with good results, we will see her heading to university next year. I know this child, this young woman, personally. Unfortunately, her mother died at childbirth.
Let us look at the foetus in a normal pregnancy. Let us go through that step by step. At 12 weeks of pregnancy, the foetus, weighing about 14 gm, is fully formed. It has all its organs, muscles, limbs and bones, and sex organs are well developed. From now on, all he has to do is to grow and mature. The baby is already moving about, but the movement cannot yet be felt. By about 14 weeks, the heartbeat is strong and can be heard using an ultrasound detector. At 14 weeks, the baby is about 8.5 mm long from head to rump. The pregnancy may just now be starting to show. The baby is now growing quickly; the body grows bigger so that the head and body are more in proportion and the baby does not look so top heavy. The face begins to look much more human and the hair is beginning to grow as well as eyebrows and eyelashes. The eyelids stay closed over the eyes. The lines on the skin of the fingers are now formed so the baby already has its own individual fingerprint. Fingers and toenails are growing and the baby has a firm handgrip.
At about 16 to 22 weeks, a woman may feel her baby move for the first time. If this was the second pregnancy, baby movements may be felt earlier. First is a sensation of fluttering and bubbling, or a very slight shifting movement, maybe a bit like indigestion. I describe it to my patients as butterfly flutters touching the insides of their tummy. At 22 weeks, the baby weighs about 430 gm. The baby is now moving very vigorously and responds to touch and to sound. Very loud noises may make it jump and kick. It is swallowing small amounts of amniotic fluid and passing tiny amounts of urine back into the fluid. The heartbeat can now be heard through a stethoscope.
At 24 weeks the baby is about 600 gm, described as ‘viable’. By World Health Organisation definition, 20 weeks pregnancy is viable. Therefore, there is some variation in terms of when a baby becomes viable.
In a premature delivery, at 20 weeks probably nothing much will be done for the baby, nothing heroic. At 23 weeks, much heroic effort will be made by the attending doctors to save the 23-week premature delivery. At 24 weeks of pregnancy, all efforts will be made to save the baby. We are looking at a time when babies are seen to be viable.
What are the methods? We have the abortion pill, RU486, which is not generally used around Australia, and there are no practitioners who are registered to do this in the Territory. You give the pill with the effect of causing the woman’s uterus to contract, shedding its lining and so losing the embryo. You could do this in the early weeks of pregnancy. A surgical termination can be performed up to 14 weeks under this legislation. Normally, under general anaesthetic, a sterile tube is introduced into the uterus through the cervix and suction is applied to the tube and the pregnancy terminated. From 14 to 19 weeks, the technique is slightly different in that it is known as a surgical dilation and evacuation, where the neck of the womb is stretched open to allow forceps to remove the foetus.
To describe it in detail may be unpalatable for some members, but often body parts are removed from the pregnant uterus and many staff members feel very distressed when they see that happening. A legal medical termination can be performed up to 23 weeks under this legislation. This involves a patient having two types: one using medication or the other using surgical termination. Again, medical termination means the use of RU486. Again, there are no practitioners who are registered to use this within the Territory. That is, obviously, what Dr Sood did in New South Wales.
With surgical termination, up to 23 weeks, when we hear that a baby is 0.5 kg in weight, almost 30 cm in length from head to toe, it is a more complicated procedure. The woman is in the stirrups. The first stage is when you have to stop the baby’s heartbeat and then soften the neck of the womb. The second stage is when you surgically evacuate the uterus. The uterus is large and soft with the consistency of liver, easily perforated, with subsequent bowel injury. It takes a skilful practitioner with specialist training in obstetrics and gynaecology to perform such a procedure safely. Dr Sood attempted to do that and failed. I am not suggesting that doctors in the Northern Territory are the likes of Dr Sood but, unless you have specialist obstetrics and gynaecology skills, you are going to be in trouble if you perforate the uterus.
The Medical Services Amendment Bill is a foolish and dangerous attempt by the government to have less scrutiny over, and require less medical expertise to perform, terminations of pregnancies of up to 23 weeks. Perhaps, and more tragically, this government believes it is doing the right thing by shifting abortion laws out of the Criminal Code. They way I see it, the termination of a pregnancy is not like any other surgical procedure that a doctor would perform on a patient. In any other surgical procedure, the sole person involved is the patient. Where an abortion is concerned, while we have the pregnant woman as the patient, there is another person involved. One can debate whether the other being is truly a person; I am sure you will all concede that it is alive. It moves, it kicks, it swallows amniotic fluid and urinates, it grimaces and smiles, it is startled by loud noises that penetrate the mother’s tummy wall. It is alive and, if delivered out of the mother’s body in the latter part of pregnancy, will survive as another human being. Therefore, termination of pregnancy cannot be considered as just another surgical procedure. It behoves all governments in bringing about public policy, not for an individual, not for the extreme minority who are distributed on the two ages of the bell curve, but for the bulk of our community to ensure that it brings about policy that is appropriate for the vast majority.
Let me now quote the Model Criminal Code Officers Committee of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. The committee included august figures such as His Honour Judge Rod Howie QC from the District Court of New South Wales as Chairperson, an academic from the Faculty of Law of the University of Adelaide and other QCs. It also has members from every state and territory jurisdiction, one from the Northern Territory, a representative from the Policy Division of the Attorney-General’s Department who provides advice for all Attorneys-General. The Model Criminal Code, we are told, was what triggered the changes in our legislation - funny, that.
I read the Model Criminal Code relating to abortion. The Model Criminal Code Officer’s Committee stated in its final report on non-fatal offences against the person:
- The Committee has, in the end, decided that it is not in a position to make a Final Report to Ministers on the subject containing a recommended legislative position. As the Committee anticipated, consultation proved that the issue is ultimately one for political decision. This part of the Final Report is designed to place on record background information which may form a basis on which Ministers may wish to make a decision.
When asked to explain why the government in the Territory is intent on shifting the laws pertaining to abortion from the Criminal Code Act to the Medical Services Act, officers at my briefings said it was to correct an anomaly in the Criminal Code, that they were following the Model Criminal Code which recommended that it would be the right thing to do to shift it. That was what the former Attorney-General said. Is that so? Have we been given the whole truth on the matter? It appears not. When I went to the Model Criminal Code Report, I found that the committee had written that:
- In the Discussion Paper, the Committee expressed the opinion that the Model Criminal Code should reflect the model adopted in South Australia and the Northern Territory.
It appears to me that the government cannot say on one hand that it is shifting laws on abortion from the Criminal Code to correct an anomaly, when a learned body recommends otherwise. As regards the anomaly that was so strongly stressed by members supporting the shift of the legislation, again, the committee argued otherwise.
Mr WOOD: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the member be granted an extension of time subject to Standing Order 77 to complete his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Dr LIM: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and member for Nelson.
As regards the anomaly that was strongly stressed by the members supporting the shift of the legislation, again, the committee argued otherwise. It wrote:
- Whether or not the criminal law is involved … the force of this position is to be found in the often cited proposition to us that it is anomalous that abortion is the only medical procedure regulated by the criminal law. The relatively new offence of female genital mutilation is an exception but, even placing that aside, the position is not anomalous. The big difference is that this operation is the only one which destroys a potential human life.
Further:
- As a matter of law, the English House of Lords has recognised that the existing common law does not regard the foetus as having full ‘person’ status, but yet does not regard it as having no status at all. In a case which involved questions about the extent to which a foetus and a newly born child can be the subject of homicide charges, it was said:
- The mother and the foetus were two distinct organisms living symbiotically, not a single organism with two aspects. The mother’s leg was part of the mother; the foetus was not. I would, therefore, reject the reasoning which assumes that since … the foetus does not have the attributes which make it a ‘person’, it must be an adjunct of the mother. Eschewing all religious and political debate I would say that the foetus is neither. It is a unique organism. (Attorney-General’s Reference (No 3 of 1994) [1997] 3 WLR 421 at 429).
But, at the limits, the real anomaly lies in the fact that killing a child seconds after it is born is murder and killing the same child seconds before it is born is not.
As a legal anomaly, it is tolerable because other criminal offences are now involved. It is not tolerable if there are no applicable offences prior to that point.
If, however, the fact that the foetus is as yet unborn is, as suggested by many, the crucial fact which determines the boundaries of criminal responsibility, the anomaly is stark. It would not be a crime to kill an infant 10 seconds before it is born but murder to kill it 10 seconds after it is born. The Committee does not believe that the Australian community will tolerate ‘abortions’ …
I quoted from the Adelaide-based Sexton Marketing Group earlier. Let me give you the results of the national study. A total of 64% to 73% of those surveyed thought that the abortion rate was too high; 87% believed that it would be a good thing if the number was reduced while, at the same time, protecting existing legal rights to freely choose abortion; 99% of all respondents believed that women contemplating an abortion should have access to counselling; 98% of those polled thought that women should be advised of any health risks involved in having an abortion before choosing an abortion. Apart from the hard cases involving a danger to the mother’s health or foetal disability, fewer than one in four thinks abortion is morally justified.
While 60% of people feel positively towards women who choose alternatives to an abortion, many – only something like 34% - felt positively towards women who choose abortion. Most respondents believe that a woman contemplating abortion should seek advice from more than one source, such as a health professional independent - and I say again, independent - of the abortion provider - a relative or friend or professional counselling service. Even the strongest supporters of abortion on demand want it to be a last, rather than a first, resort, and social policy should be designed to ensure this.
I urge the government to retain the laws regulating abortion in the Criminal Code Act. I ask you to put in place a strong counselling service that is cheaply and readily available, preferably done by a person who is not one of the two doctors who authorise the termination, with the requirement that a procedure be done by a specialist obstetrician/gynaecologist for those pregnancies that are beyond 14 weeks.
Mr Deputy Speaker, in supporting my recommendations, in the event that the bills go through the second reading stage, I foreshadow that I will be moving amendments to the bills during the committee stage.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, before I begin, I should say that whilst I understand that there has been some debate about whether this is just a technical movement as against my opinion that this is an opportunity to speak one’s mind on a very important moral and ethical issue, that is where I will be coming from. If people think that that is irrelevant or that this is just a technical bill, I cannot help that. I will be coming from the point of view that this is an opportunity to speak about abortion, to put my points of view. I understand other people have different point of view, but I am certainly not coming from the point of view that this is merely a technical change. Some of my initial comments will repeat some matters raised in the previous debate over whether the bills should be cognate.
There is no doubt in my mind that treating the Medical Services Amendment Bill and the Criminal Code Amendment Bill as cognate bills is poor parliamentary process. This Legislative Assembly is here to debate all sorts of issues, some minor, some major. Here we have two very important bills that literally relate to life or death and the government has joined them together, making it impossible for anyone to vote yes for the Criminal Code, because they cannot in all conscience vote for the Medical Services Amendment Bill. That is why the bills should not be joined together.
The excuse from the government is that the two bills are closely related and they both need to be passed simultaneously, otherwise it could cause some legal problems if one was passed and one was not. Considering that Labor will, unfortunately, not allow a conscience vote, and the bills will, therefore, pass, why make them cognate? I should also make the point that even if the Medical Services Amendment Bill is not passed, the government could immediately withdraw the Criminal Code Amendment Bill so that existing rights of abortion continue.
Another strange thing which is one of the anomalies in this parliament, is that the previous Attorney-General was both minister for Health and Justice. Now we have bills with different and separate ministers for Health and Justice. That in itself, I would have thought, would be a good reason to split the bills. Each minister could then speak on the bill which is their responsibility. The only reason I can come up with why the government has kept these cognate is that, basically, they believe that it is a technical bill and would like to avoid as much controversy as possible.
These bills should not be cognate and a conscience vote should be permitted. The government has successfully convinced its members that the changes to the Medical Services Act are purely technical and there has been no change. For me, that is not so. The government says that moving the so-called lawful abortion clause from the Criminal Code removes a historical anomaly of a non-criminal matter being located in the Criminal Code. However, there may have been very good reason for that. It may be that abortion was not regarded simply as a medical procedure, but an exemption from what would normally have been a criminal act, which is the destruction of an unborn human life. By leaving it in the Criminal Code it delivered a message that abortion was something serious and normally not permitted unless it fitted certain guidelines. It should remain where it is.
The change is more than technical. At the briefing I had, it was intimated that removal of the so-called lawful abortion clause in the present clause was in line with the Model Criminal Code. If you read the Model Criminal Code you will find that it says the following on page 156:
- … the Committee expressed the opinion that the Model Criminal Code should reflect the model adopted in South Australia and the Northern Territory.
Here, it was referring to legislation relating to abortion. The statement states clearly that the model code should reflect the model adopted in the Northern Territory. The reason given to remove abortion from the existing code is not true and, in fact, I find it quite the opposite. We are now doing the opposite of the opinion expressed by the Model Criminal Code Committee. If only for that reason, these bills should be defeated. The Medical Services Amendment Bill also removes the need for a practioner performing the abortion to be an obstetrician or gynaecologist. That is more than a technical change. That is a downgrading of an existing standard, so it is not a technical change.
The facts are that the government cannot find anyone who is willing to carry out abortions and is desperate to change the law, otherwise women will have to travel interstate. The government has said under new clause 11.2 that an opinion is required from a gynaecologist or obstetrician unless it is not reasonably practical in the circumstances to get an obstetrician or gynaecologist to examine the woman. This clause tries to allay the fear that a gynaecologist or obstetrician will still not be involved, but the words ‘reasonably practical’ can be interpreted in any way to suit the situation.
In Tasmanian legislation, a registered medical practitioner involved in the certification procedure must have specialised in obstetrics or gynaecology. There are no reasonable practical grounds there, so why do we have it here? To make it easier because the government cannot get our specialists to perform abortions and the present practioner wants to retire.
I make the comment that the words ‘reasonably practical’ are so broad that I guarantee that clause will hardly ever come into operation because ‘reasonably practical’ is such a board term that someone could make up a excuse to why they could not get an obstetrician or gynaecologist. Tasmania has made it a requirement; it should also be a requirement in the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory has removed the need for a gynaecologist or obstetrician to be the ones to carry out an abortion. The government has introduced this clause to say we are still keeping a gynaecologist or obstetrician there, then throw in that little clause at the bottom ‘reasonably practical’. That will certainly be abused, rather than supporting the intention of making sure there is a gynaecologist available.
The government has said the changes will get rid of a convoluted provision, but it does not say where the provision is convoluted. I am reading from the second reading speech:
- The wording of the amendment and the original clause in the Criminal Code are similar. Whilst they have some important changes, basically the words used are the same.
Where is the convoluted provision? If it was convoluted in the Criminal Code, it is certainly still convoluted in the Medical Services Amendment Bill.
Another change with which I have a concern is clause 3A(2). In the Criminal Code, it said that:
- … termination of the pregnancy is immediately necessary to prevent grave injury to her physical and mental health.
In the Medical Services Amendment Bill, that has become:
- … is of the opinion termination of the pregnancy is immediately necessary to prevent serious harm to her physical or mental health.
The government forgets that it is actually introducing a new abortion bill into this parliament. It is not the same bill. This allows us to debate the issue of abortion, a subject which certainly provokes strong views, but a subject that needs debate in this parliament. This is a time to evaluate, as a society and a parliament, where we are going with this issue, but all the government can say is that this is a technicality.
Abortion is something I believe is wrong and, whilst there may be some grey areas where people may debate that abortion should be permissible, that debate only deflects from the reality of the situation. That reality is that there are over 800 to 1000 abortions each year in the Northern Territory. Since Labor was in power, that adds up to 5000 human lives lost. If they were all born, that would, in economic terms, have meant around about an extra $60m to the Territory from the federal government over the last five years - if you only like to think in economic terms about this issue.
If I thought that this bill would have guaranteed a reduction in the number of abortions, then I would have supported this bill, not because I support abortion but because some human lives would have been saved. Unfortunately, when it comes to reducing abortions, this government is not willing to put into practice legislation that restricts abortions to rare occasions and, instead, supports existing legislation which makes it easy enough for abortion to be used as a form of contraceptive.
There are many people in our society, including those who support abortions, who say there are far too many abortions. I say there are too many abortions. This bill gives the government an opportunity to reduce the numbers. We know that when a person is concerned about being pregnant there can be much anxiety and stress. However, we have to remember that pregnancy is not an illness; it is a human state which allows the human race to continue.
Our government should have a mission statement that says it will work towards reducing the number of abortions: with compassion, it will assist mothers in difficult times whilst, at the same time promoting motherhood as something wonderful; it will show that adoption is a real alternative to abortion and it will try to make adoption easier so that babies can be nurtured in a loving environment; it will change health and family planning guidelines to promote a positive approach to pregnancy rather than using abortion as a form of contraception; it will highlight the physical and mental risks associated with abortion; and it will establish the principle in law that the unborn – the most vulnerable human life - should have a right to live, to be loved and to fulfil its destiny on this earth.
Is it really the case that all the 800 to 1000 abortions could be accounted for under clauses 11B(1) and (2); that is, putting the mother’s life at risk, or that by having the baby - a normal and natural part of the human reproductive cycle - is going to be more injurious than if the pregnancy went ahead? Yes, some of those abortions would have been miscarriages, a small proportion may have been related to the grey areas of rape, incest and abnormalities, but the vast majority would not.
The unborn is a person from the day it is conceived because it has its own DNA, its own features, its own way of reacting, its own special heartbeat, its own soul and its own special love given by its mother by the natural physical bond it has with her. I do not accept the definition that a person becomes a person at birth. It may be a clinically clean and convenient description for the legal fraternity, or for those who do not support the right of the unborn to live, but it is an illogical definition. The natural and definitive commencement of life is at conception. We were all conceived. If we say we are only a person when we are born, then look what happens if you are born premature. Under the law, you are classed as a person because you are born, but another child of the same age still within its mother is not a person until it is born and, therefore, not protected by law. This says if you want to get protection under the law, then you get out of your mum real fast.
What makes matters worse is that when you are dead and not a person, you are still protected because it is illegal to interfere with a corpse. Here we have legalistic madness which says that I am only a person if I am born free from my mother and not dead. I, therefore, have protection under the law because I am a person. When I die, I am still protected because you cannot play around with my dead body. However, from the time I am conceived until the time I am born, I am nothing and am conveniently given the medical terms of an embryo or a foetus. These are all wonderful medical words, but they all conveniently forget that I am a human being. I am not a dog or a cat; I am human. Because I cannot see or hear properly, because I cannot yet play footy, does not make me less of a person than when I am 84 and cannot see much and am as deaf as a door post.
Our humanity is made up of stages, we are continually changing as we move through life. One stage is no less human than another stage. Pre-puberty is no less of a human than post-puberty, 20 years old makes you no less of a person than when you are 50 years old. It seems to me that our legislators have conveniently not protected the most vulnerable of our human race.
Surely, governments of all persuasions have a duty to protect the most vulnerable members of humanity, the ones who cannot speak for themselves, the ones who rely on one human to make sure they are cared for before they are born into the outside world, the ones who will thank us for the right to feel the warmth of the sun and the cool breeze, to hear the beauty of a bird singing, to express joy, emotion and sorrow, and to find a partner to share the same love that caused them to be.
Some may say: ‘You have forgotten a woman’s right over her own body’. That is a good point, but our laws must temper that right with the right of the unborn. Of course, if the unborn has no right, as it appears in most parts of Australia, then it is easy for governments to say: ‘You can have an abortion because an unborn has no rights and is not regarded as a person’.
Will not one government in Australia legitimise and protect the unborn, or would this be at odds with the Model Criminal Code, the policies of federal Labor or our friends at Emily’s List and, therefore, a big no-no? I look at this issue of abortion as something inherently wrong in our society, especially when we claim our country to be one of the great countries of the world when it comes to helping our pensioners, our war veterans, the sick and the handicapped. When it comes to the unborn, we do not seem to give two hoots.
Some may say my ideas come from my religious upbringing, and I have no doubt that it has been an influence on my life. A belief in God and a belief that human life is God given, is not something I am ashamed of. I have also found a need in my life to look for answers based on human reasoning. Sometimes, it is something deep within me that speaks. Abortion, for me, is the opposite of life and what life is all about. Life is something we cannot give ourselves. We cannot conceive ourselves, we do not have the power to create our life, we cannot give birth to ourselves.
Life is given to us to use to the best of our ability. Along with life will come all the emotions that humans experience. It is uniquely our life, like our fingerprints, and is something we should cherish until the day we die. That is why we should protect human life when it cannot protect itself because we are all family - as that song says, the human family. Abortion is simply about the destruction of a human life, a person, and the most helpless of persons.
Strangely, I was at the local pub the other day watching the grand final between the Storm and the Broncos when a constituent friend of mine sat down at the same table and we struck up a conversation. Unluckily, by that time, the Melbourne Storm were losing. I was just sitting at the table having a drink and this lady raised the issue that was coming before parliament this week. I did not know what her attitude to abortion would be but, unbeknown to me, she had an abortion for personal reasons when she was quite young.
Just the other day at a local sporting club AGM, I spoke to a woman aged in her 60s who I only knew slightly. We were talking about different things and I told her about the issues that were being put before parliament today. She then told me how she had an abortion many years ago because she had kidney failure and it appeared as if she could die.
The one thing that left a lasting impression was that although the abortions happened many years ago, they wondered about what might have been. I listened and was deeply moved. I know this issue is immersed in emotion, rights, pain and grief, and I could feel that when they told me their stories, but they still said they opposed abortion.
Why did two women who I only knew because they are constituents of mine tell me their story? I am not sure but, perhaps as a man trying to defend the unborn, I was being given the perspective of two women about the effect abortion had on their lives, its continuing effect, and their views on abortion today for a reason. Maybe it was to convey their stories.
Another case is about a special friend of mine. She told me of how her sister had an abortion, and she weeps when she tells the story. She cries not only for the lost niece or nephew, but because of the effect it has had on her relationship with her sister, and the pain and distress it has caused in her family. You see, abortion is more than a clinical, medical issue. It is not only about the loss of a life, it is about the effects on the mother and others around her. Do our counsellors explain or even know about that?
On Friday morning two weeks ago, a lady was passing by my office and said a young baby boy had died. I could not quite picture the mother, and I did not know the name of the baby. I said that it was terribly sad and made a weak excuse that I could not get to the funeral. However, something pricked my conscience and I felt I should go. A small crowd had gathered at the crematorium and, as the hearse arrived, I instantly recognised the mother. She worked at the local tavern where I occasionally frequent, and had only the week before been showing off her beautiful baby to the patrons. That baby died on the Sunday after mum had fed him and put him down to sleep. The child only lived for six weeks, but those short six weeks of life affected everyone, from those tough old codgers hanging around the pub regularly to people who seemed to have hardly a drop of emotion in them, and people who, like myself, knew mum but not that closely. That child’s life affected all those people profoundly. There would not have been a dry eye in the place. When I met mum at the end of the ceremony, I wept.
I have asked myself: why should so many people be affected? Why was the mother’s pain so great? After all, it was such a short life. Would we not have cried more for someone who had lived to 90? Then we would have known that person. I have come to realise that even though the life was short, it was full of love. That love was not just from the day it was born, from the day it was conceived, from the day its first heartbeat could be heard, from its first kick or movement in its mother’s tummy. The people in the pub followed the pregnancy with interest. They congratulated mum when little Cody was born and, of course, all went silly when she showed him off to the patrons at the pub. That one little baby, so dependent on its mother, brought happiness to so many.
The baby’s personality and the love for that baby was not established when it became a person as legally defined at birth; it was established at conception initiated through the love of the parents, and that was the beginning of the life of the little boy who touched us all. There was a picture of Cody handed out at the funeral with these words attached:
- Our joys will be greater, our love will be deeper, our life will be fuller because we share your moment.
That says it all. Nothing in all the legal arguments I hear will ever convince me that human life and the human person do not start their journey at the moment of conception. It is so logical, so simple, and so perfect. It is from these personal experiences, from an inner feeling based on my own reasoning and study, from the fact of having three children of my own and four grandchildren is such a wonderful thing. It is from an admiration of motherhood which bonds us to our mothers all our lives in a special way. It is from the feeling you get when you see the beauty of a little baby, especially one sitting on its mother’s knee - something so wonderful and beautiful. As politicians, we should do our best to protect them.
I do not claim to have the wisdom or knowledge of a great philosophers of the world, nor am I lawyer with any qualifications, but I am someone who has made my fair share of mistakes in life, as people close to me know. I try to learn from those mistakes. I try to revaluate where I am going in life, and still wonder and question the meaning of life. My critics may say I have become too emotional and lost the plot, but this issue is emotional; it is certainly not technical. Emotions are part of being human. When I see little babies, I cannot help myself. Babies are just beautiful. I go goo-goo, gaa-gaa quite easily.
Surely we can make laws, assist mothers and show our love as fellow human beings to reduce the number of abortions and allow little human beings the chance to fulfil their destiny on this earth and reach their full potential. I will not support these bills for their sakes. I am very disappointed the government has not allowed its members to speak with their conscience on this issue. I am sure the unborn would have liked their help.
The Attorney-General said that I could always introduce a private member’s bill, and that is a possibility. However, if I introduce a private member’s bill, it will need the support of the government. I hope that the government, as the ones who make the laws and set policy, would itself, without me telling them, realise we have too many abortions, and look at positive ways to change the situation. I have spoken about this a number of times.
Why can we not make adoption easier? Maybe I am naive, maybe I am simple, but nature seems to have its way that, for some reason, there will always be people who do not want their babies, and there will be some people who cannot have children. Does that not send a signal that we could mix and match? We could use that to relieve the people who do not want their children to make other parents happy so they can have a child. Is that such a profound thing in life? That is what the role of government should be.
Yes, a private member can propose these things, but I would rather see a government and, in this case it is a Labor government. If I go back in time, my grandmother was a Labor supporter, my father was a DLP supporter and my brother is a Labor supporter, so I come from a background where Labor was regarded as a family party, a party that stood up for the working man. Here, I see a role for the Labor Party to protect the most vulnerable members of our society, to do its darnedest through its policies and laws to help the unborn.
I will be moving an amendment when we come to the Criminal Code saying that a ‘person’ should be from conception to death. Why? Because that is humanity, that is us. We cannot cut ourselves off at nine months and say we do not exist.
I put to the government that, yes, you can say I should introduce a private member’s bill. However, I would rather this government made a commitment in this parliament and said it out loud that there are far too many abortions in the Northern Territory, that it supports the rights of the unborn to be a person, and it will do its best to reduce the number of abortions we have. When I hear that, I will give a loud cheer. When there are not 800 to 1000 abortions per year, I will say: ‘Terrific’.
Yes, we can argue about those grey areas, but they are a very small percentage of what we are talking about. If we believe in peace, then here is an opportunity to really show it. Abortion is anti-peace and anti-love, and we should find ways of helping mothers who are in stressful situations. We should help them with compassion. We should not be judgmental. We should have our goal as helping the unborn, the ones who cannot speak for themselves and the ones who are relying on us, as fellow human beings, to protect and care for them and let them live.
Mr MILLS (Blain): I am surprised, Madam Speaker, as has already been stated, that members opposite sponsoring the bill are not speaking, even to affirm their own position.
As previously stated, these bills being cognate places members in difficult positions. There are two aspects of the bills and, in my view, they are very different, which has been explained before and I do not want to labour those points.
It leaves me, therefore, with no alternative but to oppose the bills. I find myself in a position where I am opposing some aspects of these cognate bills that are supportable and palatable, that do reinforce values and principles that are important. On the very basis that they are cognate, that there are two aspects, that action is unsupportable and unconscionable because no matter how carefully and tidily the arguments are put, I am not convinced that members have truly allowed a proper assessment of the differences between the two. I make that observation with some disappointment. On balance, one matter is more serious than the other; that being the issue of life and death. I have to oppose the bills. I have no alternative, sadly.
I will make my comments based on why I cannot support the Medical Services Amendment Bill and, therefore, oppose the bills. Those who are pro-choice, those who support abortion, would have us embrace an idea that a procedure that results in the removal of a foetus is a medical procedure on the same level as a tonsillectomy. There will also be subliminal messages, and sometimes not so subliminal, that this is ladies’ business and men should butt out. As 50% of the victims of these decisions are male, I have every right to be a participant in this debate.
That abortion is a medical procedure is a proposition that many in our community would reject on moral and ethical grounds. Members opposite, if they truly knew how this will pan out in families across the Territory over time and slowly sink in, will know that it will have an effect. Removing the medical termination of pregnancy from the Criminal Code and placing it in the Medical Services Act, described as a technicality with no change, seeks to diminish the seriousness of a procedure that results in the termination of a human life. It is not just moving furniture around; it is placing it from one context to another. The underlying messages are, therefore, muted or obscured and removed by taking it from one code to another. I cannot support that because of the value that I place upon human life, born or unborn.
The current act provides for medical termination of pregnancy as a lawful exception and, as medical termination results in the death of an unborn child, it should remain in the Criminal Code to reinforce the seriousness of the procedure ...
Mr Stirling: It does.
Mr MILLS: It should remain in the Criminal Code to reinforce the seriousness of the procedure ...
Mr Stirling: It does.
Mr MILLS: With respect for unborn human life, combined with immense reluctance, I do concede that there may be cases, albeit rare, when an abortion is considered necessary. For example, the birth could result in severe and life-threatening complications for a mother. These occasions, as I have said, are rare and they form a very small portion of the 900 or so terminations conducted each year in the Northern Territory.
If you widen the definition of those who can perform abortions and move abortion from the Criminal Code, it may only result in an increase in the number of abortions, something I do not think anyone would support. I cannot see how this could decrease the number of abortions. If we consider that, since 1996 the Territory has lost close to 10 000 children through abortion.
These are also life matters and matters of conscience reflected in the wording of the bill itself, because there are those who are permitted to object when they come to the point of participating in the medical procedure, to decline on the basis of conscientious objection. The same should apply all the way through to the place where the law is debated: this parliament. As members who have spoken have already reflected, debate of this bill would allow an opportunity to reassess, reconsider, revisit, the community’s views on abortion.
I note that the word ‘abortion’ is very rarely mentioned in this, so tidy must the language be that it is made efficient and clinical so we remove that connection. Even the unpleasant word ‘abortion’ is taken away so that it rests more comfortably, perhaps, on the sensibilities of those who face a decision of this nature.
All of us, if we reflect, have had encounters one way or another with those who have faced this decision. These issues feed our broader view of human life and the value that we place on it, though such matters should never be swept under the carpet, made clinical and dealt with in such a technical manner. Other societies and cultures, at other times in history, have dealt with the dispensing of human life in clinical and technical ways. They have changed the language so it may rest more easily on the conscience of those who have made such choices. Those who are listening carefully will know what I am talking about. The language has been changed so it rests more comfortably; it is efficient, it is tidy, it is clinical.
As a society, we must improve compassionate support for expectant mothers, those who are considering termination and, very carefully, assess options and explore them. The member for Nelson outlined some practical considerations. We must also provide care and respect for the smallest and most vulnerable human being, the unborn child.
It is for these reasons that I cannot support the bills and oppose them on two grounds: I cannot countenance the relocation of the practice of abortion from the Criminal Code to the Medical Services Act, and on the broader issue of the action of government to cognate these bills and prohibit proper weighing of these serious matters.
I will conclude by referencing an experience that goes back about 28 years. It all happened in one week. I had left university for a time and I was back on the farm. I went back to Perth to visit some friends. I called in and happened to catch, on the same day, two ladies, friends from university. In one case, I called in and she was alone in her room, very quiet. I inquired why she was so quiet, and she told me that she had had a very difficult decision to face that day and I was the first person that she could share it with. She was not married and found herself pregnant and faced the prospect of proceeding with the pregnancy or terminating it and going down another pathway. She advised me that she had weighed it so carefully; it would have been so convenient and tidy. It would have eased her social embarrassment if she had chosen to terminate. She chose, courageously so by herself, not to. That was 28 years ago. As a result of that one decision, there is a child who is now 28 years of age and has completed university. As I said, I met two girls on the same day, two acquaintances from university. It was an extraordinary event and I had forgotten this until I was reflecting on it during the course of this bill.
The second girl I called in to see was drinking. I asked her how she was and she said she was fine. She skipped along in the conversation but seemed a little distressed. I asked her how had she been. She then stopped and said she was not too well. She had had to make a big decision that day; she had terminated a pregnancy. She quickly skipped on and the conversation was changed. I do not think I provided much compassion, sadly, at that time because I was flummoxed. It was stunning that I had that encounter twice on one day. I was not prepared. I did not have the words to say and, clearly, she was in distress. However, she managed, at that point, to mask over it.
Neither of those decisions were technical. They were not technical, efficient nor clinical decisions; they were very difficult decisions. I am sure the first girl that I met that day is immensely and eternally relieved by the decision that she made. Sadly, the girl who did not, I have not met again. I know that she was largely alone in the environment in which she made her decision. At that point, her mum and dad did not even know about it. I hope I run into her again. It is for reasons such as those that make it not a technical matter, but one that is far more serious.
I only wish that government had allowed at least the integrity of the issues reflected in these debates to be given proper airing. With that, Madam Speaker, I oppose the bills.
Dr BURNS (Health): Madam Speaker, everyone in this Assembly recognises the issue of abortion, of medical terminations, can still be a controversial one. I have listened very carefully to the speeches, thoughts and feelings of members opposite. There have been varying view points. No one can deny that the decisions, particularly such as the member for Blain talked about, are very difficult decisions, often tinged with sadness. They are very deep decisions.
However, as the member for Nhulunbuy pointed out, the debate on abortion, on terminations, happened in this country some 30 years ago. What we have today in the Territory and throughout Australia is the reality of medical terminations, of legal terminations, of abortion. That is the one, as Health Minister today, that I will be addressing.
As the member for Nhulunbuy pointed out, what we have before us today relates to specifics of terminations, a procedure I have said before has been legal in the Northern Territory for over 30 years. These amendments are technical in nature and involve no substantive changes to the law surrounding medical terminations in the Northern Territory.
As such, we believe there is no necessity for a conscience vote on the proposed amendments. I can assure members opposite that this was a matter that was discussed within our caucus. We went through it and agreed exactly what I said before; that the amendments are technical in nature and involve no substantial changes to the law surrounding medical terminations within the Territory. We agreed on that.
We are not here to debate the lawfulness of abortion. That was an issue that the member for Nelson touched on. As I said previously, these debates happened in Australia and in the Northern Territory in the 1970s and were resolved to some degree at that time. The member for Nelson talked about revisiting those debates but, since then, access to medical terminations under strictly defined circumstances has been legal in the Northern Territory and elsewhere in Australia.
We have heard today that some people vehemently disagree with the law as it stands and the law as it is proposed. Others in the community and within this place may agree with the law as it stands and as it is being proposed. I suggest that there are many others in our society who are ambivalent about the issue. Nevertheless, the changes before us today do not change the current legal position in a substantive way.
The technical nature of the changes has been clearly outlined by the member for Nhulunbuy. They are, first, to move the provisions regarding legal terminations from the Criminal Code to the Medical Services Act where they more appropriately sit. As explained by the member for Nhulunbuy, this is part of a broader reform of the Criminal Code. The current section 174 of the Criminal Code regulates lawful medical terminations, which is an anomaly as the code’s principle function is to set out unlawful actions and penalties, not to regulate lawful activity. Of course, provisions surrounding the unlawful termination of a pregnancy will remain where they belong, which is in the Criminal Code.
The second change in the amendments before us surrounding the changing of the role of an obstetrician or gynaecologist in conducting a medical termination in the first 14 weeks of a pregnancy. Under the current legislation, only a specialist obstetrician or gynaecologist can carry out a medical termination in the first 14 weeks of a pregnancy. Under the amended law, a medical practitioner will be carry out a medical termination in the first 14 weeks of a pregnancy. It is not clinically or medically necessary for a specialist to carry out the procedure and no other state or territory in Australia requires an obstetrician or gynaecologist …
Dr Lim: Tasmania does, Tasmania does.
Dr BURNS: … a medical termination. Member for Greatorex, I believe the Attorney-General will address the issue that you raised in relation to Tasmania when he speaks in reply closing debate when I have concluded.
The current restriction was, I understand, introduced into Territory law as a committee stage amendment when the provisions were being debated in 1973. Medical terminations can be, and in other jurisdictions are, carried out by appropriately trained and experienced medical practitioners. Instead, the restriction we have at the moment puts pressure on our medical specialists to carry out a procedure which could be carried out by a suitably credentialed medical practitioner. This restriction also means that should the Territory find itself without a specialist obstetrician or gynaecologist willing and able to carry out terminations in the first 14 weeks of a pregnancy, our health system could find itself in the position of having to send women interstate to have a medical procedure which is legal in the Northern Territory. I will repeat that: the health system could find itself in the position of having to send women interstate to have a medical procedure which is legal in the Northern Territory. Such a situation would be expensive but, more importantly, additionally distressing and possibly harmful to the woman herself.
The current situation restricting the performance of medical terminations to specialists has been a matter of concern for a number of senior clinicians. For example, it was identified in the 2005 Review of Obstetric and Gynaecological Services by Professor Alan Hewson AM, a senior member of the College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and a respected New South Wales specialist. Professor Hewson recommended a revision of the Northern Territory legislative regime to ensure consistency with the situation elsewhere in Australia and in order to guarantee the safety and appropriateness of the medical systems surrounding the procedure.
By making the proposed changes to the law in this instance, our specialist obstetricians and gynaecologists will be able to concentrate on the areas where their skills are most needed: looking after pregnant women. It is important to note several important points in relation to the proposed amendments.
First, the medical practitioner will require appropriate qualifications to carry out the medical treatment and will remain subject to all requirements of current health legislation, procedures and policies relating to hospital practice. I am advised that this would require the practitioner to have, at minimum, a Diploma in Obstetrics and Gynaecology and relevant experience in order to be credentialed to carry out the procedure.
Credentialing is a critical independent assessment conducted by the hospital involving a panel of relevant medical practitioners under the direction of the hospital’s Director of Medical Services. The credentialing process considers the qualifications, skills and experience of the medical practitioner and confirms these through referees to determine what clinical procedures the practitioner may carry out in the hospital. This process occurs in both the private and public hospital systems. Note also that the current legislation states that a person is not under any duty to conduct or assist in a termination if they have a conscientious objection to doing so. This recognition of conscientious objection will not change under the proposed amendments.
Second, the role of an obstetrician or gynaecologist is maintained wherever practicable in the process of the approval of a woman to have a medical termination. The approval of the termination must be by a medical practitioner plus an obstetrician/gynaecologist unless it is not reasonably practical for an obstetrician or gynaecologist to examine the woman, in which case two medical practitioners can approve.
Third, there are no proposed changes to the location where a medical termination can take place. In both the current and proposed legislation, all non-emergency medical terminations must take place in a hospital.
Fourth, there is no change to the provisions surrounding pregnancies over 14 weeks. These are still regarded as emergency medical terminations. Neither the current nor the amended legislation restricts such a procedure to a medical practitioner who is a specialist obstetrician or gynaecologist, nor do they specify a location. This is because these are emergency situations where a termination is immediately necessary to prevent serious harm to a woman’s health or to preserve her life. In passing, I should note that I am advised that while emergency terminations can be carried out in any place, the vast majority of them take place in the hospital setting. We can expect this to continue to be true under the amended legislation.
Fifth and finally, I note there has been concern raised in some quarters that this legislation will somehow open the door to the use of RU486 in the Northern Territory. The proposed changes will have no effect in this instance. Neither the current legislation nor the amendments determine how a medical termination is performed, whether surgically or through any other treatment. All the restrictions applying to surgical medical terminations with regard to approval, location and authorisation to perform the procedure, would apply equally to the use of a drug to produce a medical termination. Indeed, the legality of the use of any drug, including RU486, is a Commonwealth matter under the Therapeutic Goods Administration.
In conclusion we on this side of the House recognise the sensitivity of the issues we are debating here today. Some may have concerns that these amendments will lead to an increase in the number of medical terminations carried out in the Northern Territory. I can assure them that this is not the case. The number of medical terminations fluctuates from year to year, so no one is in a position to guarantee that the numbers next year will be lower than this year. However, there is nothing in the amendments themselves which will lead to an increase in the number of medical terminations.
In describing these amendments as technical, we are not trivialising or down-playing the general issue of abortion; we are merely describing the changes we are proposing - changes which involve no substantive change to Territory law or practice. These amendments keep the current legal position substantively unchanged and it is on that basis that I ask honourable members to support the amendments.
Finally, Madam Speaker, I reiterate what I said: I have listened very carefully to what members on the other side have said. I appreciate and respect their deep feelings and position on this issue, but I have explained the government’s position and mine as Health Minister.
Mr STIRLING (Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I thank all contributors to the debate. The Criminal Code reforms, with each of their amendments, are both important and, in some cases, quite difficult to put out on the floor and debate. I acknowledge and thank each of the members for their contribution today, for their sincerity and the gravity that they brought to this debate. I respect the views of every one of those members’ contributions today.
The bill is one part of an ongoing, quite extensive reform of the Northern Territory Criminal Code. It is a long-term project and it is important to see it like that, and not as some knee-jerk response to any individual case that may have occurred. The bill is designed to ensure that, if you commit murder, you will be convicted of murder. Too often in the past, offenders have been charged or convicted of manslaughter or a dangerous act when a murder conviction, to most people’s view, would have been more appropriate.
There is a community expectation that you ought not be able to use as a partial defence to murder the fact that you were intoxicated or that you have had a specific cultural background. The bill reflects the community’s views on this very serious crime that the offence should be applied the same way, no matter who the offender or the victim may be.
The bill revises provisions currently in Part 6, Division 3, Homicide and Related Offences, Suicide, Concealment of Birth and Abortion. It is scheduled to commence operation at the same time as the first tranche of reforms passed in November 2005. This will give police, practitioners and courts time to understand all of the changes.
The bill will modernise the offence of murder to accord with the Model Criminal Code. It will tighten the defence of provocation, retaining provocation as a partial defence to murder only, and removes consideration of cultural or ethnic background as part of the objective element of defence. The defence of provocation is often criticised for perpetuating and excusing male aggression, justifying violence towards women.
It tightens the defence of diminished responsibility to remove intoxication as proof of defence, and it shifts the focus onto the accused’s ability to judge behaviour as right or wrong and control themselves. It is something that is more easily assessed by a jury.
It removes the offence of constructive murder where an offender accidentally killed someone while committing another crime, and that is covered by new manslaughter offences. It does retain the offence relating to suicide as a composite offence with the penalty of life imprisonment, and it removes the lawful termination provisions from the Criminal Code.
The Model Criminal Code did recommend abolition of these defences, but that was based on a premise that judges could take provocation or diminished responsibility into account in sentencing. When the member for Araluen said that in Victoria they did away with provocation altogether, that is because if a person found guilty of murder in Victoria is up for sentencing by the judge, the judge has complete discretion in relation to sentencing and, if provocation has been used in the defence, the judge can weigh that up and say: ‘Is this a justified partial defence to murder here?’. If the judge were to find that it was, the judge can reduce the sentence accordingly. That discretion does not exist in the Northern Territory. We have a mandatory 20 years minimum sentence for murder. We believe that the community clearly has a view that they want to retain a 20-year sentence for murder, and the government agrees with that view. If you are going to retain a mandatory 20-year imprisonment sentence for murder combined with complete removal of partial defences, that would inevitably lead to unjust sentences being imposed on some offenders.
The principle and premise behind this bill is that the punishment must fit the crime. You cannot say the punishment must fit the crime here but not there. It has to be applicable across the board. In extreme cases, one punishment across the board for all offenders could, potentially, result in juries not finding someone guilty.
Similarly, no lesser person than the President of the Bar Association provided comment in relation to consultation around this bill that issues in relation to partial defences could not be considered without preparedness to abandon mandatory life imprisonment for murder. We do not believe that the community is prepared to do that. This government is not prepared to do that. Therefore, in view of a mandatory 20 years, it is fit and proper, in our view and that of the President of the Bar Association, that partial defences ought be retained. The difference, for the member for Araluen, is that in Victoria where they have abolished altogether partial defences around provocation, judges have judicial discretion when it comes to sentencing.
The government does not have a view that we want the total number of homicide convictions to rise, but we would expect that the ratio of murder convictions compared with manslaughter convictions would increase. Over the past 10 years in the Territory, approximately one murder conviction compared with every four manslaughter convictions has been obtained. That is 18 to 63. The difference is even more marked among indigenous offenders. Government is making a strong statement with these provisions that no matter who the offender, no matter who the victim, murder will be treated as murder. If intent was there to commit murder, then government believes only very specific limited defences should be available.
The government’s consistent position is that every relevant factor should be considered by a judge in sentencing to ensure the most appropriate sentence is handed down, and that includes consideration of customary law, where relevant - outside of murder, of course, which has its mandatory 20 years.
These amendments deal with something very different; that is the defences to murder. It is not appropriate that defences should be available to one part of the community and population in the Northern Territory but not others, nor is it appropriate that one’s intoxication would give someone access to a defence to murder not available to others. By tightening these defences, government is also sending a clear message to the Northern Territory legal system that government is doing everything it can to ensure that appropriate charges are available and laid against offenders.
The Minister for Health set out the features of the Medical Services Amendment Bill, and I thank him for his contribution. He picked up some of the members’ queries, albeit maybe not the member for Greatorex, who I will come to. The rationale behind transferring the provision out of the Criminal Code is that the fundamental purpose of the Model Criminal Code and Northern Territory Criminal Code is to set out unlawful action. It is a bill that is headed up ‘thou shalt not’ in every provision because it is the Criminal Code and that is what it does, except when you get to the enabling provisions around abortions where it says ‘thou shalt under these circumstances’ and lays out the parameters where legal abortion can occur. It is simply incongruous and anomalous to have a ‘thou shalt not’ bill and then get to one clause and find ‘but thou shalt’ under these restricted circumstances. It does not make sense to me and I am no lawyer. However, it is an anomaly and this clears it up.
The fundamental purpose of that Model Criminal Code and, indeed, our own Criminal Code, is to set out unlawful actions. As part of the Criminal Code reform process, we are systematically removing any references to lawful or procedural actions that more appropriately belong in other legislation. The division of the Criminal Code under debate contains that one provision, as I said: the regulation of the lawful termination of pregnancy. It is not about increasing access to abortion. As the Minister for Health said, that debate was resolved in the Northern Territory over 30 years ago. Termination of pregnancy under certain strictly defined situations is legal.
I want to pick up, where I have not, on issues raised by members. The member for Araluen, in relation to the medical services part of the amendments, did not see it as a threshold issue on the question of abortion. She stated she was proud to support that part of the bill, and I thank her for her support. She raised the question of what consultation had occurred in the Northern Territory. The Model Criminal Code itself was a result of extensive discussion between governments, legal stakeholders and interest groups right across Australia. An Issues Paper was released on 27 April 2006 to relevant stakeholders for comment. Letters enclosing the Issues Paper were sent to the President of the Northern Territory Bar Association, the Chief Executive Officer of the Law Society of the Northern Territory, the President of the Criminal Lawyers Association, the Director of the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission, the Director of the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The Law Society advised that they had, in addition, enclosed a copy of the Issues Paper in their weekly electronic newsletter, which is sent to all practitioners. If there was a case where someone was saying to the member for Araluen that it was the first they had ever heard of it, you have to wonder whether they ever check their electronic mail. You would wonder if they had e-mail or ever checked it. I would find it surprising if there was a legal practitioner out there without access to electronic mail being sent out on a weekly basis from the Law Society. I do not accept that consultation was anything less than thorough.
The responses were supportive of the retention of the defences, as I explained, given the Northern Territory’s mandatory murder sentencing, but most agreed with tightening them, as has occurred with this bill. The result now is a code that the Northern Territory can adopt. We can be confident that it represents best legal practice in Australia, noting, of course, necessary amendments to incorporate circumstances.
I touch again on the retention of the partial defence to murder and provocation which the Leader of the Opposition mentioned. She was relying, of course, on the situation in Victoria where these defences have been abolished entirely. I make the point again: that was because they have full judicial discretion when it comes to sentencing for a guilty conviction to murder whereas, in the Northern Territory, there is no such discretion from the Bench.
In relation to gender bias, the amendment removes the clause that it must occur ‘before passion has time to cool’. That previously prevented women referred to as battered spouse - the battered wife syndrome - who may kill their partner at an opportune time, albeit some time after passion has had time to cool because they have waited for an opportunistic time to carry out the deed. There was no defence available to those who you might think might be owed some little protection of the law where they have suffered brutal and ill treatment for, perhaps, a greater part of their life. That act is often going to be after passion has had time to cool. This amendment will allow women in this situation to use the defence of provocation as a partial defence to murder, which is important.
The amendment also removes provocation as a complete defence for non-fatal offences often used by violent men. Again, importantly, where it is non-fatal, there is no defence around provocation.
The member for Araluen also said this does not address homophobic attitudes or homophobia as a defence. In fact, it does. Section 158(5) as a partial defence does, in fact, go with the amendment bill by specifically removing non-violent sexual advances as a basis for a defence of provocation. So, provided the sexual advance was of a non-violent nature, there is no defence. There is no defence for murder; partial defence, in that situation. A man cannot claim he was provoked by a gay man making a non-violent sexual advance. I direct the attention of the member for Araluen to section 158(5), which sets it out pretty clearly. If I can understand it, as a trained lawyer I am sure she will. It will hit her quite clearly in the eye.
The member for Greatorex made a point that Tasmanian legislation does require a gynaecologist or an obstetrician to carry out the procedure. I have a copy of the Tasmanian legislation here and it is exactly the same as that proposed by the amendments this afternoon. It is not true that the procedure in Tasmania has to be carried out by a gynaecologist or obstetrician. In fact, the act says:
- A legally justified termination can only be performed by a registered medical practitioner.
However, in sync with what we are proposing here, of the two authorising medical practitioners required, one has to be a medical practitioner specialising in obstetrics or gynaecology. The effect of the amendments today will be to precisely replicate the Tasmanian legislation.
The member for Nelson made a point about a downgrading because the terminology ‘grave injury’ had become ‘serious harm’. I can assure the member for Nelson that it is my advice that in legal terms, in legal meaning, they are exactly the same. There has been no downgrading. The change to the words themselves are to ensure that we do not have conflicting descriptors or words in one act as opposed to those of the same meaning being used - a different set of words - in other legislation which courts could interpret differently. Therefore, for consistency, ‘grave injury’ has become ‘serious harm’ but, in the legal world, that carries the same legal meaning as it did before. So, there is no downgrading there.
The member for Nelson also said that the Model Criminal Code Officers Committee recommended jurisdictions copy the Northern Territory abortion provisions; that is, place them in the Criminal Code. That is not the advice I have at all. In fact, I am advised that the committee stated that abortion offences be formulated by jurisdictions as they see fit. The current section 174 referred to is not an offence. That is the lawful provision. This is about reforming the Criminal Code to only set out those unlawful behaviour offences, and that is the object of the model code: conformity of criminal offences.
The member for Blain also made claims that this is a downgrading of the offence of an abortion where it is an offence, and that the offence of an abortion ought to remain in the Criminal Code. Well, it does - it absolutely does. The offence of abortion, where it is a criminal offence, absolutely remains in the Criminal Code. There is no downgrading here. It is the lawful provisions, it is the parameters under which a legal abortion may be carried out that are being transferred from the Criminal Code, appropriately, across to the Medical Services Act. I assure the member for Blain there is no downgrading. The same offence exists as existed before. It is simply the parameters under which they may be carried out.
Normally, I would not go to a personal situation in debate in this Chamber, Madam Speaker, but I do have a family situation quite close to the heart, as sometimes happens when you are dealing with legislation. Some members might think: ‘What would this guy know? He is only carrying out the directions of the Department of Justice or his predecessor by carrying through reforms that were already in place’.
A couple of weeks ago, my former wife rang and said Talitha, our daughter, was not well. I knew she was in the early stages of pregnancy. She had an absolutely beautiful little boy on 1 February this year and I became a proud grandfather for the first time. I receive regular e-mails of photos of which I am enormously proud. I have witnessed this young fellow’s growth month by month, and the development and the character in his face. You can see it even from e-mailed photos. I take great delight in sharing those photos around. Nonetheless, this was something of an urgent phone call from Diane. She had gone to see Talitha who was in a pretty dreadful state. She had not been sleeping and eating. She had not been eating because she had to vomit every 10 to 12 minutes. She simply could not keep anything down.
Diane was so distressed with her condition, she took her immediately to the Nambour Hospital, which admitted her. She was due to have a scan anyway to check the pregnancy at that time. She was found to be eight weeks and two or three days pregnant, and everything seemed to be normal except for the fact she could not sleep because she was ill, and could not eat because that made her more ill. I was somewhat relieved that at least she was in hospital. I thought: ‘This is the right place for her. They will get on top of this sickness. It is not unusual for women to have sickness, usually referred to as morning sickness, but it is a bit unusual and a bit extreme to be sick 24 hours a day every 10 or 15 minutes’. She was in a pretty drastically weakened state. She had lost 6 kg or 7 kg in that time, and I thank God Diane insisted on taking her to the hospital.
I thought it would be resolved in a day or two. The days went by, seven or eight days, and there was no improvement to her condition. I can tell from my daughter’s voice when I am on the phone as to how she is travelling. In fact, she sounded weaker and more distressed as the days went by - so distressed that she was begging to be able to return to a life of normality, a life where she was not ill, where she could get back to her much beloved new son and where she could, in time, return to work.
She took a decision - a very brave decision in my view; absolutely her decision - that she would seek to have that pregnancy terminated. This started some weeks before she went into hospital, and now after eight days in hospital, she was not feeling any better. So they did. They scheduled a time. I think it was a Thursday morning, 9.30 am that she was to go in and have this procedure. Some might call it fate, some might call it intervention. We do not know what, but she was scheduled to go in for the abortion, but they could not do it because her blood count was so wonky that they did not believe she was in a fit and proper condition to enable the procedure to be carried out.
They rescheduled it for Tuesday of the following week. I spoke to Diane in between. I said: ‘Have you talked about this with Talitha?’ and she had. She confides in her mother and her mother has the same view as myself. As distressing as I might have found that situation, as distressed as I was every time I turned around and I could see my photos of growing Jack, and thinking: ‘We might not have Jack’s brother or sister sitting up there on the shelf’, but I accepted it was Talitha’s decision.
That evening, my daughter rang and she said: ‘You would not believe it’. I could just tell from the strength in her voice how improved she was in that day. In that day, from the time that she was not able to go in and have that procedure, she had had two meals - the first time in about six weeks - and kept them both down. She had been able to sleep in between those meals, the first time in about six weeks. As you would imagine, that would have had a pretty profound effect on a person who has not been able to sleep or eat. She said: ‘I feel much better, I do not think I am going to go through with that procedure’. She went home the next day and, touch wood, she is fit and fine and back on top, and I hope she remains that way.
It is a very unusual thing for me to share something as close and personal as that, Madam Speaker, but I put it on the record in case there is a view that the Attorney-General is a man and what would he know about these things? He is aloof; he is only carrying out the law. Sometimes, these matters come very close to heart and home, and that is an example.
I thank all members for their contribution to debate. I understand there will be amendments put by members, and I look forward to getting into the committee stages and progressing the passage of this important legislation.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Mr CHAIRMAN: The committee has before it the Medical Services Amendment Bill 2006 (Serial 70) together with schedule of amendments No 12 circulated by the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, Mr Stirling, and schedules of amendment Nos 13 and 14 circulated by the member for Greatorex, Dr Lim, and an amendment circulated by the member for Nelson, Mr Wood; and the Criminal Reform Amendment Bill (No 2) 2006 (Serial 71) together with schedule of amendments No 15 circulated by the member for Greatorex, Dr Lim, and an amendment circulated by the member for Nelson, Mr Wood.
Medical Services Amendment Bill 2006 (Serial 70):
Clauses 1 to 3, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
New clause 3A:
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 12.1. This amendment is necessary to ensure that the status quo remains. It makes clear that regulation of lawful termination continues over terminations undertaken at three hospitals: Darwin, Alice Springs and Darwin Private. The amendment continues regulation of lawful terminations over both public and private hospitals.
Currently, the law requires that medical treatment for the termination of a pregnancy which is less than 14 weeks advanced must be provided in a hospital. A minor amendment is required to make it absolutely clear that there is no change to the scope of the application of the provision.
Clause 11 of the bill provides for the medical termination of pregnancy, the current provision dealing with medical termination of pregnancy. Section 174 of the Criminal Code will be repealed by clause 18 of the Criminal Reform Amendment Bill (No 2) 2006.
Amendment 12.1 will amend the Medical Services Act by inserting the words ‘(other than section 11)’ into section 4. This has the effect of ensuring that the new provision relating to medical termination applies with respect to private hospitals which are licensed under the Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes Act. Without this amendment, Darwin Private Hospital would be precluded from the operation of section 11, and it was never the intention that that be the case. Three hospitals currently carry out these procedures. The intention is that the status quo remain and three hospitals remain carrying out these procedures.
Mr WOOD: I would like to comment. I would like to thank my Research Officer who, after the briefing, came across this anomaly. My research officer does an enormous amount of work in going through these bills. Attorney-General, in a debate in a previous sitting, you queried how hard my research officer was working in relation to a bill that we were debating at the time. I point out that my research officer works very hard and diligently. What you see here is a good example of her diligence. I put on record that she is a great person who works really hard for both Independents. I do not know whether you understand that this amendment would not have been before us - even though I have problems about another hospital undertaking abortions - but for her hard work.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, it would be absolutely remiss of me not to acknowledge the member for Nelson’s research officer, Caroline, and the diligence with which she has been able to spot this deficiency. It would have to have been corrected at a later date. It shows the great benefit in members going along for briefings - in this case of the member for Nelson’s research officer being able to go through clause by clause and spot a situation that would have arisen except for her diligence. There are two things: thank you member for Nelson, for going to the briefing. Thank you, too, for bringing Caroline along to that briefing. We all owe our thanks that Caroline is a diligent and hard-working research assistant who has, quite clearly, assisted the deliberations of this Assembly and the making of its laws in a very profound and concrete manner.
Members: Hear! Hear!
Dr LIM: I am glad to hear the minister’s reassurance that Royal Darwin Hospital, Alice Springs Hospital and the Darwin Private Hospital will be the only three hospitals that will be performing terminations of pregnancies. At the briefing, I was told that is going to be the case and I was reassured that termination of pregnancies are not being performed in any other hospital in the Territory. However, I have here some statistics from 2003-04, which says for the Northern Territory, 63.8% of terminations were done in capital cities, therefore meaning Darwin, and remote, 28.1%. I assume that means Alice Springs. Then it quotes other rural areas at 6.3%. In the table, it says public hospitals conducting terminations 2003-04 - and I am happy to provide the minister with a photocopy of the page:
- Northern Territory: number of public hospitals conducting termination procedures – three.
Can the minister explain where those three public hospitals were in 2003-04 and give me an assurance that if there were three public hospitals performing terminations then, they will not be now or into the future and, in effect, he undertakes to guarantee there will be only the Royal Darwin Hospital, the Alice Springs Hospital and the Darwin Private Hospital?
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I can give the member for Greatorex that assurance and the necessity for this amendment to ensure that Darwin Private Hospital remains in here. As I said at the time of moving the amendment, the law requires that medical treatment for the termination of a pregnancy which is less than 14 weeks advanced must be provided in a hospital.
Dr LIM: I understand, minister, that it must be done in a hospital. I am asking whether regional hospitals other than the Alice Springs Hospital will have the right to perform terminations of pregnancies. In other words, Gove Hospital, Katherine Hospital, Tennant Creek Hospital.
Mr STIRLING: That is why I just made the point, Mr Chairman. Nought to14 weeks must be provided in a hospital and the three are RDH, Alice Springs and Darwin Private. However, for 14 to 23 weeks, where there is an element of real emergency about the condition of the mother, then it can be carried out in other places. The act has always been 0 to14 weeks in a hospital and the three that carry them out are those three; 14 to 23 weeks carries with it its own sense of urgency and potentially emergency conditions.
Dr LIM: The minister speaks about emergency abortions. I am sure there are medical advisers sitting there waiting to assist the minister in his responses. I am trying to come to grips with what he means by emergency abortions. Between 0 and 23 weeks, can you advise me in what situation would you anticipate that an abortion is required as an emergency procedure? If you are talking about a life-threatening situation to the patient, it would have to be when the patient suddenly haemorrhages for some reason. That is the only reason I can think of. What other situation might there be, if any?
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I am not a medical practitioner and I do not envisage the sorts of situations that the member for Greatorex is requesting of me, but the law does and the law spells it out. It is quite clear: terminations after 14 weeks of a pregnancy are regarded as emergency medical terminations; 14 to 23 weeks are only carried out if immediately necessary to prevent serious harm to a woman’s health and, over 23 weeks, solely to preserve a woman’s life.
New clause 3A agreed to.
Proposed new clause 3A:
Dr LIM: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 13.1, that there be a new clause 3A. The amendment is to omit in section 4, ‘This’ and insert ‘(1) This’, and at the end, insert:
- (2) In addition, this Act does not apply to the provision of medical services for the termination of a pregnancy.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I am sorry, I may not have the right amendment.
Mr CHAIRMAN: This is Dr Lim’s 13.1.
Mr STIRLING: Yes. Is this the amendment, Mr Chairman, that would re-insert the provisions into the Model Criminal Code?
Dr LIM: Minister, the current Medical Services Bill proposes to insert clause 4, all that follows about the termination of pregnancies in medical provisions.
Mr STIRLING: The lawful provisions?
Dr LIM: Correct. My amendment defeats your purpose. By supporting my amendment, the Medical Services Act will not contain legislation governing lawful abortions.
Mr STIRLING: Thank you, member for Greatorex. I now understand the intent of your amendment. The government stands by its position, Mr Chairman, that the Criminal Code should set out unlawful behaviour. That is, the ‘thou shalt nots’. ‘Thou shalt’, under these circumstances, simply does not fit in with that type of legislation. The Criminal Code will set out unlawful behaviour. That is the intent of the Model Criminal Code we are adopting. In attempting to re-insert provisions that deal with lawful behaviour - that is, a ‘thou shalt’ under these circumstances - goes against and defies the entire purpose of that reform.
We stand by the position that the Criminal Code deals with unlawful behaviour. Here are the parameters around which a lawful abortion can be carried out and they will be transferred across to the Medical Services Act.
Dr LIM: I ask the minister to explain that advice. It is, obviously, not advice provided to SCAG, to all Attorneys-General, by the committee that looked at the model code. In fact, the Model Criminal Code report Chapter 5, Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person, said:
- In South Australia and the Northern Territory, there is a more detailed statutory regime (Criminal Law Consolidation Act, s 82a, Criminal Code, s 174) based on the 1967 English model and which, in general terms, permits abortion in slightly more liberal terms still (at least informally) and, in practice, has not been brought into question.
- In the Discussion Paper, the Committee expressed the opinion that the Model Criminal Code should reflect the model adopted in South Australia and the Northern Territory.
This is the advice from the Model Criminal Code provided to all jurisdictions, including yourself. Where did you get advice that it is better to move it out of the Criminal Code into the Medical Services Act?
Mr STIRLING: Because of the consistency of retaining the Criminal Code as all of the unlawful activity. The lawful provisions around abortion transfer to the Medical Services Act. The unlawful provisions around abortion remain in the Criminal Code.
This was the mistake made by the member for Blain, who said we are weakening the government view and lowering the bar in relation to abortion because we are taking it out of the Criminal Code. We are not. We are transferring the lawful provisions, the enabling provisions that spell out the parameters under which an abortion may be legally carried out, into the Medical Services Act. The Criminal Code retains abortion as a criminal act wherever it is carried out outside the legal parameters. There is no weakening here at all.
The Criminal Code retains that part that says ‘thou shalt not’, and it is consistent with every other part of the act which says ‘thou shalt not’. The enabling provision, ‘thou shalt’, under these circumstances, goes into the Medical Services Act. That makes entirely logical commonsense to me, and I am not a lawyer. It makes commonsense to me that if you have a Criminal Code, it contains all the things you cannot do. It does not make sense to have something in the Criminal Code with ‘except you can do this’. If you are going to have that provision, it does not belong in the Criminal Code and that is why, for consistency, the transfer to the Medical Services Act.
Dr LIM: Minister, I do not want to labour the point and I am not trying to frustrate things. I hear you, I understand what you are saying. I understand that you want to keep the ‘thou shalt not’ in the Criminal Code and ‘thou shalt’ in the Medical Services Act. I understand that. What I do not understand is the advice you received. You say it is for consistency’s sake. Perhaps, but SCAG, the committee that wrote the Model Criminal Code, states quite clearly that, in fact, our Criminal Code is a good one and the sections pertaining to abortion in the Criminal Code are good ones, that it is a good way to do it. Why, then, are you taking contrary advice to that from a very senior committee of SCAG? I do not understand that. Can you please explain it?
Mr STIRLING: I do not intend to go on with this all night, Mr Chairman, simply to point out the Model Criminal Code Officers Committee of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General Report, September 1998, page 160 …
Dr Lim: 156.
Mr STIRLING: 160:
- The Committee has taken the decision, noted above, that it will make no recommendation to Ministers on the issue of abortion
Dr Lim: Keep reading.
Mr STIRLING: It will make no recommendation to ministers on the issue of abortion.
Dr LIM: Except, Mr Chairman, again I read page 156. You can go to it itself and have a look it:
- In the Discussion Paper, the Committee expressed the opinion that the Model Criminal Code should reflect the model adopted in South Australia and the Northern Territory.
In fact, an august body has considered Northern Territory legislation to be one of the better models for Australia, yet you are now disassembling it.
Mr STIRLING: Just for the record, Mr Chairman, I refer to page 160, which said that the committee itself would make no recommendations around abortion, as I quoted clearly. If the member for Greatorex turns to page 160 he will see that the decision was taken by that group to make no recommendation. The government has not failed, my predecessor has not failed, and the Department of Justice has not failed to take heed of the advice. Everyone has read page 160 where it says that they will make no recommendations.
Mr WOOD: Mr Chairman, for my own clarity’s sake, I understand what you are saying, minister, but what is wrong having lawful things within a particular code? For instance ‘you shall not drive at more than 100 km/h unless you are an ambulance driver, or a fireman’, etcetera. In other words, it is illegal to drive at over 100 km/h, but it is quite lawful to drive at higher than that speed if you are attending an emergency. Do you move that section to the Road Safety Act because it is quite lawful in those circumstances to drive faster than 100 km/h?
Mr STIRLING: I guess the difference is that these parameters under which a legal abortion may be carried out in the Northern Territory are not a defence. They are not a defence; it is a legal procedure. They do not belong there as a defence to criminal activity because it is not a criminal activity provided it is carried out under the parameters which are written around it. It is not a defence. It is not a matter of: ‘I am not fully guilty because…’. It is legal and has been legal for over 30 years in the Northern Territory. It is not a defence to criminal activity. It is actually legal to do it, provided the conditions are met and it is carried out within the parameters set there. It does not belong in the Criminal Code because it is not a criminal act unless it falls outside those parameters, in which case it does remain in the Criminal Code.
Mr WOOD: I understand; I had a briefing. I am not a lawyer, either, but is it not an offence? It is an offence because if someone accused you of procuring abortion and you said: ‘No, I carried it out according to the section on medical termination of pregnancy and should, therefore, not be charged’, it is the same as if I were charged with driving at more than 100 km/h and said: ‘No, I was lawfully driving at a higher speed because I am a fire engine driver’. Aren’t we splitting hairs? Yes, it is lawful, but it is a defence against someone being accused of procuring an abortion?
Dr LIM: Let me ask one more question of the minister, if I may, Mr Chairman. Minister, would you not concede that if laws pertaining to abortion were to remain in the Criminal Code, it causes doctors and others who participate in abortion to pause to consider their actions? If they were to be in the grey area or whether an abortion was legal or not, would not having criminal sanctions put upon them if this legislation remained in the Criminal Code be something to make them think consider the issue twice before they do it?
Mr STIRLING: Either the member for Greatorex is being deliberately mischievous here or he has failed to hear what I have been saying for about 20 minutes. That is, the illegal provisions around abortion remain in the Criminal Code. The same sanctions that existed before exist now. If he does not understand that or he is not listening, I cannot help him any further than that. The provisions still exist in the Criminal Code. The enabling provisions under which abortion may be carried out legally are transferred. How is that weakening or sending any wrong message to practitioners that it is a lesser offence than it may have been before? It preserves the status quo.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 4:
Mr CHAIRMAN: If you would like to move your amendment, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: Before I move onto my amendment, I have a couple of questions about Clause 11(1)(b)(ii), which says:
- … there is a substantial risk that, if the pregnancy were not terminated and the child were born …
Is there a definition of ‘child’ in this case? That infers a child is someone who is not born.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, could I ask the member for Nelson to repeat that?
Mr WOOD: I was asking what the definition of ‘child’ was in this case. Does this mean an unborn child? What does ‘child’ legally mean? I do not believe it is used elsewhere in this act.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I take it that it would be read in the position that the ‘child’ were born, the child would be seriously handicapped.
Mr WOOD: Following on from that, the way I read it is it the ‘child’ could be seriously handicapped because it was born. If it were born, that would cause it to be seriously handicapped is the way I read it:
- … there is a substantial risk that, if the pregnancy were not terminated and the child were born, the child would be seriously handicapped because of physical or mental abnormalities;
To me, it is saying this would happen to the child if it were born. I know it has probably been in the act for some time, but the way I read that is being born is going to cause you to be handicapped with severe physical and mental abnormalities.
Mr STIRLING: It is a restating of the current provisions. There is no change. If the member for Nelson has a real difficulty with this, I can only suggest he moves an amendment either during committee stage this evening or at a later date.
The government is being accused of doing something far greater than it actually is doing. These are not technical amendments, according to the member for Nelson. Yet he would open up another part with who knows what type of amendment? It is a bit rich to accuse us of trying to do more than we actually are but, at the same time, off the floor without any advice, suggest that something else has to be changed. Put your amendment. We certainly would not approve or pass it tonight, but it may be considered at a future sittings or you could seek to raise it on a General Business Day. I have no intention, with my limited knowledge of the law, of allowing any opening up of any other provisions, particularly those that have served in the act for the past 30 years.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. I suppose that highlights the fact that the bill has been split between two ministers. That is not my fault.
Mr STIRLING: Not at all.
Mr WOOD: The bill is here in the committee stage. I asked for an explanation of what the wording was. I do not have an intention at present of moving an amendment on that section, but I read through this bill last night and it concerned me that the way it read was quite strange. I was simply asking for an explanation. If that explanation is not forthcoming, I cannot do anything about that. I think the member for Greatorex has something he would like to add.
Dr LIM: Minister, I draw your attention to Clause 11(1)(a):
- … after medically examining her, the practitioner reasonably believes she has been pregnant for not more than 14 weeks;
Mr STIRLING: Bear with me, Mr Chairman. I am sorry, member for Greatorex, could you run that past us again?
Dr LIM: Go to clause 11(1)(b) - sorry, not (1)(a). It is clause 11(1)(b), where you require two medical practitioners to form an opinion. Then go down to clause 11(2) where you say one of them must be an obstetrician or gynaecologist. You do not say that you require an obstetrician or gynaecologist to perform the procedure when, for the last 20 years you have required that. What is your rationale?
Mr STIRLING: I do not know what to say. You fingered the precise reason for the amendment bill. Where have you been? This is the basic reason for this amendment. At the moment, the procedure has to be carried out 0 to 14 weeks by an obstetrician or a gynaecologist. That requirement is being removed, albeit one of the two authorising medical practitioners has to be a gynaecologist or an obstetrician. One wonders where you have been for the past week while this has been explored on radio, in print and on TV.
You are asking me why this is so, why we are proposing this. You should have listened to your leader. She gave a brilliant expose early on. Your leader did not want to see women having to fly interstate to have an abortion. That was not her view at all. That is why, in part, she was supporting this legislation.
There are a limited number of obstetricians and gynaecologists in the Northern Territory. In fact, only a few of them carry out these procedures. It was put to us by Royal Darwin Hospital, the practitioners:
- Dear Peter,
For some time, senior clinicians have been most concerned at the potential ambiguity of Northern Territory legislation as it applies to termination of pregnancy. It is a view shared by senior interstate specialists.
As you are aware, termination of pregnancy within the Northern Territory is subject to guidelines set out in the NT Criminal Code. They stipulate, under section 174(1)(a): it is lawful for a medical practitioner who is a gynaecologist or obstetrician to carry out a termination of pregnancy if the woman or girl has been pregnant for not more than 14 weeks, and if the medical treatment is given in hospital and the medical practitioner and another medical practitioner are of the opinion, subject to the clause contained in the act, that the procedure should be carried out.
The following section 174(1)(b) creates confusion by implying that in the case of a pregnancy not more than 23 weeks, the procedure may be carried out by a medical practitioner.
This apparent anomaly has been the source of much confusion and the proposal that only a specialist may carry out early terminations is inconsistent with current practice in other jurisdictions across the nation. For no necessary medical reason, the effect of the requirement for the procedure to be performed by a specialist obstetrician or gynaecologist is also to put an unwarranted pressure on one of our specialties which already face a very significant workload from work for which their level of specific training is required. This could create a significant and unnecessary workforce issue for hospitals at some point.
It is not suggested that criteria to access of termination be in any way altered, or the facility in which such procedure is performed, a hospital, be reviewed, but only the specific reference to a specialist in obstetrics and gynaecology. The numbers of terminations would not consequently be altered, nor would the safety and scrutiny currently surrounding the procedure. Nomenclature will simply be clarified and brought into reasonable line with the rest of the nation.
Dr Len Notaras
Medical Superintendent
Royal Darwin Hospital,
cc Robert Griew, Chief Executive, Health
It is as a result of representation from the clinicians themselves, from the people at the coalface working in this area, who have asked government for some assistance and clarification in this regard. No doubt they were a bit bemused to find that it was only a committee stage amendment - and a late committee stage amendment - when the act was originally passed, that introduced the requirement for a gynaecologist/obstetrician, 0 to 14 weeks, but only a suitably-qualified medical practitioner, 14 to 23 weeks.
That is an inconsistency that has existed for 30 years, including some of the time that you were a member of a presiding government, and that you were a minister at the Cabinet table, yet you were happy to live with it for all of those years. You never saw fit to worry about this on behalf of your colleagues. It is your colleagues in the medical profession - your former colleagues at least - who have asked for this and made representations around this issue. They have been listened to by government, and we had no less than the Australian Medical Association on radio today. I do not intend to take up any more time on this, but I could go through the interview with Julia Christensen where …
Dr Lim: Richard Margetson.
Mr STIRLING: Richard Margetson? I thought it was Julia. In fact, the AMA clearly spelt out their absolute support on behalf of their profession, the clinicians, the members of the AMA who have requested this.
Dr LIM: Thank you, minister, for putting it on the record but, until that moment, you really did not explain why you wanted to do it. You never did. You might have been out in the media saying it, but thank you for putting it on the record. It was important that it was on the record.
I appreciate that the Royal Darwin Hospital approached you. What I found curious was I have seen it for 20 years, including the time when the CLP was in government. Before that, general practitioners were permitted to perform terminations at up to 12 to 14 weeks. As far as I can recall, there was no change of legislation 20 or 25 years ago but, somehow, things were reinterpreted and the requirement for a specialist gynaecologist to perform the procedure came into the picture. I do not know why. The hospitals have obviously changed their minds 20 years later. I was curious to find out why.
The letter you read from Dr Len Notaras states clearly that it is about manpower. I hope you will now recognise it is through the failure of the health system that you do not have the manpower to perform the necessary procedures in the Northern Territory.
Mr WOOD: Mr Chairman, what the minister also highlights is the fact that, on one hand, this is a technical change because we want to move this particular section from the Criminal Code to the Medical Services Act. That is missing the point that I have been making all along: it is not simply that. You have changed what was in the Criminal Code and put new criteria into the Medical Services Act because you did take out the requirements for gynaecologists and obstetricians. You have changed some of the wording. It is not exactly the same legislation that was in the Criminal Code; it is different from what was there. Whilst one might argue that it could be a technical change from one bill to the other, I do not believe it is a technical change in the sense of one bill being exactly the same as another bill.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Member for Nelson, would you like to move your amendment?
Mr WOOD: Yes Mr Chairman, I move …
Mr CHAIRMAN: Sorry, minister, are you answering that question?
Mr STIRLING: Member for Nelson, apologies. Just for clarification, have we dealt with the member for Greatorex’s amendment?
Mr CHAIRMAN: Yes, we have.
Mr STIRLING: We did?
Mr CHAIRMAN: Well, we have not got to that yet; we have to deal with the member for Nelson’s amendment first.
Mr STIRLING: But we dealt with the first one?
Mr CHAIRMAN: No, not on clause 4. We are dealing with the member for Nelson, if he would like to move his amendment.
Mr WOOD: Mr Chairman, I move an amendment dealing with clause 11(2) of the bill. That is in relation to the clause that reads:
- At least one of the medical practitioners required to form an opinion mentioned in subsection (1)(b)(i) or (ii) must be a gynaecologist or obstetrician unless it is not reasonably practicable in the circumstances to get a gynaecologist or obstetrician to examine the woman.
Under the Tasmanian legislation - which I agree with the minister was not quite what the member for Greatorex was talking about - section 164(5) says:
- At least one of the registered medical practitioners referred to in subsection (2)(a) is to specialise in obstetrics or gynaecology.
I believe that is what we should also have, with no clause saying ‘unless it is not reasonably practicable in the circumstances’.
We took out the right or the requirement to have a gynaecologist and/or an obstetrician performing the abortion for the stage at not more than 14 weeks. Then, the government has a requirement to have a gynaecologist or obstetrician in the process of forming an opinion about whether the procedure should take place. It says there must be a gynaecologist/obstetrician. It seems silly to say, on one hand, you must have one and, on the other hand, to say unless it is not reasonably practicable. That is such a broad term that unless the section is removed, it will be a symbolic clause to say that now we have removed the requirements that were originally in the Criminal Code requiring gynaecologists or obstetricians to perform the abortion, but we have put it in later, at least where an opinion is required. That is in there to offset the removal of the gynaecologists and obstetricians at the first stage in this legislation.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman:
- … unless it is not reasonably practicable in the circumstances to get a gynaecologist or obstetrician to examine the woman.
Again, this is prosecuted by the member for Nelson that it is somehow a weakening or that people would be able to walk away. It is the law. If they failed to get a gynaecologist or obstetrician to examine the woman and form that opinion, they would have to demonstrate that it was not reasonably practicable in the circumstances. Why would it not be possible to get hold of either an obstetrician or a gynaecologist? I do not know, but there are limited numbers in the Northern Territory and it may be that in the circumstances they simply were not able to get hold of one in the time frame that was required of them, given the condition of the person.
Any number of scenarios could arise but they would be required to meet this test, and the test is to prove and demonstrate that it was not reasonably practicable. There is no walking away from this or saying: ‘They have weakened it’. It is still the law and there would have to be a demonstration it was not reasonably practicable in the circumstances because a, b, c.
I have never worked in the medical world. I do not know how many times this might arise but we are not in Melbourne or Sydney. We do not have hundreds of these people on staff all over the Territory at any given time. The legislation is foreseeing the possibility arising that it was not reasonably practicable to get a gynaecologist or obstetrician to examine the woman at that very time that they required them but, if they fail to, they had better have a record there, that would suggest to me, demonstrating very clearly why it was not practicable.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, Attorney-General. What makes it strange is that in Tasmania, they do not have that clause. Is it more difficult to get someone in Tasmania? We have issues where police have to ring someone to get a warrant in the middle of the night. The Territory has always had these particular issues, but it seems strange to me that one state’s legislation makes it clear that there has to be that person. It seems, in our case, that ‘unless it is not reasonably practicable’ is not defined, which opens it to a lot of interpretation, even if it is used as a defence. Who is to say how much effort must be made to prove that what I was trying to do was not reasonably practicable? It is a legal matter, but I want to make sure that it is not used as an excuse for not being able to get the opinion of a gynaecologist or obstetrician.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, in relation to terms such as that, wording in legislation is not thrown around lightly. It carries a legal meaning. Courts have interpreted all manner of things and have a reading, just as I was saying about ‘serious’ and ‘grave’ before. It is not what it means to you or me; it is the legal definition and how lawyers and judges understand these terms. ‘Reasonably practicable’ would be understood very clearly in a legal sense.
I am further advised, though, it is foreseeing an emergency situation where there is urgency around the case and it is not practicable in that time frame. Generally, it is not going to arise. If it is not an emergency, it could wait until such time as an obstetrician or gynaecologist was available, but if you have an emergency situation and it is not reasonably practical to get hold of them at that time, there has to be the option for them to carry out the procedure in an emergency situation without that requirement and without breaking the law and placing the medical practitioner in an absolutely invidious position.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, Attorney-General. I am not going to labour the point, but perhaps that is what should have gone in the clause: ‘in the case of an emergency where it is not reasonably practicable’ then such and such would apply. I would be happier if something like that was in the clause because then it says exactly what you are saying. As it is, it is too loose and, unless there is a change otherwise, I support it being deleted unless the government wishes to come back later and say they will add the words ‘in cases of emergency’, which I would be happy to do. However, I would rather this clause go through as it is at the present time.
Mr CHAIRMAN: We are dealing with the amendment of the member for Nelson. The question is that the words proposed be omitted be omitted.
Amendment negatived.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Member for Greatorex, would you like to move your amendment 14.1?
Dr LIM: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 14.1, which amends clause 4 with the introduction of a new section 11(3) to replace clause 3(a)(i) and (ii) and (b) and (c) as it appears in the schedule. By introducing this, I am upping the qualification of the doctor who performs the procedure. In the current bill, it reads:
- It is lawful for a medical practitioner to give medical treatment with the intention of terminating a woman's pregnancy if:
It deals with up to a 23-week pregnancy. I suggest to the minister that a pregnancy at 23 weeks is fairly advanced. I said earlier in the second reading debate that the foetus is now some 0.5 kg in weight. It is about 30 cm in length, fully formed and doing all the things that a baby would normally do inside a tummy by which stage, too - the foetus is kicking and the mother would feel those kicks quite clearly.
The top of the uterus is well above the belly button by that stage so it is quite enlarged. It is thick and soft and any termination of pregnancy at that stage would be fraught with significant complications if it is not done properly. I suggest that you require the services of a specialist to perform that procedure. I do not believe that a medical practitioner with a minimum of a Diploma in Obstetrics and Gynaecology - which, essentially, is a general practitioner - who performs obstetrics, is appropriately qualified. Termination of pregnancy would not be really considered an obstetrics procedure; it would be more a gynaecological procedure. There is not much training in a Diploma in Obstetrics and Gynaecology for termination of pregnancies. However, a specialist obstetrician/gynaecologist would be trained in these procedures. The skills would be at a much higher level than a Diploma in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, hence my recommendation that this amendment be accepted. I believe this provides protection for women and ensures a high level of skill from the practitioner.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, this is actually quite a dramatic change to the law that has existed and, presumably, served the Northern Territory very well for over 30 years - the law that was in place during the time you were a minister of the Crown in this parliament, and you saw nothing wrong, apparently, with the law during all of that time.
In the time since the election of 2001, you have been a member of this Chamber for some five years and have not seen the need to raise this as an issue. In fact, it would be not only a reversal of what the government is attempting to achieve by way of the 0 to 14 weeks, you would be putting something into the legislation requiring an obstetrician or gynaecologist for 14 to 23 weeks, which has never existed. It has never existed in the legislation that has served the Northern Territory for over 30 years.
I am not sure if the member for Greatorex has missed the point that from 14 to 23 weeks, the procedure is only undertaken in emergency situations where there is an immediate risk of serious harm to the mother.
I have already said that in the Northern Territory there are relatively small numbers of obstetricians and gynaecologists - and guess where most of them work? It is not Tennant Creek and it is not Nhulunbuy. Those we have are in Darwin and Alice Springs, the major urban areas. Therefore, if we were to pass an amendment of this nature, it would leave a medical practitioner faced with an emergency situation in Nhulunbuy, Tennant Creek, Katherine or, indeed, anywhere in the Northern Territory where they might be working outside of Darwin and Alice Springs where they could not conceivably get hold of an obstetrician or a gynaecologist. It would leave them in an impossible situation of allowing a woman to die or breaking the law to save her life. That is a ridiculously impossible situation in which to place our medical practitioners, but that would be the effect of passing your amendment. It would leave the law, at best, unclear. It would certainly leave doctors very exposed. I do not doubt that they would choose to break the law in order to save that woman’s life because that is what they are charged with, first and foremost: the saving of life.
By doing that, you would be placing the doctors against the law, and that would be an absurd situation. Failing that, you would severely threaten the safety of women who are in this situation and do not have the good fortune to be living in Alice Springs or Darwin.
Dr LIM: I hope your advisors are cringing. Surely, minister, you do not believe anything you just said. A doctor would not let a patient die. You would do craniotomies even though you are not a neurosurgeon, but you would do craniotomies to save a patient if the patient had a haemorrhage inside their head. Any sensible government would not prosecute the doctor, so do not give me that sort of rubbish about letting a patient die.
Mr STIRLING: Oh, so you would have the choice.
Dr LIM: What a load of rubbish! Let me come back to the point about me not chasing up these abortion laws in the last 12 years that I have been in this parliament. I bet you do not know every item of legislation in this House. Do you? Of course you do not. I am not an anti-abortionist. I do not believe in abortion for myself and my family, but I understand that there are people out there who would make that choice. You think that I am going to follow this through and get rid of the abortion laws to try to make it difficult for everyone? Do not be ridiculous. This is the sort of cynical argument that a minister of your calibre, your seniority, should be above.
It is important to have a doctor with adequate skills to perform an abortion at 23 weeks. I say again that a medical practitioner with a Diploma in Obstetrics and Gynaecology is not adequately trained to do procedures of this complexity. A classic example is Dr Sood, who has a Diploma in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, and who performed operations that caused significant damage to her pregnant patients. It is not a reversal to insist that doctors who perform terminations of pregnancies at 23 weeks be a specialist. It is your responsibility to ensure that women who seek medical treatment at your hospitals are treated safely. This is one way of doing it. By allowing medical practitioners without that sort of qualification will endanger these women. I ask that you reconsider; that you allow that inclusion of obstetrician and gynaecologist into clause 11(3).
Amendment negatived.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 12.2. I believe I might have covered this before. The amendment inserts into proposed section 11 a definition of ‘hospital’ which includes private hospitals for which a licence is in force under the Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes Act, to ensure that the new section 11 applies to those hospitals. In effect, the amendments ensure the status quo with regard to the type of premises where such treatment can be lawfully administered is maintained. I pointed out earlier in debate that if we did not have this provision, Darwin Private Hospital would drop out. It is one of the three hospitals where these procedures are carried out: Alice Springs, Royal Darwin and Darwin Private. It was never the intention of the government to change that but, in relation to the amendments being proceeded with, it is necessary to further amend to ensure that Darwin Private Hospital is picked up.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr CHAIRMAN: The question now is that the clause stand as amended.
Dr LIM: Before you move for the inclusion of the whole of clause 11, may I ask the minister - and I think this is the appropriate place because I do not know where else I could ask this - in passing this amendment as it stands in the Medical Services Bill with the inclusion of the hospitals, will your government put in place appropriate counselling services that will ensure that pregnant women are appropriately counselled prior to them making the choice to proceed with the termination of pregnancy?
Mr STIRLING: Yes, it is a fair question, Mr Chairman. I am happy to respond in as positive terms as I can. One of the reasons for the clinicians putting this view in relation to work pressure on those obstetricians and gynaecologists who do carry out the procedures 0 to 14 weeks, at the moment, is because of the small numbers and because few of them do it. It does put added pressure in and around that counselling, advice and support for the person concerned. By having suitably qualified medical practitioners working alongside in this area of medicine, it increases the number of people who are involved in the first place and, second, available for what I regard as very important counselling, advice and support for the person concerned. Supporting these amendments tonight, I believe, strengthens that guidance, support, advice for the person involved.
Dr LIM: Minister, when you talk about other doctors and nurses could be involved in supporting the patient in counselling, it does not appear to me that it is a formalised counselling session provided for the patient. Are you going to establish an official or a formal abortion clinic with a counsellor, a psychologist or trained counsellor, doing that independent of the doctors who are going to perform the procedures? Is it just an informal ad hoc bedside consultation and counselling? I would like to hear a bit more description of what is going to happen.
Dr BURNS: Mr Chairman, in response to the member for Greatorex’s question, it was a question that was a question that I asked Dr Len Notaras who heads up Medical Services at the hospital. He told me that, as part of these changes, it would certainly free up capacity for more counselling in these cases. Exactly what form that counselling takes, I am unable to tell you at the moment, member for Greatorex, but I was certainly assured by someone who is very senior within the system that this would be the case. It is very important aspect that you raised. It was certainly a concern of mine, and I can only relay what Dr Notaras said to me.
Dr LIM: That does not describe what sort of formal counselling will be provided. I know the federal government has already provided lots of funding to the various jurisdictions to promote counselling and provision of alternative choices for women who are pregnant. I am not certain what the Minister for Health saying that Dr Notaras has assured him that it will free up people to do that means. At the moment, from what I understand, one practitioner, an obstetrician or gynaecologist, is performing all the termination procedures at the Royal Darwin Hospital.
With the passage of this bill, other doctors will be allowed to perform these procedures as well. Where does that free up doctors to provide the counselling and support, unless you are saying the obstetrician who has been performing the procedures up to this stage in time will now be freed up to do the counselling?
There should be a separate counselling service that is not involved with the termination of pregnancy procedural side of the Royal Darwin Hospital. That independent counselling service should be formally provided and the federal government is providing assistance with funding. Would the Health Minister at least give me some assurance that is what is going to be developed at the Royal Darwin Hospital, Alice Springs Hospital and Darwin Private Hospital, if needs be through your lobbying of the Darwin Private Hospital?
Dr BURNS: Mr Chairman, I have been advised that in terms of the law, such counselling services are not mandated but, at a professional level, this would be a matter between the patient and their GP as well as the patient and their specialists. As you alluded to, member for Greatorex, the Commonwealth is funding family relationship services, and I would expect those to be taken up within the Northern Territory. I am prepared to pursue the matter further and give it some attention.
Mr WOOD: Following on from that, will the government consider making it mandatory that counselling does occur as part of this process?
Dr BURNS: Through you, Mr Chairman, I do not believe that it would be appropriate to mandate such counselling, but I believe that within the professional care given by medical practitioners, it would be a high priority for them to suggest it. However, in essence, I do not believe it would be appropriate to mandate it, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. Following on again, considering this is, for many of us, a very serious matter and it does mean that an unborn life would be terminated, could you say why it should not be mandated? Are there any reasons why it should not be?
Dr BURNS: Because it is really a professional judgment and call by the medical practitioner. It comes down to an interaction between the medical practitioner and the patient. There may well be some patients who might not want professional counselling, who might resist it. It might become a sticking point in the relationship between them and their medical practitioner.
Dr LIM: I agree with the Minister for Health that to make counselling compulsory is probably inappropriate, speaking from my own professional point of view.
I want to draw the minister’s awareness to the national study that I spoke about done by the Adelaide-based Sexton Marketing Group in which 99% of respondents to the survey believed that women contemplating abortion should have access to counselling. It is almost unanimous support that a counselling service must be there so that women seeking abortion can at least access that if they so choose. That is something that the Northern Territory government needs to pick up and run with.
Dr BURNS: I acknowledge what the member for Greatorex said. I have taken what both he and the member for Nelson have said on board and I have undertaken that I will give this matter attention and follow up on it as Minister for Health.
Dr LIM: I thank the minister for his response. It was very positive and at least we can look forward to, hopefully in a short time, counselling services being available to those patients who ask for them.
Minister, I wonder whether you have considered also that now you are opening up termination of pregnancies to other practitioners, there may be more requests for ultrasounds prior to the termination to determine the stage of pregnancy. Have you considered what sort of budgetary implications there might be on your health budget for ultrasound requests performed at Royal Darwin Hospital?
Dr BURNS: I am not sure whether I heard the member for Greatorex clearly at the beginning of his question, but I think he might have premised his question on an assumption that there would be an increase in the number of terminations performed.
Dr LIM: No, I did not say that. I said more practitioners.
Dr BURNS: More practitioners?
Dr LIM: More practitioners. That is what your bill is about, to have more practitioners performing terminations.
Dr BURNS: There is a clinical pathway in assessing people and I would not have thought that there would be any increase in the number of ultrasounds.
Dr LIM: I will be interested to find out. Perhaps it is a question that you might want to take on board for estimates, come next year.
Minister, are you aware of how many late-stage termination of pregnancies there are each year; that is, between 14 and 23 weeks?
Dr BURNS: I do not have that information before me at present, member for Greatorex. I am informed that there are fluctuations in the numbers, but beyond that, I have not ascertained the exact numbers of each category.
Hold on. I do have some information here, member for Greatorex.
Dr LIM: Good.
Dr BURNS: You are asking 14 to 23 weeks, member for Greatorex?
Dr LIM: If you have the rest of the figures, I would appreciate the lot.
Dr BURNS: I beg your pardon?
Dr LIM: If you have other figures as well and you are prepared to share them …
Dr BURNS: I have a breakdown by percentage, but I do not necessarily have a number. The numbers vary between years, but what I have in front of me is that pregnancies up to 14 weeks comprise 97% of Northern Territory medical terminations. For those emergency situations - that is, for pregnancies between 14 to 23 weeks - that is 2.5% of Northern Territory medical terminations. For pregnancies beyond 23 weeks, it is 0.5% of Northern Territory medical terminations.
Dr LIM: Thank you.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of bill, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendments.
Criminal Reform Amendment Bill (No 2) 2006 (Serial 71):
Clauses 1 to 4, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 5:
Mr WOOD: Mr Chairman, I move an amendment to this clause to omit the word ‘born’ and insert the word ‘conceived’. This cannot be classed as a technicality by any standard. It is a new section of the act, and it is section 51B headed ‘Person against whom offence may be committed’. It reads:
- A person against whom an offence may be committed under this Code is a person who has been born and who has not already died.
Attorney-General, I am not a QC, barrister or some eminent lawyer …
Mr Stirling: Nor am I.
Mr WOOD: … and I know that many people have debated this matter, but it is important that some commonsense could come before the House instead of, as sometimes happens, the legal eagles taking over. What I see as a commonsense definition can disappear into mountains of legal debate.
I did not realise this until the briefing, but a person is simply, under this clause, regarded as someone who has to be born completely from their mother - although there are other sections that can be taken into consideration - and has not already died. That is fine. I am obviously a person, but I have rights from that stage. From Stage A to Stage B, I have rights under our law, under this Criminal Code. That is why this section is in this act.
If I am dead, I also have rights. As a corpse, people cannot interfere with me, even though when I am dead I am not particularly sure I will be very worried about it, but the law actually protects something that is dead. In other words, it is saying that we should be respectful of a body; a dead human being. It is saying that we will give that some protection under the law that it should not be mutilated or whatever.
It seems to me this is a great anomaly. The anomaly is that at the other end of life, from conception to birth, there is no protection of that human life. There is protection of the mother. For instance, if a mother was kicked by someone and the unborn child was either born injured, deformed or was killed, the offence would not be against the killing of that unborn child, it would be against the mother as grievous bodily harm. I suppose that would be looked at from a magistrate’s point of view as a more serious offence than if you kicked or injured a woman who was not pregnant. In other words, they would take that into account.
It seems to me that we really should be protecting the unborn child by saying that if someone killed that unborn child, they would be charged with both an offence against the mother, grievous bodily harm, and murder because that human life between conception and birth should be regarded as a person.
Another consideration, minister, is premature birth. We know that science allows a baby to be born at 23 weeks. If that baby is born at 23 weeks, either through a caesarean or whatever, under this definition, that baby becomes a person; it has all the rights of every other human being until the day they die. A child of exactly the same age, conceived at the same time, in its mother’s womb until the full pregnancy term has been completed, does not have that protection. I was not being flippant when I said if I was that child, I would want to get out of my mother very quickly, because my friend, who got out at 23 weeks, has the protection of the law because that child is regarded as a person and has the full protection of the law. Yet, because I stay in my mother’s womb another three months or so, I have no protection. That seems to be silly – just not right.
Why do I have no protection under the law for the first nine months of my life? I cannot answer it because once you are conceived, the DNA that will carry you for the rest of your life is formed at that stage. You are a human; that is it. You might not have a formed beating heart or have ears showing at that stage, but you have set yourself on the path of going through all the stages of life, from foetus to embryo to toddler to tweens - as they call the teenager now - to middle age, to old. It is part of the whole stage of life. Why do we not have protection for that stage of life? That is a great anomaly.
For people who support abortion, it would not make any difference under our law because they would be exempt. Your law allows an abortion to take place. You would say, if I was arguing from that point of view, that, regardless of whether that child has rights as a person, that person can lose their rights under this clause.
We should be making a law that is the basis of protecting human life and, if we want to make exemptions to that, make those exemptions in this parliament. Let us not make an exemption that says this stage of life is irrelevant or this stage of life has no rights. Let us say straight up-front that this stage of life - conception to birth - is regarded as a person. If people then wish to allow abortions to occur or other things to happen with that unborn life, let us cover it within the legislation if that is the way people feel, even though I do not necessarily feel that way.
My belief is that a good government should protect that unborn by changing the word ‘born’ to ‘conceived’. You can read great books like the one that I have here about the pre-natal person and it will discuss zygotes and all sorts of things, but the basis is that once you are conceived, when there is the fusion, DNA for the rest of your life occurs. Why have it more complicated? We all start at that stage. It does not mean that we are going to be born nine months later. Some of us are born anywhere between six and nine months. Why should some people have become a person before other people? This is an opportunity for the government to lead the way by giving legal protection to the unborn and treating them as though they are a person.
Mr STIRLING: I am a bit taken aback, Mr Chairman. The effect of this amendment would be a person against whom an offence may be committed under this code, the Criminal Code, is ‘a person who has been conceived and who has not already died’. My reading of that would be abortion would be illegal in the first sense, second sense, third sense - altogether. Why not just say that you are seeking to make abortion totally illegal in the Northern Territory? That would be the effect of your amendment.
You have explained in debate today that one part of you says abortion ought to be illegal, but there is a practical side to you that accepts that abortion will occur under certain circumstances, albeit you might not agree with all of them. You say that yourself, member for Nelson, but the effect of your amendment would be to make abortion illegal. I do not think that would be your intent. If it is your intent, fine; let us hear you out and we will defeat the amendment, but that would be my reading of the effect of your amendment.
Mr WOOD: As much as I might wish that, as you said, minister, I understand the practicalities. It was not my intention to say that abortion should not be legal. Could you explain why it would be illegal if the amended Medical Services Act says it is lawful for a medical practitioner to give medical treatment with the intention of terminating a woman’s pregnancy? Wouldn’t that be the exemption from an offence against the person? You are allowing an offence against the person in this particular circumstance if you do it exactly as written in this act. That is the way I read it. Maybe I am wrong.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I now understand how the member for Nelson might think this would work because you would have the enabling provisions in the Medical Services Act. You have an immediate fundamental contradiction between two Northern Territory laws: one that says it is illegal because a person against whom an offence may be committed under this code is a person who has been conceived and who has not already died and, if subject to abortion, it would be then murder. Murder is what that would mean. Then, in the Medical Services Act, we have a series of conditions under which abortion may be carried out, but the Criminal Code says abortion is murder.
The wisdom of Solomon would not work that out. We would have all the courts on our backs, saying: ‘Which law do you actually support: the law that says abortion is legal under these circumstances or the law that you have passed that says abortion is absolutely and totally illegal? Make up your mind. Which one do you prefer, government? You had better make an amendment accordingly’.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. We do have laws occasionally that allow us to take someone’s life. For instance, you could have capital punishment, which I know does not exist in Australia at the moment, but that is where a government could say we approve the killing of a human being. We allow someone in the police force or the Armed Forces to kill a person because they would be defending themselves. There are defences to ending someone’s life. I am not necessarily supporting that. What I am saying is that laws do allow certain things to occur and, whether that is palatable in the sense you are moving from allowing a termination of a pregnancy as written here to saying you are allowing someone to terminate someone’s life - which is probably more accurate if you really want to get down to the nuts and bolts of it - what difference does it make? Termination of a pregnancy in actual fact is termination of a life.
If the law of this country says that is legal, what would be the problem with still giving that life the legal status as a person from conception to birth? You are making the exception for when that life can end but, at the same time, you are making a statement that the life has a right, some legal status. I see this as one of the great anomalies. I can be born at 23 weeks and I have more protection than someone who is born at nine months. That seems crazy. A corpse has protection. Who cares? I am dead. I do not care what people do me when I am dead. I am not going to feel anything. Yet we do not give it to the most vulnerable part of human life. We get stuck in these legalities again. Why do we not make this the basic principle on which we stand, a basic principle on supporting this vulnerable life? Then, if you want to, make the exceptions to fit - not the other way around. That is the way it is at the moment.
Dr LIM: If I may assist, I am sure the intention of the member for Nelson is not to prevent abortions. We are all pragmatic enough to know that there will be people who want abortions and we should make sure that they receive them safely.
This is about protection of a foetus. The baby inside the uterus is technically a foetus until it is born outside of the mother. A foetus, at the moment, does not have any rights at all. It is a living, moving being, apart from breathing because it still has no air in its lungs, but it has everything else. It is not breathing because of the nature of things. It just happens that it is in a liquid-filled environment. Had it been in an air-filled environment, it would be breathing. That is the anomaly: a foetus for nine months has no rights whereas a prematurely born baby at 23 weeks weighing 0.5 kg and measuring 30 cm in a humidicrib with all the drips under the sun, with tubes in just about every orifice that is needed to support life, has rights. That is the anomaly.
I believe there is a place to say that a foetus has rights. Perhaps tonight might be the wrong time to discuss this, member for Nelson, because our brains are engaged with the abortion debate and we are not able to clearly delineate one from the other.
There is a major issue here, minister, and I ask you to listen to this: a foetus up to nine months of pregnancy has no rights. The member for Nelson gave you an example of a woman who aborts because of trauma to her uterus by, say, domestic violence, a husband punching her stomach. It happened in Queensland just recently. The baby died and the law could not pursue the perpetrator of the domestic violence for the death of the baby. The only thing they could do was to prosecute the perpetrator of the domestic violence for bodily harm to the woman.
What we are saying is that the foetus should have some rights and, perhaps by doing this, it allows the foetus to have rights. If you look at the inconsistency of our societal values, a foetus in utero, because it cannot breathe because it is in water-filled environment, has no rights. A 23-week premature baby in a humidicrib with all the support structures around it to help it sustain life has rights. It is anomalous.
Mr WOOD: I will say, minister, I understand that this is, for some people, bigger than Ben Hur, but I believe this is a relevant time to move this amendment. This is a new clause in an act. We are not talking about whether we think something is a technical bill, the Medical Services Act. This is a new clause in the Criminal Code and it is an opportune time. I know we are tired.
Mr STIRLING: I am not tired. You can go all night.
Mr WOOD: Oh, sorry. I know we have been going a long time, but it is an important issue. You say it raises some issues, but maybe it signals that the government should look at this. If this is not the place to deal with some of those issues you have raised, the technicalities, then it would be nice to know that the government would at least consider reviewing this part of our law. Why can’t we review it? Why could we not work our way around it? I would rather have three-quarters of what I am after than nothing at all. If at least three-quarters of these unborn children have rights and one-quarter, unfortunately, were aborted, it is better than nothing. At the moment, that stage of life has no protection. I am bewildered about why we have this vacuum when it comes to protection of human life. Some people may say that is because of my objection to abortion, but no. It may have some relevance, but when I had the briefing I just did not realise that there were no rights at all.
I tried to look at it from a commonsense point of view as to how come one part of our human life is not protected, just like that. How come some life is protected at one age and some is not? How come someone is not charged with murder when they kill an unborn child? To me, it is murder. That child will never been able to fulfil the rest of its life, no different from if you killed them at one, or one day old. That child will never be able to fulfil its destiny in life, so what does it matter? The member for Greatorex quoted something from the Criminal Code. What difference is it whether you are 10 seconds from being born and killed, or 10 seconds after you are born and killed?
Surely, that is a question this parliament should look at seriously and consider at another stage if the government is not going to agree to it now. It would be nice to know that this is one of the issues government will look at. I certainly will be looking at it. I might even bring it back as a private member’s bill. I will look at the issues because I know there are a lot of issues. Perhaps the Northern Territory could lead the way in protection of life. Wouldn’t that be great?
Minister, I am fully aware that this amendment will be defeated, but I move it because it is extremely important and it is something that we should work hard to change.
Dr LIM: Mr Chairman, now that the member for Nelson has referred to the Model Criminal Code, I genuinely suggest the minister read pages 161 and 162, which relate very much to what the member for Nelson was talking about regarding rights of the foetus.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, a couple of issues I want to pick up from the member for Nelson: the 10 seconds before and the 10 seconds after-type scenario that he has just described. I refer him to section 170:
- 170. Killing unborn child
Any person who, when a woman or girl is about to be delivered of a child, prevents the child from being born alive by any act or omission of such a nature that, if the child had been born alive and had then died, he would be deemed to have unlawfully killed the child, is guilty of a crime and is liable to imprisonment for life.
Mr Wood: I know that.
Mr STIRLING: Well, if you know that and you nod so knowingly, you are admitting that your 10 seconds before and 10 seconds after example is not a very effective one for prosecuting the case that you are putting in relation to changing ‘born’ to ‘conception’.
This would be the most fundamental change, not just to the Criminal Code of the Northern Territory, but to the entire model code and, indeed, the whole of Australia. These issues have been wrestled with by Justice over many years. There is great consistency across Australia in relation to these definitions for good reason; so that what you do in one state approximates to doing something just as bad in another state.
I intend to write to you about this. I will get Justice to prepare for me some of the background work that they have done over time. I do not think I need to convince you that this amendment does not get you there. It does not get anyone there in what you are trying to achieve. I hope you accept that. If not, we can include the reasons why we do not believe it is going to work. I will get that to you in the next little while - a week or two. We will get that information to you and some of the background of the work that has been done in this area, and why it is so difficult to go where you want to go.
I do not pretend to understand it; I am quite a new minister for Justice. However, there are people who do understand these issues in law and have a whole background of experience and research as to what is possible and what is not. I will get that information to you in the near future.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister, I appreciate that. When I said the 10 seconds before and 10 seconds after, I was not trying to be literal, if that is the right word - I have heard that word debated in some English discussions recently. I was not meaning it exactly as I said it. I was just trying to give an example that there can be stages where, before you are born there is no penalty but, after you are born there can be a penalty. I thank the minister for what he said.
I will be interested in the papers that are sent to me. We may continue this issue on another day. If it happens to overturn what is some sort of legal precedent and we can find a way around it, I would say at least that is something good for the Northern Territory.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 18, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 19:
Dr LIM: Mr Chairman, I move amendments 15.1 and 15.2. What I wish to do is to omit ‘Proposed sections 208B and 208C, note’ and insert after section 208C within Division 8, a new section 208CA, which includes the words that are in the amendment schedule circulated earlier today. It is too long for me to read. I am not going to read it all.
The rationale for doing that is to demonstrate that there is no anomaly for medical termination of pregnancy to be in the Criminal Code. It is stated quite clearly by the Model Criminal Code Committee which said, and I read again:
- Whether or not the criminal law is involved … the force of this position is to be found in the often cited proposition to us that it is anomalous that abortion is the only medical procedure regulated by the criminal law.
The committee then has this to say:
- … the position is not anomalous. The big difference is that this operation is the only one which destroys a potential human life.
They went on to quote the House of Lords and its thoughts on the matter. Again, I urge the minister to read it through, digest it and consider that the medical termination of pregnancy can sit without any anomaly within the Criminal Code. I seek your support.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I point out that the bills that should be passed shortly place these provisions inside the Medical Services Act and removes them from the Criminal Code. The effect of this amendment would be to place back those lawful abortion provisions in the Criminal Code. We would have it twice, in fact - once in the Medical Services Act and again in the Criminal Code. Once we have taken them out of the Criminal Code in order to put them into the Medical Services Act, this amendment is redundant because it seeks to put them back in after the Criminal Code, so it is going back over work that we have already waded through to get to this point tonight.
It is contingent, really, on not transferring it out of the Criminal Code in the first place. You needed that amendment defeated really and, then, it would have stayed in the Criminal Code anyway and this amendment would not have been necessary. It seems to me the effect of this amendment would be trying to undo the work that the committee has worked through to get to this stage.
Dr LIM: It is unfortunate that the Medical Services Bill came up for debate before the Criminal Code amendment bill. I am still trying to convince the minister that it is not anomalous to have lawful terminations of pregnancies legislation within the Criminal Code, and it is supported quite strongly by the Model Criminal Code committee. They wrote it quite clearly. Have a look at page 161, which is quite clear. It is not anomalous to do so.
Mr STIRLING: I do not want to dwell on this, Mr Chairman, but the point is made against the paragraph at page 155 of the report on ‘Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person’:
- What the Discussion Paper Recommended
In general terms, all jurisdictions in Australia have in force offences of abortion the content of which dates back to the last century. The reality in all States except South Australia and the Northern Territory is that the judiciary have by a process of interpretation or common law development, effectively loosened the strictures of the law in favour of an extended right to obtain an abortion. These ‘loosenings’ are uncertain in content and have no secure legal foundation. Moreover, there is a tendency for them to be misinterpreted by the public.
What they were saying is that was the case in all of Australia except South Australia and the Northern Territory because the Territory has clearly set out regulations. That is what this committee supports, not the legislation where they are located, but the fact that they are so clearly spelt out in law as, I assume, South Australia is in the same case. I further assume, maybe wrongly, that the Northern Territory would have imported South Australian provisions all of those years ago – possibly. Do not take me at my word there, member for Greatorex, but they are saying South Australian and the Northern Territory provide certainty around this area, and that is a good thing, as opposed to the other states. It is not a view and not a recommendation that the certainty ought necessarily be in the Criminal Code.
Dr LIM: Minister, I know how busy ministers are in your position, but it might be worth your while to read the discussion paper in total. I have done that on several occasions and it does say the Model Criminal Code should reflect the model adopted in both South Australia and the Northern Territory. It is saying that the Criminal Code that we have regarding abortion is good.
You are the government, you can do what you like and I have to accept it; I have no other option. You have decided to go against the advice given by the committee on the Model Criminal Code. I encourage you, at your leisure, to read the Model Criminal Code report in its entirety and satisfy yourself what it means. Your officers are showing it to you out of context and you are not getting the full picture.
Mr STIRLING: That is a matter of interpretation. I believe they are saying the provisions are good, not the Criminal Code or the fact that they sit in the Criminal Code. Next year, were a similar report is to come down, they would probably say the provisions are good, albeit they are located within the Medical Services Act. It is the existence of the provisions that they are commending, not where they are located. I am happy to accept your advice and have a look at it for myself and make up my own mind.
Dr LIM: Perhaps, minister, you can also explain why all jurisdictions have retained legislation on abortion within the Criminal Code bar the ACT. They must have a rationale for that. They have not shifted them out. The ACT and this territory are the only two jurisdictions that have abortion laws outside the Criminal Code, whereas all state jurisdictions have it within their criminal codes.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, a quick search of legislation across Australia shows other jurisdictions have or are in the process of moving regulation of lawful terminations from criminal legislation to health legislation. For example, the ACT and WA. The ACT’s Health Act deals with all aspects of lawful terminations. In Western Australia it is Health Act that deals with lawful terminations. Other jurisdictions such as Victoria are looking at making the same changes for the same reasons. We are. Criminal codes or crimes acts are for unlawful behaviour and there is more appropriate legislation available to deal with this matter. So two jurisdictions have it already in their Health Act, and Victoria is looking at making the same change.
Dr LIM: Thank you.
Amendments negatived.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Remainder of bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
Bills reported; report adopted.
Mr STIRLING (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a third time.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 18 Noes 3
Ms Anderson Dr Lim
Mr Bonson Mr Mills
Mrs Braham Mr Wood
Dr Burns
Mr Hampton
Mr Henderson
Mr Kiely
Mr Knight
Ms Lawrie
Ms Martin
Mr McAdam
Mr McCarthy
Mr Natt
Ms Sacilotto
Ms Scrymgour
Mr Stirling
Mr Vatskalis
Mr Warren
Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Public Transport
Public Transport
Ms LAWRIE (Infrastructure and Transport): Madam Speaker, today I update the House about the Northern Territory’s public transport system.
Our public transport system plays an important role in our community. In the greater Darwin area alone, our bus network carries some 4.5 million passengers per year. Considering our population base, 4.5 million passengers is an impressive figure. In recent years, we have seen some significant improvements to our public transport system, some of which I will highlight today.
The Northern Territory government delivers public transport in some form in most major regional centres, whether that is public urban transport or school bus services or a combination. Our government committed $24.3m this financial year to drive our great public transport network. With our population spread, the bulk of the urban public transport system services the greater Darwin area. This area stretches to Acacia Hills and east to Middle Point. The greater Darwin area public transport system is delivered by a number of bus services, with the largest component being the Darwinbus network. The Darwinbus network is an integrated 45-bus system providing both public bus services and dedicated school runs in the Darwin and Palmerston areas. With a 45-bus fleet, the Darwinbus network currently offers around 600 weekday services and a reduced schedule on weekends. The Darwinbus service is the only government-owned component of our public transport system, with other bus services provided by a range of contractors including Shuker Bus Service, Buslink in the Top End and Dyson Cobb and Co in Alice Springs.
Proudly, the Darwinbus fleet is among the most modern in Australia. Almost 100% of the fleet is equipped with low floor easy access, airconditioning and CCTV. As Minister for Family and Community Services with responsibility for aged care and disability services, I am pleased the government is making it easier for people with mobility challenges to access our public transport. Additionally, if you have lived in Darwin a long time and remember the days when there was no airconditioning on public buses, you will join with me in recognising this is also a significant improvement to our network.
In Alice Springs, the Northern Territory government provides funding to the Alice Springs Town Council to deliver an urban public bus service. As Alice Springs grows, the government will monitor the demands on this service and the current delivery model.
As the Darwinbus fleet demonstrates, the Martin government is focusing on providing a high level of service across our public transport network. We are also committed to delivering affordable public transport and, in fact, the fares on the Darwinbus network are probably the lowest in the country. Revenue raised from the Darwinbus network is just a fraction of the cost of the service, some 21%. This rate of revenue from public transport is lower than most other jurisdictions.
Further, a new simplified fare structure was recently announced by my predecessor, the member for Johnston. The fare system will move from a zonal-based structure with a total of 15 fare levels to a very simple and more understandable structure with only two levels. This will mean even cheaper travel for bus commuters. Under the new fares, an adult bus ticket will cost $2 and a concession ticket only 50. Both tickets will also provide unlimited travel anywhere on the Darwinbus system for three hours. I am pleased that the big winners of the new fares structure are our pensioners and concession card holders. For example, a round trip to the supermarket that can reasonably be undertaken within three hours for a Palmerston pensioner will now cost only 50 compared with $1.20 for two trips under the old zonal system. This is a great outcome for bus commuters, particularly our pensioners and those Territorians on concessions. It is also another example of the Martin government doing more to assist families and senior Territorians.
We are a government that looks to the future and to how we can maximise use of public transport. The new cheaper and simplified bus fare structure is one strategy aimed at increasing bus use by commuters, which, in the longer term, will help free up traffic congestion, particularly in our peak hours.
The recent announcement of new bicycle enclosures at the Palmerston and Casuarina Bus Interchanges will also make it easier for commuters to use public transport. The joint Territory and federal government initiative gives cyclists a safe option for storing their bikes during the day when they catch a bus to and from work.
Along with maintaining a high quality and affordable public transport system, the Territory government also funds free bus services for a number of public events. These events range from the hugely popular V8 Supercars, BassintheGrass, Royal Darwin Show, Darwin Cup, Arafura Games and major football and cricket matches, to events like Seniors Week activities and Anzac Day. These services a highly used by Territorians and not only improve access and reduce traffic and parking congestion at major events, they also provide a safe way home.
In 2005, this government undertook to provide additional bus services for senior Territorians. I am pleased to report that residents of the Leanyer Seniors Village are now enjoying a dedicated bus service that takes them to the hospital and major shopping centres.
This government is soon to introduce a similar service for senior Territorians at the Fannie Bay Seniors Village as part of this commitment. To facilitate the new service at Fannie Bay Seniors Village, a dedicated bus turnaround bay and shelter at the corner of Waratah Crescent and Kurringal Court has been constructed at a cost of almost $80 000. This government will go to considerable lengths to ensure our senior citizens have good mobility.
Again in 2005, the Martin government introduced additional bus services, this time to the rural area, delivering on our commitment to outer Darwinians. The bus services to the rural areas of Noonamah, Humpty Doo, Howard Springs and Virginia were expanded to improve access to public transport for rural residents.
Along with the earlier mentioned CCTV on the Darwinbus network and at bus interchanges, my department is in the process of employing four transport safety officers, an initiative that will be welcomed by passengers, bus contractors and drivers alike. The role of the transport safety officers will include facilitating driver and passenger safety, rolling out national counter-terrorism initiatives, acting as liaison between drivers and passengers in disputes, coordinating efforts with police, and to act as ambassadors for public transport in and around the network. Transport safety officers should be on the job by the end of next month. These officers will represent the first permanent, physical presence on the Darwinbus network to respond to and deter antisocial activity. When combined with the state of the art CCTV systems on the buses and at interchanges, I am sure you would agree that the government is doing everything that it reasonably can do to ensure the personal safety of public transport passengers and staff.
School buses are an integral part of our public transport system. The majority of the Territory’s 40 000 students have access to public transport to get to school. A local school bus system is funded by government in the major regional centres of Katherine, Alice Springs and Gove. The government also provides funding or contracted bus services for school transport in Jabiru, Borroloola, Ti Tree and Alyangula. In addition to the Darwinbus network there is an extensive system of dedicated school transport services operating across the greater Darwin area, which includes mainstream school buses, migrant education services and special bus services for those students with disabilities.
Our specialised bus services provide a very personalised service for students with disabilities. These buses have at least one carer on board in addition to the driver, and are fitted with seating to cater for a range of disabilities, including students in wheelchairs, with mental disabilities and those with severe motor coordination impairment. Some members may be unaware that this is a door-to-door service from the home of the student with the disability to the school or facility that the student is attending on that day, and then return to their home at the end of the day.
The program for students with disabilities changes on a daily basis, as do the personal arrangements of the parents or other carers of these very special primary and high school students. I am proud to advise honourable members that our special needs bus services cater for these daily changing circumstances as a part of normal service provision. This is a high quality service, indeed. The special needs transport in Katherine and Gove is provided by taxis. In Alice Springs, it has been found more cost-effective for special needs transport to fund the operation of buses based in the organisation delivering these special needs services. Two examples are St Mary’s Homes and the Acacia Hill School.
As part of the middle schools implementation, the Martin government has procured an additional 10 buses to cater for changed transport needs at a cost of $1.75m for the 2007 school year and ongoing. These buses will all be new buses in keeping with what is already one of the most modern school bus fleets in Australia. Eight of the 10 buses will be available for the start of the 2007 school year and the other two shortly after. Usually, it takes a minimum of 12 months for delivery of new buses. In this case, there has been a shortened delivery period, thanks to the efforts of my agency.
I am advised that there is unlikely to be a requirement for additional buses in Alice Springs to the 2007 phase of middle schools, but we will, of course, monitor this and provide extra services as required. There will be further additional buses required for middle school changes which happen in 2008, and these will be procured next year. My agency has consulted with school communities, parents and students to develop a proposed school bus schedule for middle schools, and these will be monitored and altered as required.
Besides buses, the Territory government also uses ferry services to help deliver public transport. The Mandorah Ferry Service is a commercial operation, but government provides some funding to secure school transport and some core level public ferry services.
The public transport system is delivered on the ground by our bus drivers. There are 150 drivers working across the Territory to provide a professional and efficient service. Last weekend, I was pleased to be able to wave off the seventh NT Bus Rodeo where local bus drivers compete for the chance to make the nationals. It is a great opportunity for local bus drivers to showcase their skills, and they are impressive. The course is certainly challenging and designed to test a range of abilities expected from a professional driver and reflect actual driving conditions, including vehicle control, passenger comfort, traffic regulations, dress standards and driver safety and efficiency within a competitive time frame. Congratulations to the place-getters from the seventh Bus Rodeo: first place, Mr David Elm of Darwinbus Service; second place, Mr Ernie Burger of Shuker Bus Service; and third place, Mr Ron Terrington of Darwinbus Service.
I mention another bus driver - in fact, the longest-ever serving employee, Mr Ken Wilkshire. Mr Wilkshire started work with the Darwin Bus Service in 1959 and, since then, has recruited both his son, Bradley, and brother, Barry. I am sure his period of service and recruitment activities are a reflection of his dedication and service to public transport. Ken is currently a long-standing supervisor at Darwinbus Service but, when he started with the service, he drove vehicles that were actually converted trucks. I understand that these vehicles were used for a variety of tasks, including gravel truck, water truck and school bus. Over nearly 50 years, Ken has seen passenger transport evolve from converted trucks with crash-box transmission and natural ventilation to the current ultramodern fleet we have today which feature a super-quiet soft ride, automatic transmission and airconditioning. You can even listen to your favourite radio station when you are comfortably riding on these buses.
The Territory government is working towards further improvements to public transport, including implementation of the Transport Standards under the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act. These standards include bus stop and shelter infrastructure requirements like lighting standards at bus shelters and bus interchanges, tactiles for the vision impaired and hearing assistance for the hearing impaired. This is a significant task, given there are 550 existing bus stops and bus shelters in Darwin. These are to be retrofitted over time to conform to standards. In Alice Springs, the Alice Springs Town Council maintains bus stops and will be looking at upgrading those to meet the new standards.
Over the next few months, an audit will be conducted of all our public transport infrastructure against the requirements of the Transport Standards of the DDA and a plan developed to begin addressing this major infrastructure retrofit. The retrofitting of public transport infrastructure will occur over some years.
Another improvement I hope to see on our bus network in the future is the use of green fuels. An alternative fuel trial was undertaken this year, using a blend of biodiesel and normal diesel fuels. The biodiesel fuel is made from a renewable source of vegetable oils and has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The three month trial using five buses consumed approximately 30 000 litres of blended fuel. The blended mix was 20% biodiesel and 80% normal diesel. The full results of the trial are still being analysed; however, results to date show that the biodiesel trial demonstrated that B20 Biodiesel can successfully be run in our buses without any technical difficulties.
Some of the potential barriers for continuing to use biodiesel include an increase in consumption of fuel, the higher cost of the fuel and limited availability of biodiesel at this time. My Department of Planning and Infrastructure will continue to monitor the progress with biodiesel technologies, particularly the development of a biodiesel plant in the Northern Territory, so this renewable, environmentally friendly fuel alternative could become a sustainable alternative fuel for our bus fleet.
The Territory population is growing and, with that, we need to ensure our public transport system is flexible and can adapt to our growing needs. The current Darwinbus schedule has not been comprehensibly reviewed in more than a decade, yet since then the population and geographic expansion has been significant.
To address increased demands on services and ensure we are targeting the services to where they are most needed, a review of the bus timetable is under way. A revised bus schedule will soon be implemented, along with the new cheaper fares and ticketing system. During a two-week transition period for the new timetable, Territorians will travel absolutely free on public buses. The transition period will allow the new ticketing system to be installed in buses and allow bus travellers to acquaint themselves with the new fare structure and how it will operate.
Further to this, all bus contracts are set to expire on 31 December 2008. Many of these contracts have been in place for 10 years. It is, therefore, timely to conduct a comprehensive review of the delivery of bus services in the greater Darwin area prior to entering into new long-term contracts to ensure we are delivering the best possible service to meet our growing population. Consultants, Booz Allen Hamilton, have been commissioned to assist the government with the review. The review is focused both on the effectiveness and cost efficiency of the current integrated Darwinbus network and dedicated school buses in the Darwin rural area, as well as providing for inevitable future growth of services including the necessity for public transport system flexibility and responsiveness.
All bus contractors were advised of the details of the review in March this year, and the consultant has been engaging with all parts of the public transport system and relevant stakeholders. Since there is a considerable lead time - usually at least 12 months - for the manufacture of new buses, procurement will need to happen towards the end of 2007 in order for new contracts to commence at the beginning of 2009.
I will be pleased to update the House on how the Martin Labor government plans to deliver public transport into the future following consideration of that review.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I wish to contribute to this debate in the same manner that the minister made her speech. Public transport affects all Territorians, including our youth and the elderly, who face crippling isolation due to – I cannot do it! – a lack of mobility, with families and parents spending their hard-earned income and precious time driving their children to school.
In order for public transport to be attractive to the community, it must provide a genuine alternative to car travel for everyone. This means that the service quality must compete with the car on fundamental measures like time lines, safety, cost and convenience. It is only by doing this that public transport can seriously hope to attract passengers from across the spectrum. Passengers bring the revenue and impetus for the service improvements that benefit everyone, and reduce public transport’s drain on the public purse.
Of course, it was the CLP that first introduced the public transport system into the Territory and, yes, it started without airconditioning unlike today’s buses. However, the service offered was the best available at the time. Because Territorians deserve the best and they are a discerning lot and expect quality, it is imperative that government keep the fleet up-to-date. It is easy to think time lines and poor reliability are, in fact, the biggest problems facing public transport in the Territory, and are the principal deterrent to higher public transport use. Of course, time lines and reliability are important, but evidence shows that service frequency is the critical factor in people choosing to shift from car travel to public transport. People will not use public transport unless it offers travel times that are competitive with those offered by motor vehicles.
Total journey time on public transport has two major components: waiting time and travel time. Both can and must be reduced if public transport is to succeed. The reduction of waiting time requires better service frequencies. High frequencies must be supported by high reliability so the waiting times shown on timetables actually match the real ones.
At a time when road safety is taking the front page and is the lead story of local news, the principal safety problem for public transport is one of personal safety and, in this regard, one wonders what the government’s position is in relation to putting seat belts on school buses, for instance.
In order to be better utilised by the wider community, public transport must also offer a safe, clean and friendly travelling environment. That is why I am heartened to hear that transport safety officers will very soon be integrated onto the bus system in an effort to decrease vandalism and improve passenger safety. Public transport needs to be effectively coordinated and advertised.
I have noticed more council parking inspectors zapping around on their mopeds in the Darwin city centre, cracking down on drivers who have overstayed their time limit or have simply parked in a no parking zone. While we all get frustrated with this process and what, at times, seems little more than revenue raising, the restraint on car parking is an important role in the promotion of public transport.
There are real hassle-free benefits afforded by using public transport and they need to be better highlighted. The key to improving the economic performance of our public transport is to increase patronage. High quality public transport attracts more full-fare paying passengers which leads to better cost recovery. Public transport in the Territory has poor cost recovery because patronage is largely confined to peak periods. This means high costs to provide staff and vehicles, most of which are not fully utilised outside of these hours for the rest of the day. In addition, the high proportion of concessionary passengers who are the major users of the system, means that the fare receipts stay low.
At present, the Territory public transport operators make little or no attempt to grab market share from the car. The only result can be higher costs as the large fixed cost is distributed between fewer passengers. To attract patrons and keep them, the new ticketing system must be user friendly, simple and reliable. When fuel prices are at record high levels and this government is failing to introduce any positive measures to address the issue, happily pocketing the profits and then whingeing and blaming the federal government, public transport must offer a viable alternative and fares must be set at an economic level.
It is, in part, good to see that the new fare structure is being put in place. It seems, however, that this government is more than willing to offer at least a competitive structure with the cost of tickets but, when it comes to fuel prices which is an issue that ultimately affects private and public transport users, it is crocodile tears from this government. There is certainly some relief it can provide to Territorians, and we have made our views clear on the public record in that regard.
This government will not introduce an LPG subsidy program to ease the squeeze on Territory mums and dads, but it will encourage green buses, a great initiative that is being introduced across the country. Surely, if this government is open to the use of alternative fuels in its bus fleet, then why impede average Territorians?
A motor vehicle can provide unsurpassed mobility and convenience. The elimination of the car is both unlikely and unnecessary. No matter how good the public transport service is, lots of local travel, such as going to the shops, will still largely be carried out by cars. Persuading Territorians to choose public transport by making them realise its social, economic and environmental benefits is the challenge that we all face.
The minister might be interested to hear a report received by my office today via the office of David Tollner; it is an interesting one. I am sure the minister will want to pursue it. The e-mail reported the case of a tourist going into David Tollner’s office. That tourist went in to complain that there were no bus route brochures at the Tourist Information Centre and they sent him to the bus terminus near the Darwin City Council. The tourist attended the terminus to find bus route information on a board and then thought he would try the information kiosk in the Smith Street Mall. They advised that they had not had any for a few months and they were trying to get some. He went back to the terminus and found someone who advised that they were in the middle of changing routes and, therefore, did not have any brochures to give away. This tourist, interestingly enough, said that he found it very difficult to get around Darwin using public transport and that is obviously a difficulty that minister and her departmental officers would, I would have thought, turn their minds to.
We locals know how to get around but we must, of course, given the importance of tourism to the Territory generally and to Darwin, ensure that we make the travel system user friendly for tourists as well. I am not sure that many of us, frankly, have given a lot of thought to that until you hear stories from tourists saying it is hard to get around on public transport.
Madam Speaker, they are the comments I am make in relation to the minister’s statement. I thank her for bringing the statement to the House today.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, this morning, people in Alice Springs woke up without water running from their taps. Lucky we were not there or we would have had to turn up to work without having had a shower. It was not until around 8 am, after work started, when the water came back. Apparently, it was a burst water main. People on the west side of town were still complaining, as of midday today, that water pressure was still very low.
It appears that there are two issues. One was a burst water main and the other was a water gauge being stuck, indicating that the water tank was quite full when, indeed, it was emptying to quite dangerous levels. It got to the stage where the level was so low that the pressure to the western part of Alice Springs was severely compromised.
The CBD of our town, a tourist town, at dawn, could not service the tourists because there was no water. By mid-morning, the pressure was still very low and everyone affected was asked to restrict their usage. They were also asked to keep an eye out in case dirty water came through the taps. This is just unbelievable.
Alice Springs, I venture to say, is the capital city of Central Australia. It caters not only to the resident population of some 30 000, but to thousands upon thousands of tourists and indigenous people who come from the bush. I suppose the best indicator is that the Alice Springs Hospital services nearly 50 000 patients. There we were with a damaged water service.
This is a government that is supposed to be looking after the Territory and its core services by providing power, water, roads. You have to ask: what is happening to all the GST money that we have been receiving in this Territory? Where is the money being diverted? Alice Springs is an old town. It has been there for many years. The infrastructure is some 30 years old and needs to be upgraded. For the last five years, Power and Water have been saying they need to be resourced adequately so they can do the work and get the pipes up to standard.
On top of that, we have sewerage pipes that are collapsing. The problem was that, through condensation, water collects inside the sewerage pipes, and toilet waste that comes flushing through the pipes releases hydrogen sulphide gas, which mixes with the condensation in the pipes, turning to acid, thus burning the pipes, which have been collapsing.
Several years ago under the CLP government, we had some remedial works done to try to ensure the sewerage pipes are well ventilated, and they have made a significant difference. Money was spent by the government to ensure that those sewers remained operational. It is time for this government to spend some money in Alice Springs to make sure that these services continue. Alas, no money has been spent and that is why we face consequences such as what happened this morning: no water in Alice Springs.
While I am talking about water in Alice Springs, particularly in the western areas of the town, there is a nursery out towards Ilparpa that has been faced with the problem of water outages 12 to 15 times a year. The man who operates the nursery needs an adequate water supply to maintain his stocks. Yesterday morning, he did not have any water at all. I am sure if he did not have water, the whole of the estate did not have water. When they have a water outage at Ilparpa, it can be up to six hours. For a person who runs a nursery, six hours without water is bad for his business. Summer months are coming. In these last few months we have had no rain. Once the summer hits - and it has been already hot so early into the summer - this man can lose business in a major way. It is important for this government to address this serious issue quickly so they can get things back to normal.
I am sure the workers at Power and Water are flat out trying to rectify the situation and make sure that water supply is back for the community once more.
Still on Power and Water, the noise at the power station continues. This month is the deadline for Power and Water to fix the noise that comes from the gas turbine at the Alice Springs power station which is causing a lot of community distress, particularly in Range Crescent and surrounding areas.
We have asked over and over again for some sort of a fix to happen soon but, for over 12 months now, this noise has continued unabated. Each time we make a complaint, Power and Water says: ‘Yes, we are doing what we can. We are going to build new baffles for the chimney. We are going to put sound blankets over the turbines so that the noise does not pose a problem’. Unfortunately, every time they try something, we find that the fix does not work.
I do not know whether any of you have been anywhere near the turbine or the homes that have encountered these problems. The noise is like a jet, a 737 or similar aircraft, standing at the end of the runway, winding up the revs in the engine which sets up this very high-pitched whine. For us visiting the airport, in less than a minute the plane takes off and the noise dissipates. Unfortunately, for those people living around the power station, that noise is there for a long time, sometimes all day and all night. Imagine a jet plane being parked in your neighbourhood with its engine running all the time.
October is the month that Power and Water promised they would fix this problem. I have already had calls from people asking what will happen if it does not. The CEO, Kim Wood, has said if it does not work, they will have to consider other options, including shifting of the turbine, probably down to Brewer Estate. I will be paying particularly close attention to this matter. We have two weeks or thereabouts to see if this will work. If not, I will seek that Power and Water and the government proceed as quickly as possible to get the turbines to the Brewer Estate.
If we had an EPA with any teeth, it would have closed down the power station a long time ago. The minister for the Environment said: ‘We provided them with certain advice to make sure that the sound is attenuated and the power station had to keep the noise below the nuisance threshold’. Unfortunately, Power and Water has not been able to comply. It appears that government is not doing anything about it. It is breaching its permits from the Environment Protection Authority and the government, through the shareholder minister, should provide funding to Power and Water to move the turbines. If that is the only way they can fix the noise, the government must do it.
Imagine if I had a pantech truck parked in my driveway, running its refrigerators all night. The neighbours would be up in arms. The town council, and likely the government, would tell me to move the truck. Yet, here we have a jet turbine, almost as close, screaming away all day and the government does not seem to want to do anything about it.
In New South Wales, there are laws which provide for a maximum penalty for corporate noise offenders of up to about $1m. If it continues after the infringement is imposed, a further penalty of some $120 000 applies each day the offence continues. If this was New South Wales, Power and Water would be broke by now, with 12 months of noise infringement which they have failed to rectify. Obviously, there is a problem with the gas turbine or other parts of the machinery that generate power in Alice Springs. It is certain that all the testing was not done properly before the installation.
I believe that because the Ron Goodin Power Station is in a valley surrounded on all sides by hills, the noise was not be likely to be a problem. Unfortunately, the noise travels over the peaks of the ranges surrounding the power station and impacts directly on some houses that are built around the area.
Noise level measurements have been made and, without a doubt, the noise is at levels that are unacceptable. I understand that some measurements have picked up noise levels of up to 60 decibels, some 12 decibels above the background noise or seven decibels above the tolerance level. I do not know if you understand what decibels mean. One to two decibels is doubling the loudness of the noise. Therefore, when you have up to six decibels, it is exponentially one to the power of six. That is what it is. The noise levels are very high. It is important to stop it now. Fix it, otherwise we will have more and more people up in arms and, more likely than not, proceeding with a class action against Power and Water and the government for allowing this to keep happening.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I urge the government to address this urgently. October has 30 days, so we have only 19 days left before the deadline comes about. I look forward to a positive resolution by the end of this month.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, on 4 October 2006, I had the pleasure of being invited to attend a rather special youth activity that was organised through the offices of the Multicultural Council of the NT. It was called Break. Break was an event that was put together by Betchay Mondragon, Project Officer with the Multicultural Solutions school holiday program. Multicultural Solutions helps migrant and refugee families find their way in the community through activities that engage and empower the participants. The project also links up MCNT client communities with service providers.
Break’s main objective was to introduce outdoor activities for young people in the community and get them involved in positive action. DJ Fat Albert is the resident DJ of Hoops for Health, the brainchild of Timmy Duggan who works with NT AIDS and Hepatitis Council, the NTAHC. Timmy is a Darwin born and bred man who has family ties down in the Centre. He has played in the NBL and has a real commitment to working with youth so that they can realise their true potential.
The member for Millner got behind it and canvassed a lot of his colleagues on the Labor benches, including the members for Arafura and Arnhem, along with myself. We chipped in $200 each for the Hoops for Health and had sponsorship on Timmy’s jumper. The member for Millner is a real supporter of the work that Timmy Duggan does. I was happy to be able to contribute to such a worthy cause.
DJ Fat Albert’s presentation was through the facilitation of Hoops for Health in cooperation with NTAHC. DJ Fat Albert was DJ for Ushers’ after-show party in Sydney and toured with Eminem Rap. I spoke to DJ Fat Albert who is a Thursday Island chap who lives in Perth, but he comes up here and has worked with the prisons. They did a big gig in the mall. He is really committed to helping the kids out and is a fantastic DJ. He plays some really good music and had everyone up dancing at the show.
Break also had the assistance of TRACKS Dance Theatre performers through the Style Impressions Krew and other break-dance boys. Ausdance NT helped by providing the loan of the dance tarkett, the linoleum used for dancing. Darwin Symphony Orchestra loaned their platform risers.
A special thank you also has to go to Esperanza Quindara; she was the MC and did a fabulous job. Bernadine Crute was the stage manager. I have known Bernadine for many years. I have been watching her grow up. Bernadine is probably about 19 or 20 years old, and I can remember her singing at the member for Johnston’s functions. She has also sung at a couple of functions that I have had. Bernadine won a scholarship to carry on singing but she has come back to be with her family right now. She is a fabulous young woman and wants to get out and sing and do a few gigs. If anyone knows of anyone looking for a great little singer there is one in our midst now - young Bernadine.
Thank you also to Ken Hutton, the Orchestral Manager for Darwin Symphony Orchestra; David McMikken and Tim Newth, the artistic directors of TRACKS Dance Theatre Performance; Sarah Calver, the Executive Officer of Ausdance NT; and Clare McHugh von Steiglitz, the Senior Case Manager of the Juvenile Justice Diversion program of the YWCA.
The week before, I received an invitation from Clare for the YWCA garden party, which I will talk about later. It was great to meet Clare and talk with her about the work she has planned for the youth, both boys and girls. Clare is also undertaking a project for the Darwin City Council, looking at a proposal for a youth-type centre at the council depot at Leanyer for ongoing use. I will be watching with interest her recommendations to council as far as getting something for youth at Vanderlin Drive. I am a supporter of any such initiative. The more we can do for youth, as long as it is targeted correctly as with everything else, is great. I would certainly like to say that in Malak, Sanderson and around that area, the projects that we have for youth are excellent. We really need to have an audit to determine exactly what we have.
That is something that you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, as Chair of the Sport and Youth Committee, might care to get your teeth into. That is something we should be looking at.
The dancers were the Style Impression Krew, or SIK; namely Erwin Fenis, Marko Taopo, Byron Low, Emmanuel Dado, Astin Low plus Wesley and Phillip. I should also recognise the great effort of my electorate officer, Therla Fowlestone, who gave up her own time to support the great work of MCNT and help me cook up all of the sausages that I was happy to donate for the event.
It is a great and wondrous job that all of us here get from time to time: to donate sausages and, if possible, cook them up. I have a good little portable barbecue. I was able to get that there. I was able to borrow the member for Port Darwin’s portable barbecue and we set those up and were cooking up a feast. We had everyone lined up and getting a really good feed so it was a great little sausage sizzle that we did. It was no problem and I was really happy to be doing it.
Although the crowd was a relatively small, it was a success in that it set a precedent for future youth and community activities at the Malak Shops. Another great support of the event was the Malak Shops owner Henry Yap. He has some really good ideas about how to work with youth; he is not all about punishing and punitive action by police. He works with the kids and gets some great results, and I would like to see his style emulated by a lot of shop owners around the place.
I am told that the MCNT, through Multicultural Solutions, will continue to create activity that will not only engage the community in positive action, but will also provide entertaining experiences from a cultural perspective.
After Break, a wonderful dinner of Sudanese-style meat, rice and beans, Indonesian gado-gado and Filipino steamed rice cakes was laid on in the community room. It was a truly international ending to a truly wonderful evening of international music and eclectic dance styles. Congratulations to Betchay Mondragon for all her tireless work. She is a great community worker and I cannot speak highly enough of her.
Across the road from the Malak shops is the Malak Centre located at 11 Malak Crescent, Malak, formerly the Tardis Centre, which houses several programs of the YWCA. They are looking at starting up a youth recreation activity soon and have undertaken some renovations as a first step in preparation for that.
I had the great pleasure on Friday, 6 October, to be invited to the Malak Centre’s garden party. It was a great little event held to thank the hard-working volunteers of Greencorps who have just finished renovating the centre’s gardens. Under the direction of the team leader, Chantal Bramley, volunteers Jaimee Templar, Caitlin Krohn, Eve Simmance, Nick Mark, Patrick and Michael Hunter laid pavers and granite, removed weed trees and put in native garden plants and irrigation.
Greencorps is a federally funded program for 17- to 20-year-olds. These volunteers receive an allowance and attain Certificates I and II in Conservation and Land Management, and they go on to jobs with councils or golf courses so it is a good stepping stone for youth.
The YWCA Malak Centre has been refurbished in preparation for its new programs. The Sisters Project is for 12- to 21-year-old women and will use craft and music and performance to build skills, support, self-esteem and social links. Recruitment is under way for a recreational program for youth at risk. The centre also houses these YWCA ongoing programs: Juvenile Justice Diversion Program, Independent Living program and Life Skills programs.
The Malak Centre has a very strong commitment to engaging with the community and encourages and welcomes volunteers. I am very pleased with this approach and commend Clare McHugh von Stieglitz, Senior Case Manager with the Juvenile Justice Diversion Program, and her staff for their efforts developing our youth into happy, well-informed and positive individuals within our society.
There are a lot of good initiatives for our youth and the people who run them are really committed. We should do all we can to help by lending our support, the resources in our offices, by promoting programs to the wider public. I have said before in different speeches that youth get too much of a caning in the media and from some of our members. Politics is made of some poor behaviour in some of the group. Let us get off the politics for youth and get on to doing a really good job: let us do something that gives them a good environment and something to aim at, gives them the light on the hill instead of portraying our youth as a creature of the night who are hell-bent on getting into trouble. It is not the case. We do ourselves, our community and youth no good service by talking them down all the time.
I will take every chance to sing the praises of groups such as that headed by Clare and the work she does at the YWCA, Betchay Mondragon with the MCNT, and traders like Henry Yap. I commend them and encourage them to keep going so that all of us can ensure that our kids grow up to be good, healthy, well-adjusted people who contribute to our society in the future.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016