Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Disclaimer: The Parliamentary Library does not warrant the accuracy of closed captions. These are derived automatically from the broadcaster's signal.
Mental health a state duty: Pyne -

View in ParlViewView other Segments

(generated from captions) and the States will be forced into

it. If you want evidence that the

Federal system is broke it was

Federal system is broke it was there this week. It was just each

minister lined up at every level of

government and told us how much

they'd spent on mental health.

Let's bring Christopher Pyne in on

this now. Good morning. Good

morning, Barrie. On reflection, any

words of encouragement for people

sick and tired of buck passing?

Sorry, I didn't hear that question.

Something wrong with my earpiece.

Have you any words of encouragement

for people tired of buck passing?

Well I think the report handed down

this week has been a catalyst for

change and I welcomed that report.

In fact when I became parliamentary

secretary for health I initiated

secretary for health I initiated the Senate inquiry into mental health

and encouraged that and tried to

help them get a decent term of

reference. It's really important

that we do shine a light on state

that we do shine a light on state of mental health in Australia at the

moment. The Commonwealth has a

moment. The Commonwealth has a role and the States have the primary

role. They have the jurisdictional

role and the responsibility for it

and it's very important that we

shine a light on mental health.

So you're accepting some

responsibility for the Federal

Government. Does that mean the

prospect of more money? Well we

prospect of more money? Well we have a national mental health strategy

which is a cooperative arrangement

between the Commonwealth and all

between the Commonwealth and all the States, so the Commonwealth

certainly does have a role. In

terms of more money, money is not

the only issue. The most important

issue is for people to take responsibility for what they're

responsible for and the States are

responsible for mental health. Now

if more money is needed I'm sure that's something that can be

considered down the track. But we

do have a national mental health

strategy we have health care

agreements with the States and the

Commonwealth. It needs to be spent

better and more wisely. Christopher,

changing the subject slightly some

of your colleagues in the Liberal

Party are concerned about the

Party are concerned about the terror laws, what are your views? Well I

think there's no doubt that the

public expects the Commonwealth to

protect them from terrorism, from

the incidents that have occurred in

places like Bali, Madrid, London

places like Bali, Madrid, London and New York. And so any Commonwealth

Government would be Dell

Government would be Dell taxpayerous in its administration if it didn't

do everything possible to prevent a

terrorist attack in Australia.

Karen Middleton said one sensible

thing before when she said this was

all about prevention rather than

about cleaning up afterwards.

Christopher, don't you think one of

the problems here is sunset clause

or not, police powers are very

rarely wound back once they're

established? I think there has been

quite a distraction this week about

the so-called shoot to kill policy.

The prospect of police or

authorities being able to protect

themselves if they think they're

lives are at risk or protect other

people who they think they're lives

are at risk is not a new paradigm

are at risk is not a new paradigm in law enforcement in Australia. It's

a natural reaction to the way

a natural reaction to the way police operate and I don't think these

operate and I don't think these laws go any further than the current

go any further than the current laws that apply. They just make it

that apply. They just make it clear that as far as this particular

package of terrorist legislation

police have the capacity to protect

themselves and to protect others if

they think they're in danger.

On that aspect, but do you think

On that aspect, but do you think the Government might have gone too far

on other aspects of it? Well I

on other aspects of it? Well I think the idea that there isn't scrutiny

of these bills is wrong. One of

of these bills is wrong. One of the key factors in this process is the

backbench committees and since the

Government's maintained a majority

in the Senate, it means that the

backbench committees and backbench

committee chairman are even more

important today than they used to

be, because they have the primary

responsibility to ensuring

legislation is good legislation

before it even gets into the

partyroom and before it gets into

the Parliament. So this

legislation's going through that

normal process and some of my

colleagues in the Senate and the

House of Representatives have been

raising some matters and they're

perfectly entitled to do so as part

of that backbench committee process

and I'm very confident that by the

time the bills get into the House

they'll be in a state where

everybody feels very comfortable

with what the Government is doing.

That's an important process

question, but what about the

content? What do you think of the

preventative detention provisions

that would allow for people not

believed to be directly involved in

a possible terrorist attack being

detained? Well I think in most

preventative detention and in

control orders the key factor is

preference being built into the

system to make sure innocent people

aren't unnecessarily danld by any

kind of preventative detention or

control order. Are they there now

control order. Are they there now in that legislation? Well, there are

protections built into the

legislation. Things like the role

of Federal magistrates in granting

orders and allowing interrogation

orders and allowing interrogation of suspected terrorists and incidents

that might be about to occur.

that might be about to occur. There are protections. There's the

capacity to seek an appeal to

preventative detention order.

There's the facility to see lawyers

from a particular list of people

from a particular list of people who the Government thinks aren't going

to then go off and warn other

terrorists, potential terrorists

that they have been in custody.

We're talking about the protection of the Australian people from

terrorism and while we are in this

state where the Western world is

under enormous pressure from

terrorists these laws are going to

be required. But what's important

about the laws is that there are

protections built into the system

protections built into the system so that our strong anchor of the rule

of law and the rights of

of law and the rights of individuals and civil liberties is not thrown

away and I think the Government's

trying to achieve that balance.

You seem to apply that along the

You seem to apply that along the way through the committee process

changes might be made. George

Brandis says there's a case for expanding safeguards. Would you

agree with him on that? Well I

agree with him on that? Well I think what George has said is eminently

sensible. Safeguards, protections,

they're the things that will make

these laws pa at that timable to

these laws pa at that timable to the Australian public. What the

backbench committee process will go

through is come up with a bill that

the House of Representatives will

the House of Representatives will be happy to adopt and go through the

Senate. That's not to say that the

way the laws are currently

structureside wrong but there are

always capacities to build in more

safeguards and protections, at the

same time as protecting the

Australian people from the threat

Australian people from the threat of terror. Thanks for your time this

morning. Pleasure. It's all pretty

cute though, isn't it? Trust the

backbench committees that are all

off centre stage and the Senate by

the time they're through we've

trusted them and we don't need the

Senate review. One day is far too

short for this. On the other hand

are we seeing more backbench

committee than we are seeing from

the Premiers? The backbench

committees where the Government

controlling both houses now are

basically a de facto Opposition.

basically a de facto Opposition. It puts greater disciplines on the

Government. They've got to get it

right. There's no Senate committee

system that's going to find out the

flaws. There is a system, they're

just not using it. They're

by-passing it. It's interesting

by-passing it. It's interesting also whatever you think of Jon Stan hope,

you get the sneaking suspicion if

that had not happened the Premiers

may not have raised the questions

that are being raced. I do suspect

that some of the debate we're

that some of the debate we're having now wouldn't have been had even

behind closed doors. You see a bit

of a contra digs in the way the

secrecy surrounding this piece of

legislation and yet on the other,

which is at equal status in terms

which is at equal status in terms of where it's at, is spending millions and millions and millions

advertising it . We still haven't

seen the legislation, we still

haven't seen the detail.

haven't seen the detail. Pay-per-view. And per page. The

Government has no choice but to

plough on. The minister said,

plough on. The minister said, "We've spent $15 million. The total will

be in the 30s or 40s, which is $10

million more. Paul Kelly is right,

the system needs reform. What's

happened here is John Howard has

justified these programmes by the

fact that Labor did it for their