ABC Local - Under-age sex laws 'putting NT kids at risk'

[Asguard]

Disclaimer, i am yet to actually find the laws themselves so i am going off what has been reported this morning. I also havent yet checked the NT crimes act in regard to "under aged sex" to see how it (and if) its different from the states and the ACT.

The Australian Medical Association (AMA) is that warning legislative changes in the Northern Territory could have a devastating impact on the health of many Indigenous children.

By Sara Everingham for AM
ABC Local

The Northern Territory Government says its Care and Protection of Children Act is all about keeping kids safe.

But the AMA is warning the act's mandatory reporting requirements go too far and Dr Paul Bauert from the AMA's Northern Territory branch is deeply concerned.

Until now, NT laws were similar to what operates in the other states; it was mandatory to report suspected child sexual abuse.

But now health workers must report sexual activity among under-16s to a team that includes police and staff in the Territory's department of health and families.

Failure to do so could result in a fine of up to around $20,000. And it is not just doctors who will have to report.

"This applies to everybody," Dr Bauert said. "Parents, brothers and sisters, mates."

The legislation has been in place for months but it was only late last week that the Northern Territory Health Department told staff to comply.

They were told to report anyone under 16 who is sexually active, even if that person's sexual partner is also under 16 or of the same age, and regardless of consent.

"Any person who has sexual intercourse with someone under the age of 16 is guilty of a crime and liable to imprisonment for 16 years," Dr Bauert said.

"There's no age defence, so if the person who was having sex with somebody under the age of 16 is 15, that is no defence.

"We are going to have young people not prepared to come seeking help in terms of contraception advice; they won't be coming seeking advice in early pregnancy, if themselves or their partner are likely to be charged with a crime."

Dr Bauert says patients will also think twice before seeking treatment for sexually transmitted infections.

They are particularly prevalent in the territory's Indigenous communities.

"So this too is going to lead to increased morbidity and increased deaths, particularly from disseminated gonococcal infection," Dr Bauert said.


Divided opinion

The Health Department's chief executive, Dr David Ashbridge has defended the move.

"There is no intent to limit medical services," he said.

"The absolute policy intent is to making sure the children who might be harmed are actually looked after by the society."

And the Territory's shadow attorney-general and child protection spokeswoman, Jodeen Carney, says the laws are needed.

"I've received various advice from people that not all doctors at all times report sexual abuse, or evidence of sexual activity," she said.

"The reality is, in any event, that doctors are obliged to report signs of sexual activity in children because it's not for them to undergo an investigation, it's for the police.

"And children 16 years or younger are unable to consent, because the law of the Northern Territory says that they can't."

But Dr Bauert says the old system was working.

"We were having young children confiding they were being abused, or at risk of abuse," he said.

"And proper action or appropriate action was being taken in the majority of cases."

But the old system frustrated crime authorities.

The Australian Crime Commission has been looking into Indigenous child sexual abuse and last year tried to use its powers to access the health records of eight Indigenous girls in the Northern Territory aged between 13 and 15.

They had been fitted with the Implanon contraceptive implant.

Their clinic refused to hand over the records, saying there was no evidence of abuse, and the clinic won the case in the Federal Court.

The Crime Commission would not comment on whether these changes would help its investigations.

The AMA will meet the Government this week to discuss its concerns but individual doctors are taking matters into their own hands.

The AMA has been told some doctors have stopped asking their young patients if they are sexually active.

viewed on 20/03/09 at 08:55

If this is acurate (and concidering the comments reported by the AMA and the chief medical officer for the department of health and the source being the ABC i belive it is) this has to be the single STUPIDIST peice of legislation ever past. Not only is it a violation of indervidual rights and patient autonomy, it will mean a rapid increase in both teenaged pregancy and STD rates. Not to mention it could well mean that real cases of rape (especially by a persons regular partner) are never reported because the teenager is afraid that THEY will be charged as well.

In the other states where i have had any contact with the manditory reporting (WA, SA and vic mainly) the law is that ONLY potentual child ABUSE is required by law to be reported. In victoria the laws relating to sexual activity for teenages between 8-16 show that sex is legal for this aged group as long as the partners are with in 2 years. As far as i know all the other states are the same in either the way they are enforced or (as victoria) specifically legislated. Further more, who is and isnt a manditory reporter is strictly legislated and those who are (pollies, church officals, anyone in health, lawyers, public servants in child contact rolls, school teachers and child care workers, police ect) MUST take a course to learn about what does and what doesnt consitute child abuse. For instance smacking a child under current laws is not child abuse (though i personally disagree), nor is two 12 year olds having sex.

Under these laws EVERYONE is a manditory reporter, INCLUDING parents, siblings ect. Now just put those 2 things together, you walk into your 13 year olds room and find a condom. You know he\she has a girl\boyfriend the same age. You are LEGALLY required to turn your own child over to police to have there sexual activity screwtinized with a view to charging BOTH of them basically for being responcable and using protection and of course ending up on the child sex offender register as well. If you dont and the police find out that is a $20,000

 

[Asguard]

i wonder how a magistrate\judge would feel when presented with 2 13 year olds, there 4 parents and any siblings of the teens and having to give the 4 parents and the siblings fines of 20,000 (so at least 40,000 per family) plus having to sentance the 2 teenages to more time in jail than they have been ALIVE (16 years each) simply because they had sex with eachother and happened to buy a pack of condoms

would love bells opinion on the stupidity of these laws

 

[Bells]

You can view the current statute here. The proposed amendments are currently before Cabinet, so we can only go on what the media is reporting on it.

And from what I understand, it seems to me to be an over-reaction to the spate of child abuse cases, primarily amongst the Indigenous population, where children were being sexually abused, and in some cases, their abusers had taken them to medical clinics to obtain contraception for the abused children. So this is the Northern Territory's reaction to that. Force everyone to report any suspected sexual activity in children, and the law also ensures that if the police need to investigate a case of suspected abuse, where a child has been found to have an STD or be using an IUD, then they can do so without impediment. It gives the police greater powers to investigate cases of suspected abuse.

The article, to me anyway, seems to be a bit of scare mongering from the AMA, possibly to protect their own. There has been a lot of backlash against medical practitioners who have failed to report their suspicion of sexual abuse amongst Indigenous children.

Until we know more of what is being actually proposed, it is hard to say either way.

If what has been reported in the articles you linked is the truth, then I seriously doubt they are going to start jailing teenagers who are having sex. The current proposal, from what I can glean from your article, is to force everyone to a particular standard of reporting and it will grant the police greater powers in accessing the medical records of children who may be sexually abused.

 

[Asguard]

bells a few comments

firstly from what understand there are no proposed changes to the law, just a directive from the health department enforcing it.

secondly i dont like the AMA and im suspicious of what they say. HOWEVER its the comments from the spokes person for the health department and the oposition which have me concerned.

"signs of being sexually active" are not signs of abuse anymore than having a licence is a sign of speeding.

thirdly acording to the artical (i will read your link later) there are no age defences under the NT laws like there are everywhere else

lastly i AM a manditory reporter in SA, mum is in vic and my sister is in perth. im sure you are as well, if it works fine in the other states why is it different because its over the border?

on and on the aborgional v everyone else argument. i dont buy it, if they inforce this only on aborigionals thats racist, if they dont people like my sister in law who have BF's and do the right thing (like get the pill) are going to be locked up and labled "sexual preditors" for what benifit?

this is ignoring the health conquences, the SA gov spends HUGE amounts of money to get under aged teens to use contraceptives because of the risks of teenage pregancy and because they are the highest risk group for STD's. this is suddenly not an issue across the border?

 

[swarm]

If Australia is a English common law country, I don't think you can legally require parents to report their children and generally you can't force minors to report things (they aren't considered responsible witnesses yet, can't enter into contracts, swear under penalty of perjury, etc.).

But way to make America look a sexually mature society.

 

[Tiassa]

Who ... I mean ... yeah, whose idea was this?

Perhaps it's just late and I'm reading past the obvious, but whose idea was this?

 

[Asguard]

i dont know, this morning was the first i herd of it and the report (thats a transcript of it i think) implied it was a done deal. im assumung it came from cabinate but which minister *shrugs* who knows. its possable it came out of either the health or justice departments but i cant see public servants (especially in health where they deal wirh the conquences of stupid policies like this) being that stupid

 

[Bells]

bells a few comments

firstly from what understand there are no proposed changes to the law, just a directive from the health department enforcing it.

They can't issue it as a directive without having the legislation to back them up. For example, under the proposal, the police would have greater powers in accessing the medical records of minors when investigating claims of sexual abuse or to investigate if a minor was engaging in sexual activities. The Act does not go as far as the proposals currently being reviewed by the Government.

secondly i dont like the AMA and im suspicious of what they say. HOWEVER its the comments from the spokes person for the health department and the oposition which have me concerned.

If the article is correct, then it will be a lot broader than it currently is. But from my perspective, it will not be so much as policing and arresting minors who have sex with other minors as it would be allowing the police greater powers in investigating possible sexual abuse of minors. The issue which brought this all to a head stemmed from the fact that the police, have at times been stymied in their investigations of possible sexual abuse of minors by the medical professionals who were prescribing contraception to those minors who were at risk. The refusal to allow them to view medical records is one such issue.

The article to me, seems to be a scare tactic. The panicked response. But if you actually think about it, if the laws are going to be applied as the article states, then the Northern Territory Government is going to have to massively increase its police force to be able to handle and investigate every single claim of sexual activity between minors. They will also have to build more prisons to cope with the sudden influx of minors who are going to be arrested because they are having sex with other minors.

"signs of being sexually active" are not signs of abuse anymore than having a licence is a sign of speeding.

No they are not. But there have been cases where the abuser was taking the abused minor to the doctor to have IUD's inserted and the doctor did not beat an eyelid and was inserting the devices. That is what the current proposals is trying to stop and prevent.

thirdly acording to the artical (i will read your link later) there are no age defences under the NT laws like there are everywhere else

My link is to the current statute as it stands. The proposal is currently being reviewed by Cabinet in the NT. From where I am sitting, all they had to do was to allow the police greater powers when investigating sexual abuse cases. What the article is saying seems like an explosion or panicked reaction if that is indeed what the NT Government is planning on doing.

lastly i AM a manditory reporter in SA, mum is in vic and my sister is in perth. im sure you are as well, if it works fine in the other states why is it different because its over the border?

It doesn't work "fine" at present. Especially in the NT where police are at times prevented from investigating if abuse is taking place. They have in some instances, been held back by the medical profession who are, in my opinion, only interested in saving their own hides.

on and on the aborgional v everyone else argument. i dont buy it, if they inforce this only on aborigionals thats racist, if they dont people like my sister in law who have BF's and do the right thing (like get the pill) are going to be locked up and labled "sexual preditors" for what benifit?

No. This is a reaction to the claims that many in the medical profession were simply prescribing contraception to very young minors, many of whom may have been victims of sexual abuse. Some of them were. Their proposal is for the greater protection of all children, especially Indigenous children who seem to be falling by the wayside when it comes to the medical profession doing their job in reporting suspected abuse.

this is ignoring the health conquences, the SA gov spends HUGE amounts of money to get under aged teens to use contraceptives because of the risks of teenage pregancy and because they are the highest risk group for STD's. this is suddenly not an issue across the border?

It will always be an issue. But I really doubt that minors are going to be arrested across the board for engaging in sexual activities with other minors. The current proposals, in my opinion, seems to be granting the police extra powers in investigating possible sexual abuse of minors. If it is as has been reported, it could very well be too broad. But I honestly doubt it will go to the extreme that the media and the AMA is trying to claim.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Consider this. A girl charges a boy with rape (both under 16). If he loses the case, he goes to jail for (I don't know how long in Australia), but if he wins the case yet the evidence shows they did engage in sexual intercourse: THEY BOTH GO TO JAIL FOR 16 YEARS!

What will that do to reporting rates for rape? The rapist can accurately tell his victim that if she reports the crime; she too may go to jail for 16 years! They should call this the young rapist empowerment act.

 

[Asguard]

bells if we take your view point it seems that further education and enforcement of the current system rather than changing it would be more intelligent. after all if they are currently refusing to report why would they after the changes?

bells im sorry but this feels like its along the same lines as tony abbot's proposal to make the morning after pill perscription only because he was "shocked that children as young as 13 were accessing it".

as mad said it could well be used to prevent reports of rape and abuse not just in situations such as he said but also in situations where the abuser knows the teen (male or female) has a BF\GF and uses the threat of them going to jail to blackmail silence or even to coherse the teen to go along with the rape.

lastly how are these changes going to actually force doctors to do more than they do now? if they want to get around it they just keep giving sample packs of the pill and dont write it into the pt notes. illegal? yes unethical? depends pt autonomy and confidentuality are VERY important in sexual health no matter what age the pt is

 

[Asguard]

btw bells im actually yet to see any university grade evidence that sexual abuse is any more prevalent in the NT. i mean real evidence not conjecture. my own university doesnt seem to agree that it is, infact across the board sexual abuse against aborigionals was shown as something like half or less the general pop ajusted for population size (from the stats given from the department of criminology in the fed gov)

the sections where it was higher were rates of PHYSICAL DOMESITIC VIOLANCE against ADULTS and i think rates of neglect. the whole thing is a political sham as far as i can see

 

[Bells]

Consider this. A girl charges a boy with rape (both under 16). If he loses the case, he goes to jail for (I don't know how long in Australia), but if he wins the case yet the evidence shows they did engage in sexual intercourse: THEY BOTH GO TO JAIL FOR 16 YEARS!

What will that do to reporting rates for rape? The rapist can accurately tell his victim that if she reports the crime; she too may go to jail for 16 years! They should call this the young rapist empowerment act.

That's the thing, isn't it? It does seem overblown and dangerous if the article is correct. That is why I am a bit dubious about it.

bells if we take your view point it seems that further education and enforcement of the current system rather than changing it would be more intelligent. after all if they are currently refusing to report why would they after the changes?

It's not just the reporting that was the issue. The problem arose when the police investigated a few cases and were hindered in their investigation by doctors claiming patient confidentiality.

It would be easier to change, just by increasing police powers. Hence why I said it seemed like an over reaction to public pressure and anger.

bells im sorry but this feels like its along the same lines as tony abbot's proposal to make the morning after pill perscription only because he was "shocked that children as young as 13 were accessing it".

It is shocking that children as young as 13 are accessing it. But this is nothing like that. What the article seems to be proposing is increasing police powers and ensuring that everyone can report, in a bid to combat sexual abuse of minors. The problem arises because it can be so broadly interpreted and there are many gaps where anything and everything could happen.

as mad said it could well be used to prevent reports of rape and abuse not just in situations such as he said but also in situations where the abuser knows the teen (male or female) has a BF\GF and uses the threat of them going to jail to blackmail silence or even to coherse the teen to go along with the rape.

Yes. I am not disagreeing with you. But this stems from the issue of medical professionals turning a blind eye to small children being diagnosed with STD's and not reporting that the small children could be victims of sexual abuse. I'm sorry, but if an 8 year old goes to a doctor with an STD, questions do need to be asked. They weren't asking the questions, they went so far as to provide IUD's for some of these children.

lastly how are these changes going to actually force doctors to do more than they do now? if they want to get around it they just keep giving sample packs of the pill and dont write it into the pt notes. illegal? yes unethical? depends pt autonomy and confidentuality are VERY important in sexual health no matter what age the pt is

It won't force them. It will, however, give doctors who are failing in their duties to consider that if they are caught, they can face a hefty fine.

btw bells im actually yet to see any university grade evidence that sexual abuse is any more prevalent in the NT. i mean real evidence not conjecture. my own university doesnt seem to agree that it is, infact across the board sexual abuse against aborigionals was shown as something like half or less the general pop ajusted for population size (from the stats given from the department of criminology in the fed gov)

It is quite prevalent because of the size of the population of Aboriginals is so small compared to non-Indigenous Australians. The report completed in 2007 showed that the problem was prevalent and had reached a proportion that demanded immediate action and attention.

the sections where it was higher were rates of PHYSICAL DOMESITIC VIOLANCE against ADULTS and i think rates of neglect. the whole thing is a political sham as far as i can see

I disagree. I think child sexual abuse is a problem that should always be addressed and the NT Government is trying to address it the best way they can.

That said, I do recognise that if the media report you cited is true, then it is an over-reaction. But time will tell whether this proposal does become a reality.

 

[Asguard]

firstly and just for your info (if you want to debate it im willing in another thread but it will take me a little while to dig up the stats) the figures were ajusted for population size. they were per 1000 aborigionals and per 1000 pop. expressed that way there shouldnt be bias. oh and BTW which is really worse 13 year olds using the morning after pill or 13 year olds giving birth?

anyway on topic firstly you and i both know thst unless the laws on concent are significantly different to every other juristiction there is no way an 8 year old could concent to treatment. i dont know anyone who would accept a pt under AT LEAST 13 as being autonomous and the teen has to prove that. that can be challanged in the eqivalent of the guardianship board.

if a doctor is treating kids that young for STD's i agree its a sign of abuse and i would report it. if doctors are treating them without consent why havent they been charged with that?

however once we start talking about 13-16 year olds i would want more than the girl asking for the pill before i would report it. its not just the direct investigation but also the attitudes of parents ect your exposing them to and for what? because they did the right thing and got protection? no way there is a reason pt records are confidentual

just as a side issue, (ignore the age thing because this is for any age) why are they using IUD's at all? they should be banned, they have WAY to many adverse effects when compared to the oral and sub cut contraceptives

 

[Bells]

firstly and just for your info (if you want to debate it im willing in another thread but it will take me a little while to dig up the stats) the figures were ajusted for population size. they were per 1000 aborigionals and per 1000 pop. expressed that way there shouldnt be bias. oh and BTW which is really worse 13 year olds using the morning after pill or 13 year olds giving birth?

The figures and the rate in the reports showed that it was a huge problem that demanded immediate attention.

As for a 13 year old using the morning after pill. I would be concerned about said 13 year old having sex and with whom. But that's just me. Probably makes me a prude.

anyway on topic firstly you and i both know thst unless the laws on concent are significantly different to every other juristiction there is no way an 8 year old could concent to treatment. i dont know anyone who would accept a pt under AT LEAST 13 as being autonomous and the teen has to prove that. that can be challanged in the eqivalent of the guardianship board.

You'd think so. But very young girls were receiving treatment for STD's and being prescribed contraception and no questions were asked by the doctors and medical staff treating them. It is a huge discrepancy, because we know full well that outside of the Aboriginal communities, the doctors would immediately file a report. I have heard of cases where uncles and other male relatives were abusing the children and taking them to the doctors for treatment and for the morning after pill, and no questions were ever asked. In light of that, something did need to be done.

if a doctor is treating kids that young for STD's i agree its a sign of abuse and i would report it. if doctors are treating them without consent why havent they been charged with that?

That is a question you need to ask the prosecutors in the Northern Territory. It's not just a matter of consent. If the child is accompanied by an adult relative, then they can and do lie to have the child treated for STD's and for contraception. As your own report in the OP states, the police had in the past, been stymied in their investigations into why children so young were using IUD's and how they came to be prescribed such birth control methods and those who stopped them from accessing the children's medical records were the medical staff themselves in a bid to save their own backside.

however once we start talking about 13-16 year olds i would want more than the girl asking for the pill before i would report it. its not just the direct investigation but also the attitudes of parents ect your exposing them to and for what? because they did the right thing and got protection? no way there is a reason pt records are confidentual

The pill is not protection though. It only prevents pregnancy. It provides zero protection against STD's. So no, getting the pill is not doing the 'right thing'. Patient records should be confidential. But if you are a doctor and you have prescribed a girl with contraception and/or have inserted an IUD into the girl and it's discovered the girl had been sexually abused and that is the reason she sought protection, then I'm sorry, but the police should be granted full access to that child's medical records.

just as a side issue, (ignore the age thing because this is for any age) why are they using IUD's at all? they should be banned, they have WAY to many adverse effects when compared to the oral and sub cut contraceptives

You'd think so, wouldn't you? Why would you prescribe an IUD for a 13 year old girl? Why do you think the police want more powers? Now add that to why the law may be changed? Delve a little bit deeper into why many feel this is a necessary change? Yes, there are problems with the proposal, but the reasoning behind it is sound when one considers that children are being prescribed IUD's and contraception methods that are unsafe, that children are being treated for STD's and no questions are being asked as to how that child came to contract the STD. It is an overblown reaction. It didn't need to go that far. But it did need to change. Just not that much.

 

[Asguard]

um bells that last bit had nothing to do with abuse. if YOU went to your doctor and were perscibed an IUD rather than an oral\sub cut contraceptive i would have the same question. they are an outdated, dangerious and useless device and the protcals for perscribing them should have been withdrawn. i dont know why the TGA still endorses them. in regard to your comment on the pill v condoms it depends. yes the pill doesnt protect from STD's but lots of girls use both and if pregnancy is your only concern (one regular sexual partner) its a compleatly valid choice. it comes down to whats right for the inderviduals involved be them 15 or 50

there is also the point that the pill is not just perscribed for contraception. its a treatment for the symptoms of polly cystic overian syndrome as well, but im wandering away from the point.

if this wasnt politically motivated there sre better ways to draft the legislation. the issue is that the sexual privacy of teens have never been high on the adjender of many people outside health. alot of parents share the views which have been expressed on this site prevously about their "rights" over their adolessants. further more it panders to fundimentilist christan groups who want to see contraption banned. lastly adolessants cant vote so they can be used as a scapegoat without fear if losing office.

do you rember the stupidity over female genital mutilation laws and the moron from the libs who was asked about adults who CHOSE to get genitle percings and responded "ive never herd of that, i wouldnt encourage it"

if these laws past as suggested i would be very surprised to see them ammended when there problems showed up.

i do know that stupid bills get written by acident, adding withdrawl of treatment to a VE bill was one of the most stupid things i have ever seen. yet if we pander to the "think of the children" crowd without assessing the real impact of laws like this we will cause even greatter problems. i dont have the stats on adolessant sexuality ATM but imagin if over night that whole section switched to glad wrap and the so called withdrawl method. the group who can least finantially shrug off an acidental pregnancy. not to mention the long term disadvantage that comes with teen pregnacy

 

[Bells]

um bells that last bit had nothing to do with abuse. if YOU went to your doctor and were perscibed an IUD rather than an oral\sub cut contraceptive i would have the same question. they are an outdated, dangerious and useless device and the protcals for perscribing them should have been withdrawn. i dont know why the TGA still endorses them. in regard to your comment on the pill v condoms it depends. yes the pill doesnt protect from STD's but lots of girls use both and if pregnancy is your only concern (one regular sexual partner) its a compleatly valid choice. it comes down to whats right for the inderviduals involved be them 15 or 50

You're not getting my point. 13 year old girls should not be prescribed IUD's. Doctors should be asking questions to young children going to the doctors with STD's and they should report it. They should also be asking questions about the sexual practices of children that young, to ensure that they are not being abused. There are telltale signs and they need to be on the look out for it, instead of just writing prescriptions and sending them away, ignoring their duty towards their patient.

there is also the point that the pill is not just perscribed for contraception. its a treatment for the symptoms of polly cystic overian syndrome as well, but im wandering away from the point.

Yes.

Which is diagnosed after tests.

if this wasnt politically motivated there sre better ways to draft the legislation. the issue is that the sexual privacy of teens have never been high on the adjender of many people outside health. alot of parents share the views which have been expressed on this site prevously about their "rights" over their adolessants. further more it panders to fundimentilist christan groups who want to see contraption banned. lastly adolessants cant vote so they can be used as a scapegoat without fear if losing office.

Sexual privacy ends when there is a risk that the child is being abused. When doctors fail to respond to indicators of that abuse, then they fail at their profession. When medical practitioners are withholding medical records of children who they prescribed IUD's for during investigations of sexual abuse, citing patient privilege, then they fail at their profession.

You are reading an article that has not been confirmed and appears to be ridiculously over the top and you are accepting it as fact. The proposals are still in cabinet and experts from both sides are still to weigh in on the discussion with the Northern Territory's Government. Don't jump when there is little reason to jump as yet.

Yes, it is an over-reaction. What needs to happen now is a paring down to make the legislation viable and acceptable, to ensure the privacy of teenagers who engage in consensual sex with other teenagers, but also forcing medical practitioners and others to report any sign or suspicion of sexual abuse and to give the police the necessary powers to investigate possible abuse. The article to me seems to be an attempt to bring fear into the community. That is not needed at present. What is needed is a policy and legislation that works, because at the moment, it is not working as it should be.

yet if we pander to the "think of the children" crowd without assessing the real impact of laws like this we will cause even greatter problems.

But we do need to think of the children. We need to be able to provide them with the help and protection they need against sexual predators and we also need to be able to allow them to access contraception if they are engaging in consensual sex with other teenagers. The balance is difficult. If, and it is a big 'if', the proposal as stated in the article goes ahead, then it will result in severe issues. The NT's police would not be able to cope with the influx of reports of sexual activities between minors. So it does need to be tweaked so that it is not so over-blown and open to the varying scenarios it is currently open to.

i dont have the stats on adolessant sexuality ATM but imagin if over night that whole section switched to glad wrap and the so called withdrawl method. the group who can least finantially shrug off an acidental pregnancy. not to mention the long term disadvantage that comes with teen pregnacy

And you are responding to an overblown report with an overblown scenario of your own. Wait until the final report and policy is released before jumping. Both sides have yet to weigh into the debate. What we are seeing at present is scare mongering from both sides.

 

[Asguard]

bells its looking more and more likly that im right about this.

if this link doesnt work search ABC, NT, teen, condoms and the normal version should show uo

http://m.abc.net.au/browse?page=11144&articleid=2548622&cat=NT&extra=regional&title=Condom controversy hits NT teens...&SID=75adc0403b67fed4f29b191d7d70ec77

 

[Randwolf]

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explore the proposed bill(s), but from the context of the postings here I am getting mixed signals. Bells, are you proposing that sex between a 14 year old and a 13 year old (for example) constitutes abuse? If so, are you proposing that the practice be banned with potential incarceration as a punishment?

Conversely, Asguard, are you saying that sex between a 30 something "uncle" and a 13 year old girl is not sexual abuse? What measures do you feel would be appropriate to curtail this behavior, which, I again gather from the contexts, is somewhat widespread?

Please forgive the perchance inanity of these questions, as I said, I am late to the thread and guilty of laziness in not doing more thorough research. I am, however, interested in responses from both of you. (as well as others', of course)

 

[Asguard]

of course not. it SHOULD be and IS a procutable offencd. what we sre discusing is not wether there should be CONCENT laws but rather how manditory reporting laws are designed and implimented and what that actually means for the health of those who those laws are trying to protect.

ATM and in the other states the law says that the manditor reporters are required to report IF THEY SUSPECT ABUSE. the changes to this in the NT will remove a) the limits to who is and isn't leagally required to report SUSPECTED abuse (which can be as simple as a bruise or broken arm rember ATM its up to the hospital and other services to work out if this could be a sign of abuse or not)

b) it makes ANY sign of sexual activity the subject of a police investigation.

now lets say a 15 year old muslim girl bought condoms or asked for the pill. the doctor ect reports it breaching an expected level of confidentuality even though he knows her partner is 14. the police launch a full investigation. the girls family finds out and they are both killed in an "honor killing" all because her medical confidentuality was breached. good outcome? this could well have happend to 2 friends of my sisters who both had BF's against there families wishes

 

[Bells]

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explore the proposed bill(s), but from the context of the postings here I am getting mixed signals. Bells, are you proposing that sex between a 14 year old and a 13 year old (for example) constitutes abuse? If so, are you proposing that the practice be banned with potential incarceration as a punishment?

Err no I am not actually. Read my posts again. Carefully.