Debates - Ninth
Assembly, First Session - 18/05/2004 - Parliamentary Record No: 19
This
is an uncorrected proof of the daily report. It is made available under
the condition that it is recognised as such.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, the government will not be supporting this bill for a number of reasons that I will go through, but, first and foremost, government sees this bill as nothing other than a cheap political stunt by the member for Drysdale and members opposite.
Why do we see this as a cheap political stunt? Simply because illicit substances is illegal in the Northern Territory. If any member of this House has any evidence that any member of this parliament is taking illicit substances, that member has an obligation to report that observation to the police for investigation. That is the bottom line.
Why this parliament would seek to create a regime whereby the bar the is lower for members of parliament and, via a testing regime, that members of this House could be referred, on a positive test, to the Privileges Committee is something that we do not support. If any member of this parliament is using illegal substances, they should be reported to the police and if the police believe they have sufficient evidence, then that member should see their day in court and be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, not by a committee of politicians. We see this as a complete political stunt and it is one that we do not support.
The member for Drysdale admits that he has no knowledge or information that drug use is a problem in this Chamber. Why would we go about creating a regime in order to halt a practice when, by his own admission, there is no knowledge or information of the practice being prevalent in this Chamber. This is an attempt of making laws for the sake of making laws for a headline for a member of parliament. Already, it has cost the taxpayer money because, not only as Parliamentary Counsel have to waste time drafting this legislation responsibly, we have had the police do some work on the cost of administering this particular piece of legislation if it were to come to pass, and advice from police is that drug testing from a person's blood supply as provided for in the bill can only be performed by a doctor or a nurse. The costs for laboratory tests alone would be about $500 each.
We are talking, subject to annual and random tests, plus the cost of the doctor to administer, administration, we are talking in excess of $60 000 per annum to administer a process for which the proponent of this bill is on the public record saying he has got no knowledge or information that drug use is a problem in this Chamber. So we are not going to commit taxpayers money, time and effort, effort not only from people to collect blood samples, but the Clerk of this Assembly, who has a lot of important work to do to run around and arrange blood tests from 25 members of parliament once a year, we just ain't going to do it because, on his own admission, if it ain't broken why would we try and fix something.
However, the bottom line here is that this is a government that takes illicit drug use very seriously. We have addressed a raft of legislation to give police the powers, powers that the previous government refused to give them, or even acknowledged that we had a significant problem in our community, to close down drug houses, to seize the assets of people who profit from the proceeds of running drugs in our community, witness protection legislation. The police are doing a great job, but to create an act of parliament that compels members in this House to a random drug testing regime when there is absolutely no evidence that it is a problem in this place, and to commit the taxpayer to the tune of $50 000 or $60 000 a year to administer a pointless exercise is something that the government is not convinced is a priority for Territorians.
The proposal would see a doctor or nurse, and a parliamentary official, spending over $60 000 a year. It is hard to fathom what the CLP is trying to achieve. Is it seeking to make a point? Are they seeking to make a point that we welcome the advent of random drug testing in the Northern Territory if it is politicians first, who is next? Will it be public servants? The whole concept of random drug testing, where it does take place, out in the community, on mine sites, or amongst the ADF, is that, and certainly out at Bechtel at the moment, is that from an employer's point of view, in terms of their duty of care to the employee, and in providing a safe work place, that, when working in a hazardous occupation that any taking or consumption of illicit substance which may impair your capacity to do the job you are employed to do, not only endangers yourself as an individual, but also endangers your work colleagues. That is something, quite rightly, that a responsible employer's supported by unions, I have to say, believe has no place in a workplace and that is the reason for the random regime.
It is not a case of double standards, one rule for blue collar workers, and one rule for white collar politicians, it is purely a principle in this place. Yes, we have to make decisions, and we have to be of clear mind when we make those decisions but, if, for example, there was one member of this House who was under the influence of any substance, whether it be alcohol or an illicit substance, the capacity for that one individual to pass legislation that would have a detrimental impact on the Northern Territory population, it just could not happen under those processes. But in a work place, a single individual who is under the influence of alcohol or any other illicit substance, and causes an accident in that workplace, could potentially harm or kill his fellow colleagues.
There is no rationale, under any circumstance, to bring this bill before this House. There is no evidence provided by the member who is proposing this bill - and I assume he has support from his colleagues. There is no evidence that has been tendered so far that it is a problem in this particular parliament and, certainly, the criminal law should apply. The law should apply to all Territorians equally and, if members opposite have any evidence of members of this parliament indulging in drug use, then they should report that to the police and let the police deal with it, and not be dealt with by a committee of this parliament.
There ain't no problem, so why are we passing legislation? It is going to cost $50 000 to $60 000 a year to administer, and I am sure the taxpayer of the Northern Territory would believe that there is better things to spend that money on. The principle of why random drug testing is in place in some workplaces is all about individual safety and occupational health and safety for other employees in the workplace, and it is hard to argue that that is the bar in this particular Chamber. This is nothing short of a political stunt and the government is going to oppose it.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Absolutely fascinating, Madam Speaker. Let us go and test the quality of the argument that we have just been given by the Leader of Government Business. If I understand the Leader of Government Business correctly, because there is no perceived problem and because we do not want to apply a different standard to members of parliament than are out there in the community there is, therefore, no reason to introduce this piece of legislation or pass this bill before us today, because we have no evidence of a problem.
Well, I am pleased to hear that because, if that is the case, then I should not have to fill out my declaration of interests form. There is no suggestion that I have every conducted myself with any impropriety in relation to my declaration of interests or any of the property that I own. Yet, there is a different standard that applies to me; there is a very different standard. That is what this issue is about before this House today.
Getting rid of facile arguments such as it is all going to cost too much; it costs $60 000. It costs $5000 an hour to run this parliament and, yet, we have no complaints about that from members opposite. Why? Because the parliamentary process is fundamentally important to the operation of the Northern Territory. Indeed, with the code of conduct that the members opposite are stridently trying to bring forward, it is not unreasonable to suggest that we do have different standards that apply to us. I am quite prepared, as a member of this House, to be drug tested or alcohol tested, for that matter, at any time. I can stand up here quite comfortably and say that, at not one occasion in the last six-and-a-half years that I have been a member of this House, have I ever had so much as a single drink of liquor in my system, or a single drug on board, other than caffeine, when I have been in this House. Yet, I am still prepared to subordinate myself to this, as I am prepared, quite happily, to subordinate myself to a set of rules which make me fill out my declaration of interests. Why? Because the conduct of parliaments and parliamentarians should not only be beyond reproach, but should be seen to be beyond reproach.
Is the cost of testing really that outrageous that, if we were to spend $60 000, considering the cost of running this whole Legislative Assembly, would it be that unreasonable an impost to the taxpayer to know that their parliamentarians were clean and sober when they were passing laws on behalf of the people of the Northern Territory? Absolutely not, Madam Speaker, absolutely not. Yet, we hear the members opposite saying: 'No, no, no, no. You do not have to worry about their members' conduct in here. The only thing we are really worried about in the code of conduct, this set of rules'. Well, why do we have a set of rules for one lot of things like ownership of shares, ownership of property, interest in business and those sorts of things, and not another set of rules? That is because the only thing that this government is really interested in is trawling through members' property to see if they can catch them out in some sort of illicit deals or naughtiness.
This code of conduct should be a much broader thing if they are truly interested in conduct. They are not interested in conduct. They are only interested in discovering things about others that might be used to embarrass them. Well, I think that a code of conduct should be a much broader animal, Madam Speaker, broader in the sense that I should be subject at any time to an alcohol test or a drug test, and would be happy to at any time. I would like to be able to demonstrate to the people of the Northern Territory that I am clean and that I am sober when I am deliberating on their behalf. It is a great responsibility which has been placed upon our shoulders. What the member for Drysdale was quite rightly arguing, is that if you have a great responsibility then you have a higher level of accountability. That is the reason we have the declaration of our property and interests, and it is why we should also be able to declare that we are sober when we come into this place and we are drug free.
The minister says that the bar is being lowered by something like this. No. The bar is being raised. The test which should apply to me as a parliamentarian should be raised. That is what the member for Drysdale is suggesting; that there is going to be a higher standard for us, in the same way that our declaration of interest and our conduct should be beyond reproach, in terms of how we deal with financial issues, share ownership, business ownership, property ownership, those sorts of things; should also apply to how we conduct ourselves out there, and we are often dragged through the press because of conduct of individual members out there. So why should not the test also apply to what is inside our systems? Now, to run the argument that it is illegal and therefore that it is already being looked after; well, it is not illegal to own shares, it is not illegal to own businesses, it is not illegal to own property, yet different standards apply. So, if this government was going to be consistent, then surely it should be consistent with the whole approach to the way it does these things.
Sports people need to be tested. Why do sports people need to be tested? Because it reflects on their conduct as sportsmen, whether they cheat or not. That is why sportsmen are tested. It is not a duty of care thing. It is a reasonable standard which we expect from professional sportsmen. They are then automatically tested. If I am a professional legislator, surely it should be reasonable that I be tested from time to time to see whether or not I am taking any substances which may affect my ability to do that job. The public have a right to know about that, as they have a right to know about what our share interests are, and what our business interests are, and what property we own. Why do they have that right to know? Because if we are making decisions in here that reflect and affect that ownership, then that needs to be declared. That is why we declare interests when we stand up.
Surely we also should be declaring our interest in terms of being able to conduct ourselves as parliamentarians, as clean and sober people. To suggest that the member is wasting the time of Parliamentary Counsel, surely the whole purpose of this parliament is to bring forward ideas and suggestions and put them to the people of this Chamber and the people of the Northern Territory, so that ideas can be explored. Now, not every idea that comes into this Chamber is perfect. There might be drafting problems, there might be problems with the idea on a fundamental level. But that does not mean that members should say, oh, I am too afraid to bring forward an idea. That is an absurd proposition: you are wasting the time of Parliamentary Counsel if you bring in any piece of legislation that the government will not immediately accede to, so you should not waste the time of Parliamentary Counsel.
That actually puts the government ahead of the parliament in terms of what happens in this place. And that is one of the downsides of the unicameral system that we have in the Northern Territory, that there is no review process. Effectively, the government is in control. The government can do whatever it pleases and the parliament is subordinate as far as the government is concerned. What happens now is that there is an attitude creeping in amongst the ministers of this government and that attitude is that the parliament is almost an irritation, and that irritation is something that needs to be dismissed, and how dismissive has this government got? Well, let us have a look. Blood testing. The minister talks about blood testing. Has he read this bill? Evidently not because blood testing is not in the bill. There is no mention of it.
This is an interesting thing: the minister stands up for seven minutes, says that the opposition is being irritating and wasting the time of Parliamentary Counsel and he has not even read the bill. He has not a clue what is inside this legislation. He has not even bothered to get himself briefed on it. He has not referred to any of the notes that they say often and normally refer to. As far as I am concerned, the contempt with which he deals with this parliament is reflective of the contempt that the government has for the people of the Northern Territory. Realistically, the question needs to be asked if this government is so scared of testing members in this chamber, really the question begs: what have to hide? I can tell you all the members on this side of the House have no problem with it.
What really do these members opposite have to hide? What are they so scared of that they would find? They are not scared of having a look at people's financial details, but they are certainly scared of having a look at people's saliva and urine samples not doubt.
The government is just being a little bit too cute with this by far. They say it is a cheap political stunt. It is not a cheap political stunt; it is a genuine attempt to make sure that there are standards applied to parliamentarians so that the people of the Northern Territory can have at least a little confidence in the parliament in the Northern Territory because it is clear that this minister and the government has no confidence in this parliament of the Northern Territory and would rather be without it if they had there way.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I want to say a few words about this bill and I should make it clear that I do not support it. That does not mean that I necessarily support the argument that the government is putting against it. I support the sentiment of the bill and understand what the member for Drysdale is trying to say, but I do not believe this is the right approach.
It was interesting just listening to the member for Macdonnell talk about how one declares their interests in things. I believe that as a politician, people trust me to do the right thing, especially in matters relating to the law and if I do the wrong thing, I certainly will pay the consequences at the next election.
There is perhaps an alternative response to what the member for Drysdale is doing. I believe that it would be becoming of members of parliament perhaps voluntarily to declare that they neither use or illicit drugs, nor support or promote their use. I have said those very same words in document. I would like to table that document and have it on record. That is how I believe we should declare our non support for the use of illicit drugs.
Leave granted.
Mr WOOD: I believe that this is what is needed. Even that should be up to the individual member to declare. If I am found to have made a false declaration, I will, I am sure, pay the consequence of next election and probably through the court system.
This would be a better way. I have argued about the Code of Conduct before because, in some ways, when it referred to a person's personal living habits, I believe that it is the voters who will judge you on how you have conducted yourself in public, in parliament or anywhere. In the end, the voters will decide whether you are honest or not. I have no problem promoting the idea that the use of illicit drugs is a bad thing throughout our community.
I have advocated that kids, especially our young people, should be steered more into sport, music, the arts and reading and getting their high from those sorts of things. We should be showing young people by example. It would be good if we made a public statement as members of parliament here that we oppose the use of these drugs, that we do not use them. I feel that would be sufficient. I understand whether the member for Drysdale is coming from, but in this case I think it is an overkill.
I am not really concerned about any other arguments that may come up. I think this is perhaps a better way of doing something on which the voters in my electorate can judge me.
Dr BURNS (Essential Services): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak to the Legislative Assembly Members (Random Drug Testing) Bill 2003 moved by the member for Drysdale. The title of this bill purports to be about random blood testing but, as the Leader of Government Business has pointed out, it is probably more about political grandstanding by the member for Drysdale than anything else. I will deal with the second issue, after firstly looking at the important issue of random blood testing in the work place.
Random blood testing in the workplace is a very serious and contentious issue, and although this debate centres on the workplace, I wish to once again lay my concern in relation to the harmful effects of drug use generally in our community on the Parliamentary Record. Drug abuse in our community is extremely serious, and has harmful effects at every level of society. For the individual, for family and friends, for the economy, and for particularly those workplaces where there is a direct threat of real physical danger to fellow workers or the public through alcohol or drug use. The impact of drug use on health, wellbeing and happiness is profound. In the wake of drug abuse there is misery broken lives, broken homes, suicide and despair.
Drugs of abuse are sometimes properly described within three sometimes overlapping categories. Narcotic drugs, sometimes known as dangerous drugs, including opiates such as heroine, stimulants such as cocaine, LSD and amphetamines. The second group, or so-called recreational drugs, like ecstasy, cannabis and alcohol, and the third group, often referred to as prescription drugs, including commonly abused prescription drugs such as Benzodiazepines, antidepressants and opiates amongst others. They all have a proven record of harm, and that harm should never be underestimated. In particular, I have spoken a number of times in this House about the way in which the harmful effects of cannabis have been seriously underestimated, particularly by those who blindly advocate its use as a totally benign recreational drug.
In essence, the member for Drysdale has proposed a bill which includes random drug testing of all members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly at least once a year. The test involves analysis, contrary to what the member for Macdonnell might believe. Reading the bill, I see in definitions, clause 3, that the test involves analysis of a urine or blood sample provided by the member on request. The Clerk of the Parliament is to oversee the testing and must refer refusal to supply a sample to the Privileges Committee. This next bit is very important. If the test is positive, the Clerk must also refer the results to the Privileges Committee which, and I quote from the bill, 'must investigate the reasons for the presence of the drug and report its findings to the Legislative Assembly'. So no ifs or buts about that, that is in the proposed bill. In addition, the report that I just mentioned, and I quote: 'may include the recommendations about the actions to be taken as a consequence of the report'.
Apart from those workplaces where drug and alcohol use presents a real and direct danger to the physical safety of other workers or the general public, I believe there is little justification for random drug testing in the workplace. Furthermore, inherently, this bill is fatally flawed for a whole raft of reasons, and I will demonstrate the reasons why clearly, concisely and in a detailed fashion. I will follow that by a critical appraisal of the evidence, or lack of it, related to random drug testing in the workplace. because this whole argument about random drug testing in the workplace is central to what we are talking about, because as the Leader of Government Business has said, this not only applies in the first step to the 25 members of this Legislative Assembly, but potentially to all members of the Northern Territory Public Service, and I will talk about that within this speech tonight.
Apart from the exceptions I have already outlined - and to say them again; that is, in workplaces where alcohol and drug use presents a real and direct danger to the physical safety of other workers or the public - random drug testing in the workplace has not been demonstrated by properly designed, scientific studies to achieve any of the spectacular results so often attributed to it. I will quote extensively from an Australian book called Drugs and Work, edited by Steve Allsop, Mike Phillips and Carlo Calogero, published in 2001, which extensively reviews international and Australian study on the efficacy of workplace and drug and alcohol testing to improve safety and productivity. The findings of this particular review also reinforce the conclusions of a study undertaken in 1994 under the auspices of the prestigious US National Academy of Science, or NAS, titled Under the Influence – Drugs and the American Workplace. Indeed, there is one important statistic highlighted by one of the authors of the Australian publication, Mike Phillips, on page 28:
-
Raised blood alcohol levels
appear to contribute to at least 4% of all working deaths. On the other
hand, they remarked that drugs appeared to contribute to 2% of working
deaths.
-
Pete: So would you go the whole
hog? I mean, if you were going to test for drugs you would have to test
for booze as well.
Mills: Oh, look, I think we might be going a bit too far there.
It will be interesting to hear the opposition's current position on this matter. Indeed, in this context, it is also interesting to see the genesis of this bill, which lies not with the member for Drysdale on 25 November 2003, but with the esteemed CLP member for Solomon, Mr Dave Tollner. I refer to another news article in the NT News, on 13 February 2002. It says:
-
Tollner in gas pledge.
Top End MP Dave Tollner is to carry on pushing for random drug testing of federal MPs.
But he said it would be an issue with him only after gas from the Timor Sea has arrived in Darwin and the Territory has become a state.
Mr Tollner, 36, whose driving licence was suspended for six months in December when he admitted to drink-driving, made his vow to pursue MPs who illegally used drugs during last year's election campaign.
There we have it! The CLP federal member for Solomon, David Tollner, on Wednesday 13 February 2002. He probably has first claim on this.
However, enough said - back to the authoritative Australian review mentioned earlier, where conclusions are drawn about the effects of alcohol and other drugs in the workplace, and I quote from the article by Phillips on page 40:
-
The evidence allows us to make
rough estimates of the contribution of alcohol to occupational injuries
and fatalities. For illegal drugs, the evidence base is much weaker and
the estimates lower. In the most robust of studies that point to an
association between drug use and negative work outcomes, the
relationship is nevertheless minor.
It is worthwhile to keep in mind the relative contributions to workplace injuries and fatalities in perspective. I will further quote from Jim Nolan on page 60 of the Australian Review. He says:
-
Evidence suggests that it is
fatigue, not impairment through drug and alcohol use, that leads to the
majority of accidents.
I am attempting to put random drug testing in the workplace in perspective. Nevertheless, given the association with injury and fatalities, particularly for alcohol, it is not surprising that a number of major employers in Australia, including BHP, transport authorities and the mining industry, have adopted random workplace drug testing for alcohol and illicit drugs, with safety as a very understandable concern. In these days, where public and corporate liability are both major considerations, most people would accept that this is a very responsible safeguard. However, beyond those workplaces where alcohol and drug use may pose a direct physical danger to other workers and the public, I believe that random drug testing in the workplace is difficult to justify on the evidence already presented. This view, particularly related to workplace accidents and injuries, will also be argued in an upcoming extensive publication in Australia by Mitford et al. So we have a continuity of views there by all the reviews about this particular issue.
Also, I strongly believe it is difficulty to justify such testing in work settings beyond those I have already mentioned because it strikes at the very foundation of individual rights and our legal system which has as its basis the presumption of innocence. In other words, because there is no other evidence except the suggestion that there may be illicit drug users in any group in our society, all members of that group should be drug tested to prove their innocence. Madam Speaker, what sort of big brother mentality is that?
This is what the member for Drysdale is arguing. He has used an estimate in the 1998 National Drug Strategy Household Survey, which he has quoted, to say that 20% of the Australian population has used an illicit drug in the last 12 months, thereby alleging that five amongst 25 MLAs in this House are illicit drug users. He then argues that all 25 should undergo drug testing to prove each individual's innocence. On the same somewhat questionable statistical extrapolation is he also accusing 20% of the 15 000 strong Northern Territory public servants of being illicit drug users - some 3000 people - and proposing that all 15 000 public servants in the Northern Territory should undergo random compulsory drug testing in their workplaces? If he is going to apply the same reasoning, that is what he is saying.
In the days following his announcement of this bill, the member for the Drysdale and the Leader of the Opposition both talked in terms of leadership on this issue. In his second reading speech, the member for Drysdale mentioned – I am quoting here – 'that this particular policy was endorsed by the CLP party wing'. So obviously, random drug testing in the workplace is CLP policy and this bill is the first step to implementing this policy. NT public servants should therefore be aware that the CLP would implement random drug testing throughout the public service. So here you have it. At the core of this bill is a philosophy by the CLP that a person is guilty until their sample can prove their innocence. A quite different context to what the member for Macdonnell was mentioning about the declaration about pecuniary interest which I am in favour of and believe is right. It brings transparency to dealings that government and members of this place might have financial dealings, but this is an entirely different issue. Despite what the member for Drysdale asserts in his second reading speech, and he said, 'that such sampling is not intrusive'; it certainly is.
Let me quote from a letter from a female employer in the United States which underscores the fact that a crucial part of the testing procedure is to directly observe the urine being passed and I quote:
-
I was led into a very small
room with a toilet, sink and desk. I was given a container in which to
urinate by the attendant. I waited for her to turn her back before
pulling down my pants but she told me she had to watch everything I
did. I pulled down my pants, put the container in place, as she bent
down to watch I gave her the sample and even then she did not look
away. I am a 40 year old mother of three and nothing I had ever done in
my life equals or deserves the humiliation, degradation and
mortification I felt.
Madam Speaker, this is what the CLP wants to impose on every public servant in the Northern Territory. In addition, despite what the member for Drysdale asserts, blood testing is considered to be an invasive technique. For this reason medical researchers need to provide very strong reasons for collecting blood samples to an ethics committee. The member for Drysdale has not provided compelling reasons in his second reading speech or his public comments for the imposition of this regime, firstly on MLAs and then on 15 000 public servants in the Northern Territory.
Furthermore, this bill is unworkable and unfair at an operational level for a significant number of reasons. And this is where some of the arguments that I am going to put now I think all members need to think about this very carefully.
First, in his bill, the member for Drysdale has identify the presence of a dangerous drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act as a trigger for a whole range of processes and sanctions within his bill. If the member for Drysdale wants me to quote, I will quote it, but basically, that is what it's all about.
It says under 3 Definitions:
'dangerous drug' has the same meaning as in the Misuse of Drugs Act.
So there is a drug test. If the drug test reveals the presence of a dangerous within the Misuse of Drugs Act, or, for that matter, would also unnecessarily mean the presence of the drug or its metabolites or breakdown products either within blood or urine, that would trigger a whole range of processes and sanctions underneath the member's bill.
This is critical, and I would demonstrate how the member for Drysdale's bill has a potential to embarrass members of this House and potentially 15 000 Northern Territory public servants through no of their own.
Schedule 2 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, which I have here, lists a whole range of substances, over 220 of them in all. I have been through the list and scrutinised it very carefully. This list includes analgesics such as codeine and morphine and a range of other common medicines it is quite legal to use in certain circumstances but illegal to possess, traffic or administer in unauthorised circumstances.
Now, that is fair enough. We all understand the context of the Misuse of Drugs Act. This is exactly where the member for Drysdale's bill starts to unravel. I will explain why; it is not too complicated. I will illustrate. Codeine, for example, is a commonly used painkiller analgesic and can be quite legally purchased in any chemist shop. I suppose most members here might have purchased either Codral or Panadeine, which are well known and widely used.
Should a member of this House take these tables for a headache, toothache or other minor pain and be tested, they would test positive for both codeine and morphine. This is because codeine is broken down in the body to morphine. So you come in the parliament or whatever, going to work, you have a headache or some minor pain, you purchase one of these analgesics quite legally over the counter, you are randomly tested and, hey presto!, either your blood and/or your urine test positive to both codeine and morphine.
Because both of these substances are scheduled under the Misuse of Drugs Act, the member would then be called upon to explain themselves to the Privileges Committee, which, under this proposed legislation, must report to parliament.
We see the media interest when an athlete is called before authorities to answer questions about drug tests. I believe similar interest would centre on parliamentarians. But it doesn't end there. Falkadeine is also on the list within the Misuse of Drugs Act. Falkadeine is a very common ingredient in over the counter pharmacy cough mixtures, but a positive test would see a member before the Privileges Committee and the subsequent to parliament.
There are many other examples of medicines that are included in Schedule 2 of the Misuse of Drugs Act that a doctor might have legitimately prescribe: Lomotil or Dyphonoxylate for diarrhoea; strong painkillers for a cancer; hormonal preparations for endometriosis in women; and steroids such as testosterone for testicular dysfunction in males; agents used in anaesthesia - in other words, if you go to hospital and you have some surgical technique and you are randomly tested the day after that, those things would turn up in your bloodstream, in your urine and you would test positive.
There were many, many others. The list goes on and on. Members would then have to explain intimate and confidential medical conditions to the Privileges Committee whose membership includes their political opponents, not to mention the fallout once the information became public.
Such confidential medical information must become public under the member for Drysdale's bill. To quote clause 5 section 4:
-
The Privileges Committee must
investigate the reasons for the presence of a drug and report findings
to the Legislative Assembly.
Madam Speaker, to repeat what I said earlier, the member for Drysdale's bill has a very real potential to embarrass members of this House, and potentially 15 000 Northern Territory public servants through no fault of their own.
As the member for Macdonnell said, yes, we are subject to a greater level of scrutiny than other members of the community, but surely we should have the privacy, if we do have sensitive medical conditions, if we have been into hospital for surgery, if we are taking hormonal preparations for whatever reasons under medical supervision, all of that sort of thing would become public in this House, and I do not think that is a good thing.
This is even apart from the well documented cases of false positives in urine testing - between 3% and 8% dependent on the specific urine test. These false positives include opiates mistaken from poppy seeds on bread or bagel, that is quite a common one when you look through the literature. Uritadine, which is a drug used in ulcer treatment, which is quite mistaken for amphetamines in urine testing and many, many others. There is also the issue of what is known as innocent positives, through the inadvertent exposure of an individual or adulteration of samples. This sort of thing has been documented within the sporting world.
A lot has been talked about the screening and screening tests, I suppose I am someone in this House who has analysed for drugs and metabolites in urine in blood, and let me tell you, that there are 220 substances in here, and some of them are very complex substances within the schedule of the Misuse of Drugs Act. Some of those analyses would be very complex, indeed. We are not just talking about a common test battery, say, that the police or the hospital does of opiates, cannabis, amphetamines or whatever, we are talking about a whole range of 220 substances, one of which, I might add, is bufotanin, the venomous toxin from the bufo marinus, the cane toad, so that is a fairly complex alcoloid bufotanis, but it is in the schedule.
A member: well you have got to stop snorting it mate. You are starting to look like one. Or you are chewing the skin are you or smoking it.
Dr BURNS: I made the point there. It is unworkable on operational levels for all sorts of reasons. It does away with the presumption of innocence, which is a basic land mark corner stone of our justice system. It has all sorts of technical difficulties as well as privacy issues.
No doubt, the member for Drysdale will attempt to deny reality. The reality being that this bill is unnecessary, unworkable and fatally flawed. In his wrapping up, he will probably say, well anyone who rejects this bill, the government rejects this bill as something to hide and that is that. We also have the Leader of the Opposition going along this track, and he offered the bizarre simile of searching schoolchildren's bags as the basis for the implementation of the CLP policy of random drug testing. Here he is, once again, on Pete and Lisa, Pete and Lisa are an absolute mine field. They are talking about this issue on Thursday 27 November 2003, and basically he is talking about random drug testing and all the rest of it and he says: 'Look, as a former school principal, when I would occasionally need to inspect student's bags, the only ones who would be a little bit troubled about that were those who had something in their bag they might have been worried about'. So if there is any sort of opposition to this, or feathers get ruffled, I would also think that suspicion would also warrant closure scrutiny.
But the issue here is really setting a community standard. So here is the spectre of the Leader of the Opposition going through the school kid's bags – pity help them if they got a bit of parsley on the egg sandwich - it is all about guilt. Well, if you do not like it you have got something to hide. Well, I do not like it and I do not think I have got anything to hide. I do not want to live in a big brother state, with a big brother mentality. Our forefathers went to war against that sort of thing and that is why I oppose it.
On this whole thing of imputation of guilt or accusation, if you like, or implicit accusation, as the Leader of Government Business said, there is a challenge for the member for Drysdale: put up or shut up. As the police minister said in his press release at the time:
-
If the CLP has concerns or
evidence that any parliamentarians are using illicit drugs, then I urge
them to report this activity to the police so it may be dealt with.
Madam Speaker, there are lots of arguments about this. I would just like to tender this cartoon here. It is a Patrick Cook cartoon and is captioned here: 'Mr Speaker, is the honourable member half full or half empty?' The arguments put forward on this thing by the opposition is political grandstanding; they are empty arguments. This bill is unnecessary, unworkable and fatally flawed. It is based on political grandstanding and I am not supporting it, and I know the government is not supporting it.
Madam SPEAKER: I think I need a codeine after that.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Yes, he sells them. Madam Speaker, there is a whole series of ignorance being paraded here. I really do not know where to start, but I should start with the first speaker, the police minister who, obviously, has not read the second reading speech. For starters, he talks about politicians being the first, and who will follow next, the public service? Then he cites various other instances, such as the oil and gas and Defence. We are definitely not the first. This is not some thing where the politicians are right out the front. There are many members of our society who are tested, and I said that in the second reading speech.
The second thing he talked about was blood tests. While we have put in there that the tests may include saliva, urine and blood testing, I did mention in the second reading speech that there are very simple kits that are available now that are merely saliva tests, and very unobtrusive and very easy to use.
The other thing he talked about was the cost, $60 000. This is remarkable. He has a thing from the police - a report which he has been unable to table here, saying it is going to cost us $60 000. If that were true - let us assume it is true ...
Mr Henderson: Why would the police lie?
Mr DUNHAM: No, I am assuming it is true. If it costs us $2400 or something for each member of this House, how do you reckon Bechtel are going out there? They have put on 1100 staff, mate. That is about $2.5m in drug testing. Is that what you are telling me they are testing? It is a ludicrous proposition and you know it is, and you know it is because there are some very simple tests that do not cost that amount of money. If you believe it is that expensive, go and talk to the Army, to Bechtel, to sporting groups, because they use them now and they are much, much cheaper than that. You obviously did not read it.
The member for Macdonnell raised a very good point about us requiring members' registers and whatever. Like him, I do not object to it. Given that the government read them frequently, they will know that one of the reasons I do not object to it is I am not a holder of vast reserves of wealth. However, it is an intrusion of privacy, and something that the last speaker, the member for Johnston, found terribly offensive - this business about people stickybeaking into your affairs. Well, should people know how much your wife has in the bank account? Should they know her property holdings? I would say that some of that privacy we forgo when we come into this place. We forgo it, maybe by a declaration of this type, which is not being asked of the community in general, but could well be asked of us. That is an interesting proposition.
The member for Nelson's pledge - or whatever he calls this thing - is a good idea, and I hope that it is circulated and that every member signs it. I do not see it as, necessarily, an argument against this. I see it as ancillary to it. Some of the behaviours and some of the things we do in this place as leaders spill into the wider community, and there is a call that the bar for us is higher. This is another foolish notion of the police minister, where he thought we were lowering the bar when, in fact, we are asking for a standard in here that is higher than for many in the general community.
Regarding the vast contribution by the member for Johnston, I am absolutely astounded that he has this idea that this is about workplace safety. If he talks about illicit drugs killing 2% in the workplace, well, I do not think this workplace has ever had a fatality. It is more than that. I used to like to watch Ben Johnson run. I thought he was a great runner. I used to absolutely adore the way he would run down the hundred metres. But he was a cheat. In his community, in his circle of friends, what he did was highly offensive to them. There was a bar that was set for him that was much higher than just for somebody who was running around the paddock at Little Athletics. If you are just going to look at this as we might do something here that endangers the health of somebody or the public, it is a bit foolish. The main reason we are doing it is because we have decided things certain things are illicit. So it is an issue of hypocrisy. The issue is if you say this parliament finds littering offensive, you should not litter. If it says that there are fines for various things that we believe as a parliament applied to all of society, we should adhere to that.
The origin of idea that if you have some idea there is some collusion with Mr Tollner, I can assure you that that is not the case. The people who came to me came from defence, and they came out of oil and gas. Their basic argument was there was an issue of vast hypocrisy for this parliament to make the laws and not adhere by them. They saw it not as an issue of somehow one of us tripping over somebody else here while you are spaced out on some sort of drug and taking their life through that accident. They saw it as an issue of this parliament making laws for the benefit of people and those of us that sit here in this high moral judgment abiding by those laws. That is how they saw it. I have to say I am attracted to that proposition myself.
This whole argument that these people out there said, 'Well, it is only 2% and alcohol is 4%, well, who cares?' It is really not so much about workplace safety, I would suggest. He is also saying fatigue is a big culprit. Well, big deal. The fact is we are not after some sort of a workplace safety audit. We are after this House adhering to the very standards we set for the rest of the community.
The business about the presumption of innocence is a good one. One wonders why this government has random breath tests. Because random breath tests pull up everybody. They pull up grandmas, old people, young people, males and females, Aboriginal people, and they make the assumption that if they test a certain amount of the society, some people will have a level of intoxication.
Mr Henderson: So they will introduce random drug testing as well.
Mr DUNHAM: No, no, listen to the argument. So if this argument holds true that you cannot test somebody because it is actually an intrusion on their civil liberties, why do we have random breath testing at all? It is exactly the same proposition. What you are doing is saying is that in this society there is a proposition that there is a certain amount of people will be driving while intoxicated and we can extrapolate that with a test and sometimes we can find that that proposition holds true, that is, we catch people driving when they are drunk.
Now, the whole notion that if I see somebody out there consuming illicit drugs I will go and tell the coppers and that is how you fix it up because that is the only way. Well, that is a little bit foolhardy too because the same proposition would apply to RBTs. You would say if you saw a person drink that much beer you worked out on your little calculator given your drugs and alcohol, you saw them get in and start a car, then you should call the police that is probably true. But I can assure you that that tactic would not get half as money people as RBT.
We get to the vexed issue of statistics and the scientists amongst us, the member for Johnston, had some great difficulty with my extrapolation of saying that in a report up to 20% of adults in society it has been suggested they have used illicit drugs in the last year. It could be that we are representative of society. That is what I was saying. It could well be that the 20% could well be replicated here. I am not saying it is or it is not. It could be over or it could be under. Maybe we are not represented. I still think it is a reasonable extrapolation to make. The extrapolation had problems because where he says, 'I have a bill here about random drug testing of politicians and that means the public servants.' So he has extrapolated from 25 to 16 000 public servants, and he accuses me of having some quick and dirty scientific methodology.
That is the most bizarre thing I have heard in my life. We are not talking about public servants in the same way as we are here. We are not talking about going to the Committee of Privileges because it is inappropriate for them. We are not talking about divulging their assets on an Asset Register; we are not talking about them making the laws to which they should then adhere. This is specifically an issue about us 25.
If he wants to start a little scary thing out there saying: 'Dunham is going to come and get you if you vote for the CLP; you will all be drug tested', that is stupid, absolutely trite and stupid. It is also attributing unbecoming motives to me, I should add, along with various allegations that this is entirely political. If this is a political stunt, drug matters are not an issue of importance for us. They are. They are an issue of importance, and we have talked about them long and hard in here.
If we can't at least say our own behaviour should be above reproach, some of the debate has been empty rhetoric. We have to get to the stage where we say it is so important that we believe that we can demonstrate to the community that there are issues that we will take on that demonstrate absolutely that we are adhering to our own laws.
On that same note, I was a bit surprised that the Leader of Government Business took umbrage at the fact that Parliamentary Counsel was used to draft this bill. I am surprised at that.
Members interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: Before your arrogance kicks in too much, this is the people's House. The people who come in here are called politicians, and they represent the people. I have absolutely no shame at all about representing the people of my electorate on this issue or seeking to have a bill drafted that I think will strike a chord with many in society – maybe not with others, but I think many people in society would see that as good law. I have absolutely no problem about going to the offices of this parliament that have been set aside to provide such a service.
If you want to talk to me about improper use of Parliamentary Counsel, you should probably look at your own pool fencing laws. There must have been an exhaustive amount of work to get pool fencing #1 up. That was amended on the floor of the parliament, I might add. Pool fencing #2 is just as messy and, I suggest, we will see it again. So don't give us this: 'We're in government; we make laws. No one else should have the temerity to make a law and, anyway, I think you have some little, slippery motive'.
That sort of arrogance is: 'We're the government, we'll govern; you just listen'. What I am saying to you is: you listen, because this is the voice of the people speaking, and they are speaking through me. They are speaking through me because I have been elected to this place to make laws and I am suggesting that this is a good law.
If we have the long and sorry story about the member for Johnston who is worried that he might be supervised or scrutineered having a pee, and he's worried about it, we have Oraline saliva drug screen for cannabinoids, cocaine, methamphetamines and opiates. Fifty bucks. Basically, it is a saliva drug screen. I am quite happy to take this in front of cameras, in front of the media at any time. Any, any time.
Now, if you want to run scare stories that all the old ladies in the public service will be scrutinised having a pee in a pot and the CLP are going to do this to you – it's actually nonsense. It is nonsense. There is the device, Mr Scientist, and you should have looked this up on the web.
Dr Burns interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: There is a even a little picture here: place the test in the mouth to collect saliva samples.
Members interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: Read the results after 15 minutes. There is a little chart on the back and …
Dr Burns: We can only judge it on what you put before us.
Mr DUNHAM: Okay, let's go there later, but at the moment, what I am saying is that there is a very simple, unobtrusive $50 test that the Clerk is quite capable of taking – he doesn't have to wear his plastic gloves; we don't have to get the three doctors and the lawyer here; we don't have to have all the cameras in the toilets. That is all scare stuff.
You, Mr Pharmacist, should know this. You should know that people like BechTel and the Defence Forces would not be spending the sort of money that you're talking about, a couple of grand a head! There is no way they would be spending that. If your policy gets to them, which, I might add, is much worse than this policy, and that is there should be no drug testing in the work place, that it is an offence …
Dr Burns: No, I didn't say that.
Mr DUNHAM: Well, what about a clerk in the Army? He's not going to kill anyone. He doesn't have a gun. What you are saying is there should be no drug testing unless you are going to do something dangerous, unless you're driving around in a tank or lifting a crane or something. It is an intrusion on people's civil liberties and, anyway, the literature says that it doesn't do any good.
That is a very poor message to be sending to employers and employees myself.
So there you go, advanced saliva drugs test. It is pretty simple. The boss will tell you it is safe and clean, easy to administer, accurate result in 15 minutes. Now, I do not mind taking this test and, in fact, I will probably do it myself. But it is the sort of things that that pledge does. The difference between that and the pledge is that anybody can sign a bit of paper saying. 'I never had sexual relations with that woman'. Now, scientifically, that was found out to be a lie, right? So what we have here is the words that come of the mouth of politicians and the science. I do not have any problem with that test. I would be very surprised if anybody in this parliament fails. It is not some sort of a little trap. People came up to me at the Christmas party and said, 'who is it, who are you trying to trap'. And I said, well, hopefully, no-one. I would hope that all of us would stand up in this parliament and say we are against drugs and that is, in fact, the case.
A member interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: Well, okay, do you want to talk about licit drugs, because we can talk about licit drugs as well. However, what I am talking about is the things that this parliament has said are offensive. So let us start with that. Things we said are illegal and wrong, and should be able to be referred to the police for appropriate investigation, prosecution, incarceration, whatever. What I am saying to you is, if we can say that in this parliament, we should adhere to it.
There are number of wondrous things also said by a former pharmacist that are just out in the space area somewhere. The reason the Misuse of Drugs Act was called up, and I did say this in the second-reading, was that we wanted to use the same statures that are available now. The Misuse of Drugs Act is available for people who use illicit drugs, and licit drugs, illicitly. So, people who use drugs they can get over the counter for some nefarious purpose. So that is why it was called up. It would be foolish to suggest that we have to test every member for the 220 drugs on it. And neither does Bechtel, the Defence Force, the Olympic Games Selection Committee or anybody else. So do not go running this case that, I am a scientist, and I can tell you, , it cannot be done, it costs too much, and you have all these problem. You, Mr Scientist, must know it is being done, day after day after day, in workplaces here in Darwin. It is a very common thing.
I mentioned also in my second-reading speech that my son is seventeen. He signed a contract saying that he can be randomly drug tested, and he can have his employment terminated if he has illicit drugs on him. Well, this is a kid training to be a ringer. I mean, for God's sake, if he has got to do it I cannot see why we cannot. I cannot see why I cannot say to my son, well, do not worry, we do the same thing in parliament. It is one of those things where society demands we have that level of adherence to the laws that we set.
Now we go to a couple of other little furphies. One is the definition of a drug test includes, may take a blood or urine sample. The reason that is there, and the Parliamentary Counsel will tell you that, is so that it is inclusive. So, if somebody says I do not want to take that, I prefer to take a blood test. It is the same with random breath testing, exactly the same thing. You could say, well I prefer not to do that because I do not think that is definitive, and my preference. So, okay, it allows that test to proceed.
There is no doubt that we would opt for the most effective, cheapest, and best system. And the best system is the $50 oraline saliva drug screen, not the pee in the pot. So if that is what is worrying you, if your great sense of chastity, bashfulness and being a fiend, to prove that you are, is worrying you, don't worry, we do not want to look at it either. I certainly would not want the Clerk to look at it. It is possible to do this and protect your chastity and your worry about people seeing various rude bits of you by using this device.
I am aware that this bill is not going to get passed. I leave the Assembly with a couple of things. We have unfinished business. Okay, you can go out to society and say, it was fatally flawed, it was too expensive, intrusion of civil liberties, all that stuff. But we know, in here, it is a good idea that we abide by the laws that we set out in this place. Now, if there is a problem with this device, just how I have used it, just pick another one, and I do not parade it as the person who thought up the idea.
If we all want to sign the Gerry pledge, let us do it. What is wrong with that? If we are trying to convey to the community that we believe that illicit drug taking is an offensive, illegal behaviour, we have set laws out to try and suppress and, hopefully, get rid of those behaviours and we will abide by them, that is a good message for this parliament to send. Do it by way of motion. You can do it; I do not have to do it. If you are really worried that, somehow, this is political grandstanding on my part, you take the lead; you do it. However, what you leaving here is a void. The void is something that I believe people are going to want us to fill up. They are going to say: 'So how come I am going for a job in the oil and gas industry and I have to have a breath test, and one of your members thinks that is intrusive and an affront to my civil liberties? How come you have random breath testing out there when you make the assumption I am guilty and I have been a teetotaller all my life?'.
Some of the issues that you believe are reasons to dismiss this proposition are actually government policy now. Therefore, you either have to have another look at some of your government policies, find some other way to do this, or here is an undertaking: let us do it by voluntary code of behaviour. Have a voluntary code of behaviour. I will try and attempt to obtain 50 of these, and let us just do it because we think it is a good idea. We do not need a bill.
Mr Baldwin: Put it in the code of conduct.
Mr DUNHAM: Well, that is an interesting proposition too, because the code of conduct, which seems to be a bean-counters attempt to scrutinise the affairs of politicians – that is, how much money you have, where are your shares, stocks, bonds, and property. I did write to the chairman of that committee and they said that this matter will be discussed in this forum here rather than in committee. Well, okay, that is fair enough. I would have liked to have had the considered opinion of that committee, but that is not available to me now. We have stood up here and held our hands over our hearts and said that it is very important people see transparently all our financial dealings. I do not think people are really that worried about that. I believe they are more worried about our behaviours and our ethics and about how we deport ourselves. As the member for Nelson says, maybe that is only judge and that is at election time.
However, there are several ways of doing this. I would suggest if you think tonight that you defeat the bill and that it is all gone away, that you are mistaken and you are misleading yourself. I would suggest that, if you rely on some of the rebuttals that you have provided from the other side, you have significant policy problems in some of your other areas, particularly random breath testing and protecting those industries that are using tests of this type to keep their work force drug free. However, if you want to use that as your rebuttal, feel free. I will leave it there because we have canvassed most of the issues. You will see that, if the contributors from the government had at least read the second reading speech, half of what they said would not have been said because they would have known the answer.
Motion that the bill be read a second time negatived.
