2013-06-27
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 2 pm.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I bring to your attention that this session is the last session for Mr Ian McNeill, Clerk of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. We will say other appropriate words at the dinner tomorrow evening. Members will talk with Mr Clerk at a later stage to wish him all the best in what he does in the future.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: On his last day we expect everyone to be exceptionally well behaved.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Mrs Kit McNeill, Ian’s wife, and his sister and brother-in-law, Jan and John Roker. Welcome to Parliament House to this last session of your dearly beloved husband, brother, and friend.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I offer my compliments to Mr Clerk and wish him the very best for the rest of the day in here at least. I am sure we will have more to say tomorrow night.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the routine of business for today, Thursday 27 June 2013 be as follows:
1. Prayers
2. Messages
3. Notices
4. Petitions
5. Papers
6. Government Business
7. Orders of the Day
8. Adjournment.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received Message No 9 from Her Honour the Administrator notifying assent to bills passed at the May sitting. The message is dated 24 June 2013.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Member for Daly
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that leave of absence for today be granted to the member for Daly on account of his conducting business on behalf of the parliament.
Leave granted.
PETITIONS
Alice Springs Police Call Centre
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 2367 petitioners praying that the police call centre be returned to Alice Springs. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders.
Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 296 petitioners praying that the Minister for Senior Territorians represents all seniors in all matters relevant to seniors. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders.
Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 327 petitioners praying that the seniors’ bus concession be reinstated. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders.
Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 381 petitioners praying there be an annual percentage increase on all seniors concession and rebates, rather than the current fixed amount. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirement of standing orders.
Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 332 petitioners praying that the proposed changes to interstate and overseas travel concessions be reversed. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders.
Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
The CLERK: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform honourable members that responses to petitions nos 10 and 14 have been received and circulated to honourable members. The text of the responses will be placed on the Legislative Assembly website. A copy of the responses will be provided to the member who tabled the petition for distribution to petitioners.
TABLED PAPER
Interstate Travel Reports – Members for Arnhem, Casuarina, Drysdale, Blain and Stuart
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, the gun went off a little too quickly there, member for Drysdale, in regard to papers being presented.
I table interstate travel reports from the members for Arnhem, Casuarina, Drysdale, Blain and Stuart pursuant to clause 4.12 of Remuneration Tribunal Determination No 1 of 2012
Continued from 15 May 2013.
In committee:
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: I call on the Chair of the Estimates Committee.
Ms FINOCCHIARO: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table the reports of the Estimates Committee and the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee on their consideration of the estimates and proposed expenditure contained in the schedule of the Appropriation Bill 2013-14. These are the final reports of the 2013-14 Estimates Committee and Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee.
Each report outlines the key areas of interest or concern reflected in the lines of questioning that became evident as the hearings progressed.
The questions taken on notice will be tabled with the Speaker on 12 July. Answers to questions on notice must be with the committee secretariat by 11 July. I note these deadlines are those set by the Assembly.
I understand government agencies are working to a tighter deadline, and answers will go on the Assembly’s website as they are received.
I now turn to the process of the Estimates Committee public hearings for 2013-14. This year saw a number of changes to the estimates process. The Leader of Government Business proposed a number of changes which were largely accepted by the Public Accounts Committee. All changes were predicated on improving the system by lessening the burden on public servants to prepare material not required by the committee; by increasing the time available for members to questions ministers; by removing the arbitrary allocation of time to portfolio areas and output areas to allow the committee to focus on those areas of higher priority to it, the committee was able to schedule the time ministers were to be available; by ensuring that sufficient time was available to exhaust the questions posed by the committee members; by allowing all members to questions ministers with the shadow spokesman having the priority; by protecting public servants from political attack and avoiding circumstances where public servants were compromised by questions of a political nature; and ministers were the focus of the questions.
The government acceded to the requests of the Public Accounts Committee with one exception, which was that the committee had sought to allow additional members and opposition members to outnumber the government members. In all other matters, the government and the Public Accounts Committee were in accord.
In order to facilitate and expedite the gathering of data of interest to the committee, the government sought to have questions provided in advance. Sixty-nine questions were received from the opposition and none from the Independent member. In the main, the 69 questions merely identified swathes of data from when the opposition indicated questions would be sourced. They were not questions in the normally accepted definition of the word. These data sets were variously extremely large and beyond the requirements of the committee; difficult to retrieve and wasteful of government resources; and not related to the budget. They described data not available to the present government but, nevertheless, the government provided a significant body of data in response.
The number of hours of the hearings was not limited by the Assembly. The number of participating members was reduced from seven to six. Also, ministers chose to limit the number of officials to support them in giving evidence with a view to answering more questions themselves, which was the case.
I will briefly reflect on how each of these changes operated and will highlight issues for future consideration. In establishing the committee, as I previously stated, the Assembly allowed for written notice to be provided for questions which were to be answered during the hearings. Questions received, totalling 69, can be broken down into 38 whole-of-government questions and a further 31 questions relating to specific ministerial portfolio areas.
This process did not limit the questions that could be asked without notice, but enabled targeted preparation of answers.
There was a view in the committee, as espoused from the outset by the opposition and Independent members, that it was important these questions be answered orally during the hearings and, at most hearings, the minister read their answers. While this increased the level of scrutiny on the issues raised in those questions and allowed quite broad questioning, it did so at significant cost to the committee’s time.
For future committees, further consideration will need to be given on how best to manage the answering of written questions to maximise the improved scrutiny they provide in a more efficient manner.
In recent years, the estimates hearings were limited to a total of 60 hours, with the Treasurer and Chief Minister limited to eight hours, and other ministers limited to seven hours. This year, the Assembly did not set any time limits. The Estimates Committee sat for 70 hours, and the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee sat for three-and-a-half hours. The Treasurer was questioned for a total of 17 hours and the Chief Minister for a total of 20 hours.
While the hours were not limited, there were only six days set for the hearings. It was left to the opposition and Independent members to manage their questions so they had ample opportunity to question any area of the budget they wished to examine. Unfortunately, time management skills were in short supply and the hearings went past 1 am on the first Wednesday morning, and 2 am on the first Thursday morning, by which time only the Chief Minister and government committee members remained to continue questioning. This was clearly intolerable so, on 20 June, the committee agreed to set a closing time of 11 pm for the remaining evening hearings. That was in line with the closing time of previous years.
Some of the instances of time management failure were when the opposition and the Independent member, despite cautions from the Chair, frequently interrupted the ministers, asked extensive questions not relevant to the budget, gave long-winded statements as preludes to questions, some of which did not pose questions at the end, and sought to debate matters.
The assumption that not limiting the opposition in the time they had to ask questions would assist them proved wrong. The scheduling of hearings is, therefore, another issue that will require further consideration before the next estimates hearing.
The reduction of participating members from seven to six had small, but notable, positive and negative impacts. On the positive side, it meant that members at the table had more room to keep their papers over the many hours of sitting, and to eat more lollies. On the negative side, the reduced number of opposition members meant the government and the Independent member frequently bore the burden of maintaining a quorum.
Given that estimates provides the opposition with the opportunity to ask government questions, I note there was a significant gesture of goodwill from government members and the Independent to maintain a quorum during the five days of the estimates hearing when there were no opposition members of the committee attending. That was no more highlighted than this morning ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms FINOCCHIARO: Unfortunately, when one government member could not attend the government owned corporation hearing due to health reasons, the Power and Water hearings had to be suspended until the opposition could find an opposition member of the committee to attend the hearing. This reduced the time available to question Power and Water. Much was said ...
Ms Walker: No ministers at the hearing.
Mr Elferink: He said last week he would turn up, all we had to do was ask him.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Port Darwin!
Ms FINOCCHIARO: The member for Nhulunbuy’s interjection, which I pick up on, demonstrates how little attention the opposition paid to the change in rules of the Estimates Committee. That flew in the face of operating a transparent process where they should have focused their energy and time to interrogating ministers on the budget. We have seen the display of lack of discipline, and it is noted.
Much was said before the hearings about reduced access to officials that was alleged to occur. I note that, where possible, all officials requested by the opposition attended the hearings. I also note that even though there were far fewer officials attending hearings to support ministers, and more time to ask questions, there were fewer questions taken on notice than in recent years. That is an excellent outcome.
There were 119 questions taken on notice this year, which is a decrease of 23 questions on last year. Today, at the close of hearings, 20% of those questions had already been answered.
With another first for this year, people were able to follow the progress of the 2013 estimates hearings on Twitter. With the flexible schedule the committee followed, the Twitter service enabled people to see where their committee was up to at any time. I thank the committee staff for getting in the Twitter groove on that one.
Even though the number of hours is not limited by the Assembly, the committee did not examine the following agencies and portfolios due to waste of time: Land Resource Management, Territory Wildlife Park, Arts and Museums, and the Alice Springs Transformation Plan.
I might add that it was quite unfortunate that my colleague, the member for Katherine, only had one hour and 10 minutes to be questioned due to the opposition’s time wasting and the need to impose the 11 pm time limit, which is truly shameful. The minister has portfolios of significant interest to Territorians and we are doing huge work in these areas. They did not get the level of scrutiny they deserved.
This is the Legislative Assembly’s 12th year of Estimates Committee hearings. The Assembly continues to learn from its experience and, over the years, has improved its estimates process greatly. We are still refining the process. Overall, hearings worked very efficiently and provided the opposition and Independent member with ample opportunity to question any areas of the government they chose.
With the Scrutiny Committee, in contrast to the previous years, neither the shareholding minister nor the Essential Services Minister accompanied the Deputy Chairman and Managing Director to the hearing today. The Treasurer offered to be present at that time; all that was needed was he be asked ...
Ms Lawrie: Ruled out by your Leader of Government Business.
Ms FINOCCHIARO: … and he was not asked …
Ms Lawrie: John Elferink ruled it out.
Ms FINOCCHIARO: Wrong, incorrect, Opposition Leader, on so many levels.
Mr Elferink: You are so badly organised. Gosh, you are embarrassing!
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Port Darwin.
Ms FINOCCHIARO: However, this did not impact on the robust …
Ms Lawrie interjecting.
Ms FINOCCHIARO: … and productive questioning and answering.
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am trying to listen to the member, please.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Port Darwin!
Ms FINOCCHIARO: I take this opportunity to thank all members who participated in the 2013 estimates process, particularly my colleague, the member for Arnhem, who was an exceptional deputy chair. I thank her very much for her support and strength in that role.
I thank the members for Stuart and Arafura who have been steadfast, and also the former Chief Minister for his support of our committee.
I particularly thank the ministers, whose cooperation throughout the process was extremely good. In the main, we did not even have to go line by line through output areas because the conversation was so flowing, and the ministers were so open to answering questions at any point, going back on output areas. It was exceptional and I must thank my colleagues for facilitating a very transparent and open process.
Special mention should go to the Chief Minister who not only outlasted the opposition members and the Independent who walked out because they could not get it together and do the right thing for Territorians, but made himself available for questions throughout the night and came back the next morning to ensure his portfolio areas were completely accountable. That unscheduled return the next morning was not mandatory; he did that in the best interests of Territorians, as did the Treasurer. They are both commended for that effort.
I also thank the core membership of the Estimates Committee for the manner in which these hearings have been conducted.
Thank you also to the staff of the Legislative Assembly, without whom we could not do any of this. You were first-class operators and you make the whole process so much more pleasant. It would be nothing without you.
A special mention must be made to Hansard, which must have had one heck of a time recording the tireless, endless, and pointless interjections of the opposition and Independent members.
Thanks to Building and Property Management Services, who attended to our numerous air-conditioning issues, it was very much appreciated. Thanks to Chamber support services and committee staff, as always.
Madam Speaker, I place on the record my sincere appreciation to the staff of all agencies involved in the estimate process over the six days. We have first-class public servants in the Northern Territory, and they are working exceptionally well with our new government. We thank you for following our lead and taking this journey with us. The process could not happen without their hard work and dedication.
I commend the reports of the 2013 Estimates Committee and Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee to the House.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Honourable members, pursuant to the resolution of the Assembly dated 16 May 2013 the committee has before it consideration of the Appropriation (2013-14) Bill, (Serial 26), and reports of the Estimates Committee and the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee.
The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to and that the resolutions or expressions of opinion as agreed to by the committees in relation to the proposed expenditure or outputs under the Appropriation (2013-14) Bill (Serial 26) and the transactions of the public sector entities included in the budget papers, and that applicable community service obligations paid and dividends received from the Power and Water Corporation be noted.
I remind members that speech time limits for this debate are as follows: ministers, Leader of the Opposition and shadow minister, 20 minutes; any other member, 10 minutes; the maximum period for consideration and conduct of this debate is five hours.
As the time is now 2.30 pm, if the debate is not concluded by 7.30 pm I will put the question. Honourable members, when consideration of the bill and reports has been concluded and the question put, the following question will then be put forthwith without debate: that the remainder of the bill be agreed to. The bill will then be reported to the Assembly following this report. The Speaker will then call upon the Treasurer to move the third reading of the bill.
Ms LAWRIE: Thank you for giving me the call as Leader of the Opposition. What an absolute shambles of an estimates process. It was so bad that even government ministers were complaining about what they had been set up with by the Leader of Government Business. Clearly, there is no degree of communication amongst the government members. Clearly, it was left in the hands of the Leader of Government Business to set the running on the rework of the estimates process for this year because, as each part came to pass - as each folly of the Leader of Government Business came to pass - there was a quick backflip by the Chief Minister.
First, the Leader of Government Business decided that the estimates, which had been refined over a decade, did not suit him or the new government, so he would change it - change the times and make them unlimited. He then set a global limit on when we needed to be back in this House, which made sure that only ministers would appear. That, of course, quickly changed once it started to dawn on ministers that they would not have their public servants there. So, a backflip on the unlimited time and only ministers would appear started to occur.
Before the estimates process proper, through the Public Accounts Committee and through exchanges of letters between the Opposition Whip and the Leader of Government Business, we entered negotiations to try to make the estimates process, announced by the Leader of Government Business, – which was completely unworkable – into something that could work.
As each stage went through, it was proven to be an absolute shambles. You, member for Port Darwin, are responsible. I do not hold the other members of government responsible for that shambles; I directly hold you responsible. I genuinely believe - maybe I am wrong - that people trusted you with a change to the estimates process. I genuinely believe the members went into this in good faith thinking your advice that you were going to improve the estimates process would be right when it was wrong. On occasion after occasion, the Chief Minister had to publically overrule you - backflip after backflip.
What were you thinking when you decided to have an unlimited time process globally? When the estimates process was introduced, the first Chief Minister dealing with an estimates process with an unlimited period, the then member for Fannie Bay, Clare Martin, sat through two-and-a-half days.
There was genuine understanding then, and a review of the estimates process which led us to say we needed to set time limits across ministers, and to set them in recognition of their relative portfolio loads, which is where, after refining year in, year out, we got to a point where the Chief Minister and the Treasurer, for example, had full-day sessions.
But, no, John Elferink, the member for Port Darwin, knew better, didn’t he? Now they complain the Treasurer had to do 17 hours and the Chief Minister had to 20 hours. It would not have been the case at all if you had stuck to the estimates process that had been refined over a decade. But, you refused to. It was your own way or the highway, so everyone had to deal with the unworkable.
The other major change at the outset was the Leader of Government Business decided there could only be written questions on notice. The estimates process this parliament was used to through the last decade, where you asked questions without sending written questions on notice, would no longer be the case. Under the new world order of the member for Port Darwin, in keeping with the new world order where only ministers would appear and there would only be written questions on notice, that would be the case.
Presented with this presumable fait accompli, we wrote a series of very broad questions so it would cover our ability to genuinely scrutinise with questions at the estimates hearings. They were the written questions on notice that each minister had at the outset, including the Chief Minister, written deliberately to give opposition the opportunity to scrutinise across the various facets of the appropriation and policy. Yet, they then turned around and complained about it - a system they insisted on, they then complained about.
Then, we had a real variety of responses by different ministers and the Chief Minister on how to deal with the written questions on notice. You could tell which people were not confident because they used it to time waste - to literally sit there and read them. You could tell those who thought, ‘No, I will just deal with whatever questions will come my way’, so they were more happy to table.
A classic example was during the Government Owned Corporation Committee today. They just tabled it. They did not insist on reading answer after answer. Each minister, from the Chief Minister to the Treasurer and down, had the opportunity to just simply table it, with one exception. Madam Speaker was up first and was happy to just table it. The Independent member for Nelson said, ‘No, I want to hear the answers; could you read the answers on the record?’ Madam Speaker then read the answers on the record.
In discussions with the member for Nelson, I pointed out that would chew up important time through the estimates process, and we should, in future, be encouraging ministers just to table the answers where appropriate. Through various different sections, we both said, ‘Would you table it?’ That was met with a variety of responses from the government. I will speak about the sessions I was participating in actively with the Treasurer and the Chief Minister in a moment.
I hope a lesson learnt by government out of the shambles is not to just, by rote, take the advice of the Leader of Government Business. Question it. Question it with people on your staff who have experience. You have a former Leader of the Opposition on your staff in the former member for Araluen. She might have a view that might be somewhat different from the member for Port Darwin’s. Most of the changes the member for Port Darwin pursued, as Leader of Government Business, ended up being overruled by the Chief Minister because they were simply unworkable. Those few it was too late to overrule ended up making the system a shambles.
Then, to add insult today, we saw the government in hiding from the scrutiny of Power and Water. This is the same government which said, ‘We will step out there as ministers and will be the ones answering the questions’. Yet, when it came to Power and Water, they went into hiding. Then we have this farce occurring today where they are pretending that, of course they were happy to be there. Of course they were available to be there.
I draw your attention to the Hansard record of this parliament of 16 May where the member for Port Darwin, in debate, categorically ruled out the ministers appearing before the Government Owned Corporation Committee at estimates and said, ‘That is determined’.
I call on the government to table the Public Accounts Committee correspondence from the Leader of Government Business of 9 May 2013. Stop pretending! Do you not understand that is exactly what our community is sick of? They are fed up to the teeth with being told one thing when you are doing exactly another thing. They are fed up to the teeth with this pretence about what you are about as a government, what you promised to do as a government when you do the exact opposite.
You said you will be open and accountable. You said you will cut the cost of living. You said Territorians’ jobs are safe. We have just had an estimates process that clearly, categorically, in information tabled, proved the opposite has occurred in the Northern Territory.
You pretend you did not know the true state of the finances of the Northern Territory in the run-up to the August election, which is why you made all these commitments you are now busy breaking. Yet, in fact, in the Treasurer’s session, he accepted that the pre-election fiscal outlook was accurate. He accepted that the figures in the pre-election fiscal outlook were available. He accepted that the CLP in opposition had them. He also accepted that all of the election commitments contained in the bush contracts signed by the then Leader of the Opposition, the member for Blain - who went on to be the first Chief Minister for the CLP - were election commitments. However, he also accepted and acknowledged that they were not contained in the election commitment costings submitted to Treasury in the election campaign.
When we were trying to achieve a consolidated list of election commitments to be tabled, to be put on the public record, the Treasurer wanted nothing to do with it. He said, ‘No, no, that is sitting in the Cabinet Office, ask the Chief Minister’. What a disgrace! What self-respecting Treasurer of any government would not have the consolidated list of election commitments their own party made? What self-respecting Treasurer of any government would not be watching very carefully and completely across the status of the implementation and have costings against election commitments?
It became patently evident in the, ‘Oh no, it is not my responsibility’, attitude of the Treasurer in the estimates session questioning of the election commitments and, specifically, around the community contracts - the bush election commitments - signed and promised by the CLP. There were two sets of lists. One list was put on the record submitted to Treasury; another list, that is consolidated, is somewhere in the Cabinet Office.
The Chief Minister, in his questioning, said he would get the community contracts and put them on the public record. That was a week ago and we are still waiting. I look forward to him meeting that commitment he made in the estimates hearing, because it has been a week and there are still no contracts on the public record.
When asked whether any costings were against those community contracts there was hiding and abuse came my way; he did not want to answer or respond. When you get to the nub of what is causing the government’s fiscal pressures, which is their own unfunded election commitments still covered up and hidden somewhere in the Cabinet Office, not on the public record, they turn to personal abuse and being offensive. It was pathetic and disgraceful.
We will continue to pursue the election commitments made by the CLP, particularly those written and signed contracts with our remote communities. If you cannot hold yourself to delivering what you have promised people who voted for you because of the promises - who genuinely aspire to seeing those things delivered - what can you hold yourselves to?
You dance through this farce of, ‘We did not know the state of the finances’, then, in the very first estimates your Treasurer admitted you did. Your Treasurer admitted the pre-election fiscal outlook laid it out and the figures had not changed. The figures between the pre-election fiscal outlook - the budget figures identified not by the Treasurer but by the Under Treasurer, the public servant sacked then re-employed - are the same as the figures in your Renewal Management Board progress report. The board you paid $1m to trawl over the books published the same figures as published in the pre-election fiscal outlook.
They identified what they described as ‘legacy items’. We pursued a couple of legacy items during the estimates. One was the legacy item of repairs and maintenance across police facilities, but there is no funding for the $48m legacy item of repairs and maintenance across police facilities in this budget or identified across the forward estimates. So important was that legacy item you are not funding it. What nonsense!
Anyone who knows budgets knows you handle priorities and fund to the priorities. Everyone who knows budgets knows every agency has demand pressures or things they would like to fix, and you handle them according to priorities. No, your dodgy $1m RMB describes them as ‘legacy’.
Then, when we asked for the final report of the $1m mates Renewal Management Board it was not forthcoming. No, that is in Cabinet and Cabinet documents are secret. When we produced a media release from the former Chief Minister, the member for Blain, committing to publically releasing the final Renewal Management Board report in March of this year, we were told off by the acting Chair of the committee, the member for Arnhem, for being offensive. How is describing the former Chief Minister as the former Chief Minister offensive? That is how far this descended into a farce.
It is not our fault the member for Blain is the former Chief Minister; it is the actions of the current Chief Minister that are to blame. He went after the numbers and knifed the member for Blain when he was overseas. Perhaps the member for Arnhem meant that the actions were offensive. Everyone found knifing the member for Blain while he was overseas on a trade mission trying to secure jobs at the major Ichthys project offensive. Yes, those actions were offensive. However, to describe the member for Blain as the former Chief Minister is not offensive. Did we dissent against her ruling? No, we did not. If we had dissented against the rulings of the member for Arnhem throughout the last fortnight, Madam Speaker would have been presiding over many dissents. No, we chose to get on with the job. However, there were many occasions where it descended into farce because of the paucity of the chairing.
I have witnessed many Estimates Committees. Many of the government chairs have been fair, and, indeed, reports and debates in this Chamber have reflected that. The member for Fannie Bay has been described by the CLP as having been a fair chair. That cannot be said this time. We saw deliberate blocking tactics by the member for Drysdale. We saw the member for Arnhem unreasonably throw out the member for Nelson – incredible. Whenever the member for Drysdale arced up it was usually in response to some incoming pressure from God knows where. She was given a heads-up by the advisors so she arced up and started blocking.
There was no independence in the chairing. There was a real attempt by the member for Drysdale to protect her ministers. There were pathetic attempts by the member for Arnhem to do it, because she often did not understand the process or where it was at. There were extraordinary occasions where government members interrupted the estimates process with interjections before starting their own statement. Never in an estimates hearing have I witnessed that. Did the chair pull them up on that process? No, they could do whatever they liked. Opposition members and the Independent would be pulled up, but government members could do whatever they wished. It was a shambles!
We are still waiting for answers, of course. We are still waiting for answers from the Speaker on why the member for Arnhem has managed to burn through $14 000 in taxpayer-funded fuel, which is double the amount other bush members have gone through. I look forward to those answers.
We are still waiting for an answer from the Chief Minister on whether the final report of the Renewal Management Board will be made public, as promised in a media release by the former Chief Minister, the member for Blain.
We are still waiting for the costings of all of the election commitments. We are still waiting for the community contract election commitments to be tabled.
What I found extraordinary about the Chief Minister was his refusal to go to anything around the cost of living impacts on Territorians because of the decisions his government has made. As we know, they have increased the cost of living despite their core election commitment to reduce it. In one bizarre period the Chief Minister tried to pretend they had done something about the cost of living because they are tackling housing. Yet housing has gone up 8% and the cost of living has more than doubled from 2.1% to 3.9%. Somehow, that is a decrease in the cost of living? It is not. It is fact it has increased. Yet, he tried to pretend they had done something to improve it.
Can I have an extension of time, please?
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Chair! This is a limited time debate and, no, you do not have an extension of time.
Ms LAWRIE: Okay.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Deputy Chair, I will not be on my feet too long. I heard the Leader of the Opposition’s vitriol in relation to the Estimates Committee. I will tell you what the approach of the government was in relation to the committee. It was quite simple. You could have as much time as you liked within the six days to ask what questions you liked of whomsoever you liked for as long as you needed to. That is part of the promise of open, honest, and accountable government ...
Ms Walker: It did not work as it was changed after two days.
Ms Finocchiaro: It did not work because of you.
Mr Westra van Holthe: Because you guys mucked it up. You were undisciplined.
Ms Walker: You were hopeless. You dummy spat, you argued, and you avoided questions.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Nhulunbuy!
Ms Walker: Sorry.
Mr ELFERINK: It is captured in the opening statement by the Leader of the Opposition and what the member for Nhulunbuy has just said, ‘How could you do that to us? How could you give us all of that time? How dare you, as a government, give us all of that time? And you took it; you took 70 hours. You had 17 hours for the Treasurer - the longest time a Treasurer has ever sat in the chair in any form of committee process in a bill in the Territory’s history.
The Chief Minister sat in the chair for 20 hours and answered questions until 2 am, and you call us irresponsible? We offered you the car keys, but you are so used to the idea that government runs the committee process that when you were handed the car keys you still believed government runs the committee process. Wrong!
This is a government which is answerable to the parliament and the people of the Northern Territory. What we said to the committee was, ‘Here are the keys. Take the car for a drive to wherever you like, for as long as you like, and you can explore anything in government you want.’ You take the keys, drive down the street, wrap the car around a telephone pole, and it is our fault because we gave you the car keys. If you cannot organise yourselves in a committee, how on earth do you expect to run a government?
I refer any member to the Hansard. The reason the committee ran over time, as they complained of, was because of questions primarily from the opposition. The vast majority of the time in the committee process was taken up by the opposition, which is proper as that is what the scrutiny process is all about.
Prior to the committee process, we offered you the rope with which you could hang us and, unfortunately, while you were tying the slip knot the only people who were hung were yourselves.
We cannot be held responsible for your lack of discipline. I pointed out to the member for Nhulunbuy in the committee that with a liberty - which is precisely what we gave the members of the committee, particularly the Labor members - comes a responsibility to use that liberty in an effective and appropriate means. Part of the reason the Treasurer was able to sit at the crease for 17 hours and the Chief Minister for 20 hours and not be effectively challenged by the opposition was lack of preparation on the part of the opposition.
We did not, as a government, believe it was good expenditure of taxpayers’ money to spend $2.4m preparing a bunch of files which would contain a bunch of answers to questions that would probably not be asked. We also, as a government, decided we were going to expose our ministers to real questioning, which meant ministers had to be across their portfolios.
I recall a former minister, Matthew Bonson, being asked his opinion in an Estimates Committee on one occasion, and referring that question directly to the chief of the department. ‘What is your opinion?’ was the question to this minister. ‘I do not know; this guy over here will answer it.’ That is not how you run a government. That is what they expect; they expect to be fettered. The argument from the Leader of the Opposition today was simply this: ‘We expect you to fetter us’.
I have been accused on numerous occasions of gagging public servants. I have heard all that nonsense. On this occasion we did not apply a gag at all. We said, ‘Grab the minister, go your hardest as long as you like. Take him for five days if you like.’ What happened? You did not have the discipline to contain yourselves and put your own restraints in place. That is why you went over time; that is why you were sitting there at 2 am and why Labor members and the Independent were walking out. The Chief Minister was still answering questions; he was keen. However, they were walking out because they were too tired. The discipline was yours.
You are right. There was a strategy in play on the part of government which was: we were going to give you the car keys, give you the rope to demonstrate you could not control either. And you demonstrated it magnificently …
Mr Westra van Holthe: Did a beautiful job.
Mr ELFERINK: Wonderful job! You did exactly what we, on this side of the House, expected you to do. In the process we did something this House has not seen for a long time. We became a government that said, ‘The parliament has the supremacy over the government, therefore, the parliament can demand of the ministers what it will’. The parliament went about that process with the Labor Party pretty firmly in charge, yet the lack of discipline and the disorganisation was apparent for all to see.
Case in point was this morning. I am sorry to hear about the diagnosis and I hope you recover or get that under control very quickly, member for Drysdale. She did a sterling job in the chair, despite the vitriol from the Leader of the Opposition. She was unable to be here because she was very unwell. However, that left us, as a government, with two committee members. Unfortunately, the member for Nelson, the Independent, was also unwell because he had an onset toothache which had to be attended to, which meant they could still form a quorum in the committee because it only required four committee members. One government member was away for good reason, one Independent was away for good reason, and the two other CLP members were there. There is only one question: where were the Labor members of the committee? Not to be seen!
Everybody knew what the start time was this morning, so where were the Labor members of the committee? Could not turn up, could not be found, committee could not sit …
Mr McCarthy: We started. I was there, mate, bang on time.
Mr ELFERINK: If you were on time, why did it not sit?
Mr McCarthy: You were not there. I did not see you in the joint.
Mr ELFERINK: Committee members! You are not a committee member, nor was the Leader of the Opposition. Your committee members ...
Mr McCarthy: All committee members started this morning, and one had to leave, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: If you look at the committee members on the back of your Notice Paper, you will find you are not a member of the committee.
So there we were, waiting for the Labor members of the committee to turn up …
Mr McCarthy: That is incorrect. I was there and the committee started this morning.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Barkly, cease interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Are you a member of the Estimates Committee? No, you are not. This is the problem. You seem to think that membership is interchangeable. Give you guys some liberty and you do not know how to use it. This is where you are saying that government should fetter you all the time; you need to be controlled. That is the Leader of the Opposition’s argument. ‘It is outrageous you gave us all this time. It is outrageous you gave us this liberty; we need to be fettered.’ All we did was give you an opportunity to examine the budget. It was your lack of preparation and I …
Mr McCarthy: You are wrong. When did Mr Wood leave?
Mr ELFERINK: Would you shut up for a second, please! Just do me a favour and shut up!
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Barkly!
Mr ELFERINK: I apologise to the House, Madam Deputy Chair. He will get his opportunity to have his bite of the cherry in a second. Clearly, he is all tizzed up and excited about this but, from his interjections, he does not understand how the system works. That is the reason why this failed, because there is this lack of understanding by members opposite how this system works. It was given to you – everything, the whole shebang. You had control. If it was a shambles it is because you guys ran it that way. That is what went wrong; we gave you control.
The parliament has ascendency over the executive arm of government; that is all that happened. It is the Labor members who are directly to blame.
The other thing I point out is we received a letter from the leader of opposition business demanding that a whole list of statutory officers turn up. They were all available through one mechanism or another. I had one under the auspices of Attorney-General sitting there waiting to answer questions, because there had been a demand placed on this side of the House and on the government that this person be made available. There were six others who were not recipients of any questions from the members opposite despite the fact they demanded they be there.
One of the reasons we entered into this tte-a-tte with the opposition over this was because they were accusing us of gagging people. When we asked for questions up front and you did not provide questions for the statutory office holders we said, ‘Do not bother turning up, they have no questions for you’.
It turns out, as a response, somebody had gone through a list and grabbed a bunch of statutory office holders - many of them were there because they were also public servants - but many of them were asked no questions in relation to their statutory office holding positions. People who could have either been at home or at work doing their jobs were sitting there waiting to receive a question and were not asked a single question.
The lack of preparation from members opposite was astonishing. The list of questions we received was so general and so broad-ranging they forced broad responses. They only provided those questions late because we were calling on them as we thought it was not an unreasonable supposition that if you gave us some questions up front you might be able to save some time in the committee.
When Madam Speaker walked in with her list of pre-prepared answers to the written questions prior to the process proceeding, rather than saving time there was an insistence by the Independent that the answers be read. At that time, the government members on the committee, including the Leader of the Opposition, could easily have said, ‘No, do not read them out; just table them’. There was no response from the Leader of the Opposition to that effect, or from any of the opposition members. The answers where read onto the record, which entirely defeated the purpose.
All of a sudden it is our fault the committee went down that path. Once again, it is up to the committee, particularly the Labor members on the committee, to demonstrate some discipline and restraint. It was not until I was sitting in front of the committee saying, ‘I have answers here. I know the committee wants them to be read out, but do you want to take this opportunity to change that decision?’, that the Labor members said, ‘Just table them; that will be fine’. The Independent member was saying, ‘No, read them out’. It became a resolution of the committee that these things be tabled.
Once again, it was for the committee to make these decisions, particularly the Labor members on the committee, because the Labor Party is supposed to use that opportunity as the opposition to investigate what government does. They sat silent for such a long time whilst this situation was allowed to unfold. It is not our fault, as a government, that Labor members of the committee were so poorly organised.
There was a time when Labor, as an opposition before they had government for 11 years, proudly announced prior to a particular estimates process that they had 2000 questions to ask. They had written out 2000 questions and asked each and every one of them inside this parliament. I remember that time. That was an organised opposition. What we saw this time was a loose congregation of generalised questions, some requesting outrageous information such as which CLP members had won contracts. That demonstrates the Labor Party was poorly organised, did not have the questions ready by the deadline, and had to rush at the last moment to prepare questions which were ill-considered and easily batted away.
The Labor Party has nobody to blame but themselves for the way estimates went. We brought ourselves, as a government, before that estimates process. We laid ourselves bare and answered every question for as long as you had questions to ask. Because we did that, we are in some way culpable for the shortcomings of the Labor members of the committee. That is nonsense. Frankly, as estimates go, the probing from the opposition was at a new nadir.
Mr GUNNER: Madam Deputy Chair, I believe the debacle of estimates can be best summed up by what happened this morning at the Government Owned Corporation Scrutiny Committee.
Our shadow portfolio minister and our shadow shareholder minister were there. The opposition had two chairs at the Estimates Committee, normally you would have three. This year we told the government we wanted three chairs at that table. This is what normally happens. We had two committee members and the shadow minister present but, obviously, for Power and Water you have two shadow ministers: the shadow portfolio minister and the shadow shareholding minister. Our two shadows were present this morning and, unfortunately, the government denied us that third chair at the Estimates Committee, which we asked for and were told ‘no’. We had our two shadow ministers present as they should be for the Government Owned Corporation Scrutiny Committee. You can only have two members present at the committee at one time. Were the CLP ministers there? No. Did we ask for the CLP ministers? Yes.
Last month when we put together the terms of reference for this committee, the member for Nelson asked for the ministers, and the Leader of Government Business said, ‘No, the determination has been made that they will not be present’. As a committee, we wrote to the government saying we wanted those ministers present. The government wrote back and said, ‘No, those ministers will not be present’.
We set the standard two years ago. For the last two estimates of our term in government we had the ministers present for the Government Owned Corporation Scrutiny Committee, which was at the request of the opposition. What did the opposition now government do at the very first meeting of their Estimates Committee? They did not have the ministers present, despite being asked by the committee for them to be there.
Madam Deputy Chair, I seek leave to table the correspondence from the Leader of Government Business who wrote to the committee and said they would not be present.
Leave granted.
Mr GUNNER: The Leader of Government Business wrote to the committee and said those ministers would not be present during the Government Owned Corporation Scrutiny Committee which, for anyone listening, is when we get to ask Power and Water questions about their Statement of Corporate Intent, which is their version of their budget.
Therefore, we had the situation this morning where, at times, we were told after asking a question that the people present could not answer and it needed to be directed to the government and to ministers who were not there. We did not have any opportunity to ask them. The government, in effect, used public servants as a shield to any questions they might have had to answer. That was extremely disappointing. From the opposition’s point of view, considering we made the shareholder minister and the portfolio minister available to answer questions in the last two years of our government, this morning’s farce where the government did not do that was incredibly disappointing.
In regard to written questions – and I have had this conversation with the member for Port Darwin many times over the last five years - I have always been a believer that the Estimates Committee process should be about the asking and answering of questions publicly; it is a public committee process. A written questions process already exists in parliament. During my term as chair, the opposition had the opportunity to put forward their generic written questions and we handled it through the written question process of the parliament. It did not work too well at first, but for the last three years it was better. Members received their answers before the committee met.
What did we have this year? Ministers reading out their answers during the committee process. For example, during the Education minister’s session he was still reading out answers four hours into the session. In previous years, answers to written questions were provided before the committee met, because we have an existing written question process through the parliament. Without doubt, this process was not handled well; it was a debacle in many ways.
The worst example of that was this morning’s session where we wanted those ministers present, and they were not. We asked for an extra chair and were not allowed to have it. Our two shadow ministers were present, ready to ask questions of the Power and Water acting board and their acting CEO, but the ministers were not present to answer any questions. That was an incredibly disappointing outcome from estimates, and it has resulted from the changes the government has made to the estimates process. The way written questions were handled, which was completely different to previous estimates, and the complete absence of ministers from the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee were two massive examples of how this Estimates Committee process, and the reforms the government made to it, did not work.
We have just finished six days of estimates, after a mini-budget, a budget, 10 months of CLP government, two Chief Ministers, three Deputy Chief Ministers, three Treasurers, three Education Ministers, two Police ministers, two Business Ministers, two licensing ministers, and more. We have learnt the CLP still does not understand the damage their broken promises have caused.
We explored a range of broken promises. In many ways, the most outstanding one for me through the Estimates Committee process was the discussion about the 126 teachers from senior and middle schools who will be gone as a result of this budget. There are children in Year 11 looking forward to the challenges of Year 12 who will now have fewer subjects to choose from and crowded classrooms to sit in because this budget means we will have 126 fewer teachers in our senior and middle schools.
The CLP promised jobs would be safe. They promised frontline workers they would be safe. They stood outside workplaces and personally handed out fliers that said jobs would be safe. They broke that promise. There are close to 500 people who gave service to the public who now no longer have jobs. The passing of this budget at the end of this estimates, at the end of this day, will be sad because it will see 126 teachers join close to 500 people who have already lost their jobs serving the public.
The teachers who remain will find it harder to provide support to their students, and they will be asked to work longer hours. Teachers do a considerable amount of work outside hours, and that will now grow. I have sat down with senior secondary teachers and they have taken me through what they do now, and what it will be like when they have fewer teachers in their school. The workload they have outside and after hours is already incredible. We ask much of our teachers, and they do an incredibly valuable job.
Students will be moving into middle and senior schools with fewer subject choices, and they will be sharing more crowded classrooms. Principals, teachers and school councils, as they look to the new school year, believe the most vulnerable classes are the smaller ones. Some classes are small because they are constrained for safety reasons, equipment reasons in the case of science classes, or because of interest or capacity such as specialist maths classes. Our schools are running some great classes that keep some of our unengaged students at school and learning. These small classes are the ones at risk. Just because a class is small does not mean it is unimportant. These classes are at risk as schools work through how they will manage with fewer teachers. There is no doubt that the consequence of fewer teachers will be fewer subjects and crowded classrooms.
We do not yet know all of the pain. The minister advised that the CLP has made cuts of $39m in Education, but he provided no breakdown of what those cuts will be. Through questioning, we know $6.6m of that is the savings they make in sacking 126 teachers from our senior and middle schools. If $6m of that $39m in cuts within Education is due to the loss of teachers, there is more pain and cuts to programs hidden in the remaining $33m. There will be fewer support services or programs around our students. These cuts mean it will be harder for teachers to do their jobs and, most importantly of all, and why we have schools, for students to get the education they need to emerge from our schools ready to take advantage of the opportunities we have in the Northern Territory to build their lives based on lessons they have learnt through their schooling years.
The university we most like Territory students to go to has also had its operating grant and its Vocational Education and Training grants cut by the CLP. We have a rather bleak picture for students going through our senior and middle schools as they look to learn, educate themselves, get good grades, move through that process and become adults, and move into the university system. We are making cuts and, unfortunately, that will hurt our students.
Estimates over the last six days has confirmed the CLP has broken many promises, and those broken promises will be enshrined in legislation thanks to this budget passing today. They have broken promises to cut the cost of living, to cut debt, that frontline workers are safe, and to immediately tackle antisocial behaviour and remove problem drunks from our streets. They have broken many promises, but these are the ones that stood front and centre of their election campaign.
In 10 months, after two Chief Ministers, three Deputy Leaders, three Treasurers, three Education ministers, two Police minister, two Business ministers, and two licensing ministers, election promises have been blatantly and brazenly broken - basic promises, easily understood which should have been easily kept.
We went through six days of estimates last year, and everyone who has been through the estimates process would understand it is a long, sometimes gruelling process, but there is no doubt you learn a great deal and a lot of information is confirmed.
After last year’s estimates, the then opposition, now government, was in no doubt about the Territory’s financial position and budget. After that Estimates Committee process, they made promises such as cutting the cost of living. Knowing exactly what the Territory’s budget was, they made the promise to cut the cost of living, yet, when they came into government, they did the exact opposite. The cost of living pressures in the Northern Territory went from 2.1% to 3.9%; they nearly doubled the cost of living pressures in the Northern Territory.
The bulk of that is from their decision to significantly increase the cost of power, water and sewerage to Territorians. They made that decision - that blatant broken promise to Territorians - to cut the cost of living, despite always knowing what was in the Territory’s budget and the financial position of the Northern Territory. They said one thing before the election knowing they were going to do something different afterwards. That has hurt Territorians the most, that act of saying one thing and doing another.
Words do not mean much when actions speak so loudly. They made that decision. This is a broken promise that has affected people’s living conditions. People are struggling to meet these costs, yet are these people suffering and struggling so the CLP can cut debt? The CLP borrowed $1.1bn. It did not cut debt, it borrowed. By its own actions, the CLP has shown that all its rhetoric is just political grandstanding. It is borrowing because it knows debt is manageable and essential to building the Northern Territory’s future. All the rhetoric around debt is empty because this is a government which borrows. Its decision to significantly increase power and water prices has placed business in the Territory in a difficult position.
At the moment we have a competitive advantage in the Territory. The highlights of Budget 2013-14, spruik the competitive tax environment we enjoy in the Northern Territory. We currently have the lowest taxing jurisdiction for small- and medium-sized enterprises, which is something the current government has inherited. It is something they are talking up, yet in the same budget they flagged that by 2016 they want the NT to be on par with other states taxation-wise. They want to remove our competitive advantage around tax and make the position for businesses in the Northern Territory harder. That does not make much sense to members on our side. This government is not listening to businesses which are struggling with costs, especially after the massive power and water price hikes.
When asked about the consultation work the Business department is meant to have done around the revenue-raising measures in this budget, the minister answered that the businesses affected by the revenue measures may not have realised they were being consulted about the revenue measures. That is a rather extraordinary example of how this government works with business. The businesses which were consulted on the revenue measures might not have realised they were being consulted. Bizarre is the only way we can describe that. It is a remarkable situation and businesses are hurting. This has been made clear by businesses.
Julie Ross from the Chamber of Commerce has said small businesses will not be able to absorb the increase to power and water prices. There will be a double whammy with consumers not spending as much because they need to pay their power bills and rising costs. Businesses will have rising costs and may not be able to pass them on because the consumers they are trying to sell to have the same rising costs and their disposable income is being affected.
Businesses have been put into an extremely difficult position, and the minister’s said that power and water have a small input into business costs. That is not what the business community is saying. Business is saying massive price rises to power, water, and sewerage are hurting them and they are a big impost. Business is saying this is hurting and you only gave six weeks’ notice of the charges coming in. Even if a business had the capacity to reform their practices or change their equipment to reduce power, water, and sewerage costs, six weeks is not nearly enough time to adjust.
The government’s defence has been partly built around the excellent ecoBiz program which they inherited from the previous government. However, ecoBiz in no way relieves the pressure on every small, micro and medium business in the Northern Territory. On questioning, the Business minister explained there are 14 500 registered businesses in the Territory, of which eight have received a grant from ecoBiz since September last year at a value of $93 000. While ecoBiz is a great program, it is in no way the vehicle to protect or help business trying to deal with the pain of the CLP’s power and water price rises. Business is hurting. This government has flagged it will raise taxes and continue to raise taxes. It has raised power, water, and sewerage prices and those prices will go up again.
Unemployment is at 5.1%. There are now 4100 Territorians out of work under this government. This government is hurting those businesses which should be trying to grow and take advantage of the opportunities in our economy. Businesses in the Northern Territory are in a very difficult spot at the moment. That difficulty has been created by the policies of this government.
While we debate with this government about what they are doing, the Business minister has taken a trip to China on a private jet, flown there Queen class, and we are still waiting for the breakdown of the expenses of that trip. The minister took that question on notice and we will be keeping an eye out for the expenses and the outcomes of that trip.
Within the Business department 36 jobs have already gone, only nine of which are at the executive level, and there are still more savings to come. The minister said, ‘We intend to make savings in employee costs of $2.59m. They are yet to be achieved. These are the areas the department is focusing on.’ In other words, there are still more job losses to come within the Business department. When asked how many, the minister replied, ‘How long is a piece of string?’
We, on this side, take jobs more seriously. We feel people’s jobs should be taken more seriously. There is low morale and stress within the public service because people still do not know if their jobs are safe. We know, within the Business department alone, there are still more job losses to come. We know within Education there are 126 teachers in the senior and middle schools whose jobs are under threat.
I notice the clock winding down. I had much more to say through the Police portfolio, the Alcohol Rehabilitation portfolio and the Education portfolio. There was much work done by opposition during the Estimates Committee process and I will find other ways of putting on the record my comments to those portfolios.
Madam Deputy Chair, I thank the public servants who attended. I welcome the fact the Leader of Government Business changed his position on only ministers speaking and public servants were allowed to speak. We value our public servants. We appreciate the work they do and the answers they gave us during the Estimates Committee process. There are many more issues covered in other portfolios I have.
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Deputy Chair, I will respond to my experience of the first Estimates Committee program of the CLP as a new government. I will define it as the estimates of whispering, because it was very interesting to see how it unfolded.
The Leader of Government Business was intent on gagging everybody. His philosophy was that the holier-than-thou minister who was completely across their portfolio would be the only person in the room and would be able to answer every question across those portfolios. However, it was unrealistic; that was an ego at play and it was insane. However, I commend the Chief Minister, who had to work methodically through this ridiculous program devised by the Leader of Government Business and work it out so the story was told accountably to Territorians.
We had to go through a lot of pain to do that. I hope the Leader of Government Business has learned a lesson and looks at it appropriately and properly. The Leader of Government Business talked about discipline but from a one-sided argument basis. He did not talk about the discipline of the government; he completely ignored the behaviour of ministers and the part they played in deflecting, wasting time, being rude and abusive and using personal insults as a way to avoid answering questions. The Leader of Government Business does not want to talk about the whole truth and nothing but the truth; he is only interested in his take on what happened.
It was a pity this process was the estimates of whispering, because the real experts are the public sector officials we have the privilege of working with. It is wonderful when they are in the room and are able to present the facts and figures to Territorians. But the Leader of Government Business and this government are hell-bent on shutting that down, which begs the question: what do they have to hide?
However, it slowly started to work. Some ministers were better at it than others, and we started to hear from public officials. I caution the Leader of Government Business on the estimates of whispering which represented a biohazard. I watched a group of adults in the committee room swap cross-infection droplets because everybody whispered to each other. Nobody was prepared to let dialogue flow or speak openly and answer questions from the opposition or Independent member. It was ridiculous. Looking at it from a school teacher’s perspective, I thought, ‘You would not do this in any class where you try to prevent cross-contamination’. The whispering, sharing of droplets and the whole respiratory episode was created by a government with something to hide. It was immature and I can only hope they learn from the experience.
Despite the chaos we were able to conduct an estimates process. However, it was a moving feast; the rules changed as we went along. First, we were asked to supply written questions with a view to being efficient, but those written questions were used against us when some ministers chose to purposely waste time by reading them out and refusing to table them.
The first appearance at estimates was Madam Speaker, which went very smoothly and very methodically; it was a good exercise. However, it deteriorated quickly as the real strategy of lack of discipline from the government unfolded, which raised serious questions about its honesty and integrity.
There were some interesting moments. It was a pleasure to be on time this morning and be part of the start of the estimates process for the Power and Water Corporation. However, it was announced by the clerk of that Estimates Committee that one member representing the quorum in the committee would have to leave and we would need a replacement. It was announced to me approximately 15 minutes into the hearing, after which I arranged a Labor member to attend. We supported a member who was absent on sick leave, and a member who had to leave on sick leave. The member for Port Darwin, once again, twisted it into this backstreet bush lawyer rhetoric to try to point score in this House. He takes off like a scared rabbit if he ever has to face the real truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, sir.
It was a very important hearing this morning, and I valued those officers being able to tell the story of the Power and Water Corporation and to be able to talk directly with the experts and ask politely, with respect, for the opportunity for further briefings so I can give information to those experts about my perspectives of the bush and the latest technologies in the delivery of essential services of water and power, and the opportunities for Indigenous jobs in the bush - those very special opportunities where Indigenous people, as essential services officers, will get to work with state-of-the-art equipment, the best in the world, delivering alternative power, renewable energies, and improving water quality in their communities. I really enjoyed that session this morning.
I found it quite objectionable for the member for Port Darwin to try to use it as a political football when he got it wrong from the start then tried to howl down any possible opposition.
It is important that one issue be included in the review: a little matter of Transport officials, who attended to support their minister, being held in a back room, which is completely contradictory to what the member for Port Darwin just said. They would have been required around 5 am to 6 am after being held there all night. That was ridiculous. It defied common sense, and the Estimates Committee will need to take that on board in future planning. I commend the Chief Minister for calling it off, with common sense and dignity, and coming back the next day to allow questioning - all 45 minutes of it. I also commend and thank the Chief Minister for saying I may submit the questions I did not get to ask in written form, which I will be doing.
It was an interesting Transport story, though: no money for the bush. The Transport story was about luxury private jets to China and WiFi for Darwin buses. All I am saying, as a bush member, is that is good and fine, but what is good enough for town is good enough for the bush.
Because there is no money for barge landings at Ramingining, Gapuwiyak and Galiwinku, or to support those very important bush bus services, the member for Arnhem needs to get back to the cake as she missed out and did not get a slice for our constituents. You really need to make that change, because you are missing out on the process. You need to make sure you are there when that cake is cut, because we have been seriously disadvantaged. The mantra to go in there with is, ‘What is good enough for town is good enough for the bush’. We are talking about all Territorians.
I will submit those Transport questions and I hope I get my answers back accordingly.
There was a wonderful moment in the Lands, Planning and the Environment area. I am not a vindictive person and I do not like to pay back, but after listening for four years to the abuse of the CLP in opposition about land release, I asked one simple question, ‘Can you give me the lot number of the first block of Crown land that has been sold under your government after 10 months?’ The answer was, ‘I will take that question on notice’. When I said, ‘Just give me the geographic location of that one block of land’, the answer was, ‘Oh, I will talk about Kilgariff’. After I told the minister I had been rattling around Kilgariff a couple of weeks before and all I saw was a traffic barrier - there were certainly no blocks of land - he turned proper nasty. That was an interesting double take.
The minister needs to remember he is in charge; he is in government. Rise to the occasion, minister. You are a minister of the Crown. You have left that four years of abuse behind you. I could not help but ask that for the first question.
Good luck on the way forward with delivering land because you are embarking on some new Territory. This is your first budget, which will be passed, then we will see the results of your economic management and your political policy.
In land release, the other part of that abusive cycle over four years was affordability, affordability, affordability. I questioned the minister on the cost of serviced lots. The minister’s new design is to let the private sector do more of it. The minister’s design is to pull back from government investment in enabling infrastructure and headwork services, and let the private sector deal with it. Good luck on the way forward because we will be watching this very closely to see what you can deliver with this new model in affordable lots of land.
The new master plan suburb, the second stage of Zuccoli, received the appropriation of $20m, but will actually receive $12.4m on the way forward to deliver service lots. It will be phenomenal. Minister, you will be very proud of that. I will be looking forward to that red dust on your boots as you watch the process unfold, as I did in the previous government. It is a very exciting environment.
The minister told us about affordable land with a project called Nightcliff Island, which almost sounds like a reality television show. I am looking forward to seeing the price of lots on Nightcliff Island. I am really looking forward to being able to tell my family, my sons, ‘If you want to invest in the Territory, get up there because there will be some affordable lots on Nightcliff Island’. It looks and sounds pretty exotic. Already, the Territory is buzzing with that conversation.
That will be an excellent education into lands planning processes. You will experience that incredibly exciting journey of travelling with the public as you deliver Nightcliff Island which has been already registered as significant project status. You are in a great seat there; you will enjoy the ride.
I am very concerned, though, about your announcement of an inquiry into residential building insurance. Your Chief Minister started this journey. I got my first speeding infringement in 30 years in the Northern Territory travelling to a meeting where there were 12 families in Alice Springs who had lost their savings and their houses. It was a Saturday morning. I will never forget it; the papers will not let me forget it, and your Chief Minister will not let me forget it. He was in the kitchen of the house I visited, and we started that journey to ensure that does not happen to another Territory family. It was good to hear that already, in the residential building insurance that commenced on 1 January 2013, there have been 400 certificates issued to registered builders to a value of $164.492m. That is a great start and that is important information to take to your inquiry.
Be careful about being swayed by lobby groups that have hidden agendas and about trying to appease what will present as very select members of the community when we are working for all Territory families in what will be the biggest investment of their lives. That package is not just about the fidelity fund, minister. Remember it is about consumer guarantees, mandating progress payments, a dispute resolution process, and a package of safe initiatives around Territory families embarking on the purchase of their first home.
The Minister for Central Australia was one of the more nasty ones. It was, obviously, late at night or his blood pressure was running wild. He turned proper savage, as he usually does, when asked questions. He chose to read out these long-winded answers, was particularly vindictive towards opposition shadow members and, therefore, wasted all the time. I was unable to question the minister about Central Australia. I wanted to have a conversation about Central Australia but was denied that opportunity by a vindictive member who was determined to let ego and personality get in front of our true and accountable story for Territorians.
We did not get to talk about Central Australia and Arts and Museums. I apologise to the public officials from the Department of Arts and Museums because I was sorry they had to wait all day and night and did not get to appear. While the member for Port Darwin tries to blame me, Hansard will reflect I was there, present and accounted for, but the government minister was not very intent on being equitable and accountable and allowing the Arts and Museums’ story to be told.
I had questions such as: why has the Northern Territory government joined New South Wales and Queensland in not signing the federal government funding agreement for a major performing arts excellence pool to fund new works? Why would he not face the question: what is the Northern Territory’s position and scope of works and what is happening around the national culture policy? Why would he not face the question: how will the government support the Museums and Art Galleries of the Northern Territory moving forward as a statutory body? Or: what is the Northern Territory government doing about attracting a very important increase in the philanthropic sector to the arts community where we have seen the pull back in corporate sponsorship quite dramatically?
Let us face it, the minister shares a portfolio of Tourism as well. We know the whole world wants to come to the Northern Territory to learn about our culture and Indigenous culture.
They were very good questions and I was looking forward to talking to those experts in the department. Unfortunately, I did not get the chance. I will try further attempts.
In regard to the Minister for Central Australia, we heard about the Alice Springs Golf Club. Thank you, minister, for that important development.
It is important to say the member for Port Darwin has this holier-than-thou minister approach. ‘We do not need anyone in there. We are not going to prepare any information. The ministers will be across their portfolios, and the ministers will answer the questions.’ Then he slagged off episodes in the past.
I have been a new minister and know how important it is to work with departments. I know how important it is to share information and get that story out accountably.
I believe, member for Port Darwin, your theory is particularly important when you examine the estimates appearance by the Minister for Regional Development, who was obviously across all her portfolios. At one stage in the limited time we had, I listened very attentively to a story about new members appointed as parliamentary secretaries. I knew the political story and thought we were hearing a new story. I thought there was a reappointment but, unfortunately, it was totally incorrect and had to be corrected. We heard about the appointment of community engagement officers to support the new members. In all that process, when the minister was so across her portfolio, it was time wasted which could have been used to examine the portfolio areas more critically.
Member for Port Darwin, the Minister for Regional Development used the public servants who support her and it started to flow better. That is a perfect example of why your theory is wrong and the theory of working with the public sector is the way to go.
The Minister for Infrastructure must be commended because he was the only minister who referred to the signed contracts for Borroloola and Wadeye. Every other minister in this estimates process avoided those signed contracts. The Minister for Infrastructure outlined some of those commitments, but he missed the commitments to the road to Wadeye, the school boarding facilities for Borroloola, and the air conditioner for the Chinese Timorese Association at Marrara. He put on the public record those commitments.
I know those contracts were framed copies on the previous Chief Minister’s desk. I know the new Chief Minister has those on his desk because he knows what it means to promise and deliver.
The Minister for Infrastructure shared important information in a very good estimates process allowing those experts to provide their important information. He tabled important information for us to work with and I commend him.
Madam Deputy Chair, there are many improvements to be made and I hope the Estimates Committee and the PAC work on that.
Ms FYLES: Madam Deputy Chair, the estimates process we have just gone through was not only confusing, but the government did not manage the process well and at times it descended into chaos.
I note my colleagues opposite raised the point that fewer questions were taken on notice and fewer public servants were in attendance, although it must be noted there was a back room full of staff providing support and information, so I do not agree with those comments.
If it had not been for the hard work of the public service, the Legislative Assembly committee staff and the media, it would have been a complete waste of time. I place on record my appreciation of the work of the public service and all staff who attended or provided information. They worked hard through much change and confusion, and continued to provide frank and truthful advice.
I was disappointed with the flow of the hearings at times because, as the information was being scrutinised and provided, the flow would be stopped. We were shut down and continually told our questions were out of order. The most memorable example of that was when we were told we were talking about something that was for beyond 1 July 2013, therefore, we were unable to speak about it, even though the whole process is about the Territory budget for beyond 1 July.
I comment on the difference between the quality of the questions from the opposition and the Independent member compared with the answers from the new government. However, I was pleased to be able to use the estimates process to ask questions on behalf of Territorians, particularly about the state of child protection in the Northern Territory.
During the estimates process it was revealed that 171 jobs have been cut from the Office of Children and Families since the Country Liberal Party came to office. Figures were released in estimates that showed at the end of August there were 799 staff and by the end of March 2013 there were only 628. The figure today we are unsure of, but we know the Country Liberal Party has cut staff.
The impact of these Country Liberal Party staffing cuts is clear. The number of child protection notifications that have had investigations finalised has plummeted from 67% in December to 40% in May. Reports of abuse and neglect are up, while finalised investigations are down. The clear result of taking those 171 staff out of child protection is placing more Territory children at risk of abuse and neglect. We are seeing this with increased caseloads on staff. During estimates questioning, it was revealed that some staff are looking after 58 cases - one person for 58 cases. That those figures have risen is unacceptable. A year ago the average caseload in an urban centre was around 18, which is half of what it was a year before. Yet, these figures have doubled again.
The minister tried to claim that 43 of the jobs had been transferred due to Youth Justice being transferred out of Children and Families, although Youth Justice has never been in Children and Families. Yes, some service functions have been outsourced but the department has never held Youth Justice within it; it has always been in the Department of Justice.
Whether 171 or 128 jobs have gone, the impact is clear: the County Liberal Party is not providing proper protection for vulnerable children. The Alice Springs office has a third of its vacancies unfilled.
Attempts by minster Anderson to blame the non-government sector for child protection failures were outrageous. Minister Anderson said NGOs were simply ticking the boxes. That is an outrageous slur on the people in our community who do so much to protect children. They do not tick boxes; they protect and look after children. Her comments were unnecessary and unfounded. She indicated that the NGO sector accepted money and government grants but did nothing, which is wrong.
Her comments directed to me regarding domestic violence were appalling and not becoming of a minister of the Crown.
The minister was unable to provide details of her plans and policies for child protection. Apart from pulling back the board of inquiry recommendations she had no detail, no framework. Many times she mentioned the word ‘magic’, but there was nothing there. The minister kept telling me it would be okay but there was no detail. I again remind her to step up because she is the minister for the Territory’s children. She needs to get on with the job instead of talking about magic.
It was noticeable that she refused to take questions on forced adoptions. It is clear that the tensions between minister Anderson and the Chief Minister are as strong as ever on that issue.
By contrast, I have to put on record my regret and disappointment that shambolic management of the estimates process meant I was denied the opportunity to ask any questions on a series of matters. For example, I had no opportunity to ask questions related to our natural resources in minister Westra van Holthe’s Land Resource Management output.
This included questions about the impact of administrative changes on our biodiversity conservation across the Territory; the status of programs; a budget to support our hard-working and largely volunteer bush firefighters; support for the control of weeds which increase bushfires, reducing land productivity and threatening our natural ecosystem. This is such an important area, but I could not ask any questions.
The Estimates Committee also did not have the opportunity to scrutinise this government’s approach to land clearing and the potential impacts of broad-scale land clearing in the Top End, particularly in erosion, weed invasion, soil movement, and impact on adjacent river systems.
The Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries is proving to be the master of ducking and weaving around the Mataranka water issue: the allocation of water rights to a CLP mate outside a transparent water allocation planning system. There are still many unanswered questions about this freebie for mates, as well as the government’s distaste for a strategic water reserve to help support regional Indigenous economic development, doing something to help replace the welfare economy we hear so much about from the other side. They cannot even stick to this simple matter of strategic water reserve developments. They cannot talk the talk.
Similarly, we had no real opportunity to ask questions about the state of the Parks and Wildlife Commission and the impact of cost-cutting measures in that area.
Having never had the opportunity to sit in hearings and ask questions, I was unsure of the process, but it is a deep process and often one question would lead to another. The Leader of Government Business, to suit his own needs, decided to change the process of estimates - even though it is a well-thought-out and developed process – and decided that ministers of government owned corporations would not be present today. It was he who put this in writing.
It was helpful that the government changed its mind, or the Chief Minister stepped up to the plate and overruled the Leader of Government Business around statutory officers being present and allowed to answer questions during the estimates process.
I thank Dr Bill Freeland, the EPA Commissioner, for his comprehensive and thoughtful answers to my questions around the work of the Environment Protection Authority, and I look forward to following up on environmental protection issues over time.
Estimates is an important part of keeping the government accountable between elections. An example we know a little more about is the development proposal for Nightcliff Island. I thank the Planning Commissioner for flying from down south to be present and explain to us that this project has been given special status. Yet, no one in my community has heard about it. I am sure that is something I, my community, and the media will be following up.
It was extremely disappointing to hear from the Chief Minister and minister for Police that the CLP has broken its promise to spend $1m on upgrading the Nightcliff Police Station and making it 24/7 as they had promised. However, they have decided to make the Alice Springs Police Station 24/7. The logic they applied to breaking the Nightcliff election promise can be applied to the Alice Springs Police Station: it is better to have a police officer on patrol than behind a desk. It is interesting that the only difference between the Nightcliff Police Station and the Alice Springs Police Station is the Nightcliff Police Station is in a Labor electorate, yet the Alice Springs Police Station is in a CLP electorate. This is a government that makes very personal funding decisions and is happy to break promises.
The Nightcliff Sports Club has been chasing its funding commitment from the government for some time. It was my colleague, the shadow minister for Sport, who raised this with the minister for Sport. I am on the Parliamentary Record questioning the previous Chief Minister about this. I have also had correspondence from the minister for Sport’s office, although he seems to forget this. I am hoping, with only a few days to the end of the financial year, the club will see the dollars, after much dithering by the minister for Sport.
During the estimates process, it was important to debate and have the Health minister acknowledge that the paediatric ward at Royal Darwin Hospital needs an upgrade, and she will be writing to the federal minister on this issue, which is something many Territory families are anxiously awaiting ...
Mrs Lambley: Stop reading. Go on, be brave.
Ms FYLES: It is also an important opportunity to remind the government, particularly this increasingly arrogant government – I note the interjections opposite – that the money to spend is not theirs. The Deputy Chief Minister travelling on the Queen’s former private jet is not about responsible government. You are increasing the cost of living for Territorians, slugging them with increased power, water, and sewerage, yet you travelling on a private jet. It is not acceptable. Treasury funds are being spent on behalf of taxpayers and Territorians more generally. We need a robust, honest, and open process for the government to explain their priorities and decisions …
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Chair! I am wondering if the member might table the document she is reading from. We will happily have it incorporated into Hansard and we can get on with things.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: There is no point of order.
Ms FYLES: I am happy for you to table your travel agenda from your recent private jet trip.
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Chair! The answer to that question on notice has been provided. Maybe she should look at it.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: There is no point of order.
Ms FYLES: What was it like on that private jet, Dave? Territorians are asking …
Mr Tollner: Very nice.
Ms FYLES: I do not know; I have never been on a private jet.
Treasury funds are being spent on behalf of taxpayers and Territorians more generally. We need a robust, honest, and open process for the government to explain their priorities and decisions as well as to demonstrate value for money in the way they spend government funds. For the Chief Minister to suddenly make documents ‘Cabinet’ documents so Territorians could not ask questions or sight them seemed arrogant.
Madam Deputy Chair, once again, I thank our public service, the staff of the Legislative Assembly, our statutory officers, the media, and my colleagues for ensuring this year’s estimates process was rescued from chaos and we had some value for Territory voters.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I will make a few comments on the Estimates Committee. I have found Estimate Committees I have been on have generally to be bipartisan. Of course they have had their blues and their upsets. I was a little disappointed in what I call the Collingwood version of the Estimates Committee from the chair. I understand that many people on the – sorry, Clerk, I did not say Essendon, I said Collingwood.
I do not want to be negative about the Estimates Committee, because it is, believe it or not, an essential part of the parliamentary process. All the government members were in estimates for the very first time. There were two members of the opposition who knew about estimates but had never been on that side of the debate. I felt the comments by the chair today were about the ‘evil empire’ on one side and the ‘good angel’ on the other side. We do not need that division. Yes, we might have our disagreements. I had the odd disagreement with the chair. However, we need to pull back. At the Parliamentary Accounts Committee in Sydney, which the chair and I attended, it was said that when you get to the committee stage there should be much less of the politics and more an approach of working together.
We are all here for the benefit of the people of the Northern Territory. The Estimates Committee is a process which allows public scrutiny of the budget. No one on either side would object to that happening; they would see that as an essential part of the democratic process.
I was not going to comment too much on what had happened from a governance point of view of the estimates, but there have been a few issues raised on which I need to comment. The Attorney-General threw some blame on me about written questions. The process of estimates is public scrutiny; that is, there is a public question and a public answer. The mistake made this time was that the written questions came back into the Estimates Committee when they probably should have been delivered two days before the Estimates Committee started. Then, whoever asked for those answers could have taken the responses from those written questions and used them, if they liked, as part of the debate during the formal estimates process.
I am not sure where the Attorney-General was criticising me and saying I am to blame for the Chief Minister reading out the questions. If you get away from the process where we ask questions and table the entire batch on answers, where is the public and the media involved? If they get hold of Hansard a couple of days later, or other members of the Estimates Committee wait for Hansard to show what has been tabled, there will be no opportunity to scrutinise the minister because the minister will have finished his or her time and that scrutiny will not have occurred. There is a very important principle here. If government wishes to turn estimates into written questions, I will not be not part of it - not where the answers are tabled. It goes against the principle of why we are here - the public scrutiny of the government’s budget. If you want to water that down, then do it, but I will not be part of it.
The issue about being absent was raised and has somehow been blown out of all proportion. The absenteeism today was in relation to me having to go to the dentist. I informed the chair yesterday that there would be a requirement for a quorum today. It was the chair’s responsibility to ensure there would be a quorum this morning by asking each side to ensure we had the numbers. I understand and fully sympathise with the chair that she was sick, but that information should have been given to the deputy chair, and the deputy chair should have ensured someone was there to replace me. The Estimates Committee includes only one Independent. I cannot get someone else to replace me and that has to be worked out by the chair with the government or the opposition. Comments about that need to be put into perspective.
In relation to me walking out when I was falling asleep, when the Chief Minister kept asking me if I was awake - he asked me that from 5 pm onwards – it was not perfect, but we should not be holding public servants up at that hour of night. We can go over that ground, but can we fix it? We came back in the second half of estimates and it was improved. It was a learning curve because we had this new idea from the Attorney-General that we should go to exhaustion. I believe he meant exhaustion of questions, not literally fall over from exhaustion on the floor. The idea of being able to ask ministers questions until you have run out of questions is a good idea but it requires some discipline. I accept that, but believe we will do a better job next year. That issue needs to be looked at.
On the other side, I make some positive comments. The Chief Minister spoke for a long time and, even though I did not agree with everything he said, I quite enjoyed some of the things he was talking about. He had some good ideas. They may not come to fruition, but at least I heard a Chief Minister with some new ideas.
I was very appreciative of the Chief Minister saying he will be looking at a possible review of the Electoral Act. That came up because of issues the opposition raised in relation to behaviour they allege occurred at Wadeye. I have had issues at polling booths and am not a fan of the masses of people with how-to-vote cards you have to pass to vote. I appreciate that the minister has looked at that and is willing to at least review the area of the Electoral Act covering that.
The Treasurer and Minister for Business was there for an exceptionally long time. I agree, minister, you should not have been there for 17 hours. You said one of the problems was I said I wanted all the written questions read out. They should have been read because that is the process in place. Do not have that process in place if you do not intend to use it properly. Have your answers back two days before estimates start, then we can pick out those questions we want to ask you directly.
It is all well and good to block questions - and the former government also did that well regarding floor space - but sometimes questions do not relate to the department, which was the problem with having a broad spectrum of questions. One of them was about water at Mataranka; that is not the sort of thing the Speaker or the minister responsible for children’s affairs will talk about. The questions should have been tighter as well because that took up time.
Madam Deputy Chair, I thank everybody - all the people on the Estimates Committee. You worked hard, there were some mistakes, there was a little agro from time to time, but we are here to work on behalf of the people to scrutinise the government’s budget and we should work together and not turn this into a ‘them and us’ situation.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Deputy Chair, it was a very interesting experience for me because for the past 12 years I had been sitting on the other side taking questions from the members of the opposition. It was interesting to see the dynamics from the other side, and compare it to when we were in the hot seat.
Yes, there were problems. It was one of John Elferink’s master plans that did not work the way it should have. However, knowing Mr Elferink, I wonder if there was any ulterior motive behind the whole process.
It is impossible for any minister to know all the answers about his or her department, and that is why ministers have to rely on public servants. Even the CEOs are unlikely to have intimate knowledge of the department’s finances so they will also need to have the Chief Financial Officer available for estimates. I was very surprised when I received the letter that said only the ministers would appear at the estimates and no public servants. I thought that was very interesting because either the ministers are very well versed and know their department’s very well, which I doubt, or Mr Elferink wants to embarrass every one of them. Why? Because they did not vote for him to be Chief Minister, or is he planning for the future?
Somebody in Mr Elferink’s office realised it was not a good idea – it was actually dumb - and decided every minister should be assisted by the CEOs. Thankfully, the CEOs realised it was not a good idea and they needed to be supported by other bureaucrats. Then we saw ministers before us with their CEOs and the Chief Financial Officers who could respond to questions.
Many of my counterparts had to ask the CEO to answer questions because they were operational questions; they had no idea about them. The CEOs are paid two or three times more than a minister to run the department. It is not expected that the minister would know how to run a department such as Health, or Tourism. The role of the minister is to devise policy, not tell the department CEO how to run his department.
The time could have been managed much better. I expected the member for Port Darwin to blame the opposition for that. He said it was the opposition’s fault that it did not use the time efficiently. I remind the member for Port Darwin of the first estimates in 2002. I was not questioned as a minister because the opposition ran out of time. They took their time questioning other ministers; I was the last in line and even though I turned up, I was not questioned.
I recall the second and third estimates and the frustration of the member for Greatorex, who wanted to ask me a question about multicultural affairs. He was given time for just one question and he gave his colleagues some deadly looks because he was running out of time. It is not only the individual, it is a combination of factors. Yes, some ministers have to be questioned more than others. Some ministers found an easy way out. If they read the written questions for four hours, that took four hours out of their time - wise for the minister, but not clever as a government.
People want answers. These questions could be tabled either before the Estimates Committee is convened, so people know about it, or they can read them into Hansard as the time goes by. You might think it is a clever way out; it is not. People can see through that, and they will complain and comment about it. People want to know answers about the budget, the efficiency of the departments, and the ideas of the ministers.
We again had the argument from the member for Port Darwin who would not allow a police officer to answer a question because it was a policy question. Today ministers did not turn up, leaving public servants to be questioned on policy issues. Of course, they would not be able to do that because that is not the role of public servants.
I turn specifically to areas of my portfolios. I asked questions on Asian Engagement and Trade. The Treasurer travelling to China using a private charter was one of the key questions for the simple reason I found it excessive and unnecessary. I have no problem with the Treasurer or any other minister travelling to Southeast Asia, as this is what every minister who wants to promote the Territory has to do.
I have no problem with the Minister for Tourism travelling; his role is to promote the Territory. I did that as a Minister for Tourism. The problem is the way you go, where you go, how you go, and how much it costs. The travel by the Treasurer to China, as the Minister for Business, was excessive and expensive …
Mr Tollner: It was a commercial flight.
Mr VATSKALIS: Minister, you can try to argue as much as you like …
Mr Tollner: It was treated as a commercial flight. I read out a comparison in estimates.
Mr VATSKALIS: The cost per person …
Mr Tollner: It would cost $90 000 for you to take the same trip. Goodness me! Wake up to yourself.
Mr VATSKALIS: I did, minister.
Minister, I strongly suggest that next time you get a better travel agent who will save you money. It might have cost you $15 000 per person; I could have done the same thing at one-fifth of the price. You can try to justify it as much as you like, the reality is you flew the Queen of Jordan’s …
Mr Tollner: You absolute grub!
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Treasurer, cease interjecting!
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Chair! I ask the Treasurer to withdraw the language he is using in reference to the …
Mr Tollner: He is being a grub. He knows exactly what he is saying. He knows exactly …
Ms WALKER: I ask him to withdraw the language. That is the point of order before you. He does not even have the call and he is on his feet.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Are you offended by these comments, member for Casuarina?
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes, I am offended, Madam Deputy Chair.
Mr Tollner: Offended by what?
Mr VATSKALIS: By your language, member for Fong Lim.
Mr Tollner: I am offended by yours! How about you withdraw that?
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Treasurer, please withdraw!
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw.
Mr VATSKALIS: It must be a sore point, Madam Deputy Chair.
As I said before, I do not care if the minister travels; I encourage that. Territorians and I are concerned about the cost of travelling. Looking at the websites of the airlines you can fly from here to Beijing, through Singapore, business class and it will cost you $4000. I never had to wait 36 hours in any lounge in China because we arranged our trips so we could catch the flights from one airport to the other. I am not going to question the effectiveness of his trip, although I still have doubts. Good on him if he went to China to promote the Territory. I voice my concern about the cost and mode of his travel.
The only time I flew a private jet was when I picked up a ride from Western Australia to come here for a conference. It cost nothing because the Cultural minister of Western Australia was kind enough to ask me if I wanted to fly with him rather than on a commercial flight.
I want to comment on the Health portfolio. The minister asked for assistance from her CEO, and I have no problem with that. Some of the questions we asked were operational and the CEO and other officers were required to answer.
I was concerned about the announcement of the hospital car parking, and we questioned that. We thought it was unwise because people who go to Royal Darwin Hospital do not have an option to go to another hospital or to choose how long they will stay there. Some of them might go to a clinic but, because of the way things are done, instead of being there for an hour they can be four, five, or six hours. The minister chose the easy way out. It is an unfortunate announcement. Obviously the minister has been making all the difficult announcements for this government, and she might, in time, have to pay for it.
I also questioned the minister about the super clinic. She said on radio - I heard it with my own ears - saying the super clinic can provide assistance to the hospital by removing the workload for the emergency department. When she praised the Palmerston Super Clinic there was no mention of the northern suburbs super clinic. In the end, she committed to write to the federal minister for Health. I asked her to forward a letter to my office so I can write in support of her request for funding from the federal government for a super clinic. I am still waiting for that letter.
We found out the real story of this government around the Palmerston hospital. This government has refused to proceed with the Palmerston hospital and to provide a new facility for the people of Palmerston and the rural area for political reasons. They told us they would spend $5m on a report on the Palmerston hospital. The minister went to great lengths to highlight some of the shortcomings where, unfortunately, three or four reports had already been done. Every issue the minister raised had already been addressed by those reports.
One issue she raised was the traffic. I pointed out that in page 14 of the latest report there was a total analysis of the traffic situation in Palmerston. It was highlighted that no problem had been found. I am still committed to providing the minister with these reports if the department has not shown them to her because the $5m can be spent better somewhere else than on writing another report to justify their delay in providing a hospital in Palmerston.
I questioned the Primary Industry and Fisheries minister for only an hour-and-a-half because the questioning for Health took longer than I expected. There were many issues in health. Health is one of the most important issues in the Territory. We have some of the sickest people in Australia, and we have to address the health issues. One of the big issues in health was taking away the medi-hotel, which was vital for people coming from the bush to receive treatment in the Territory, and would have provided a safe environment for them to stay in. It was taken away for the ill-conceived alcohol plan they have, which will come later and we will discuss it then.
I was totally unsatisfied by the excuses of the minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries, and Resources about the taxes he and this government imposed on the mining sector. The minister told us the mining sector was consulted, knew everything about it and said, ‘What do you expect? Of course, they will argue about it because they do not like it.’ Unfortunately, not only did I have verbal information from the Minerals Council of Australia, Northern Territory Branch, but I also had it in writing, because there were two media releases issued. One of them was against the imposition of a levy for the shortcomings of the previous governments with regard to legacy mines, and the other was the tax they put on the resources sector with regard to their office accommodation and, of course, the transfer of goods between companies.
These two media releases from the Minerals Council of Australia, Northern Territory Branch, clearly stated that the industry was not approached or consulted at all. I will speak more about the levy on the mining sector with regard to legacy mines later when the amendments to the Mine Management Act are debated. I highlight that this is one of the very big issues that will affect the Territory and be a disincentive for companies to invest in the Territory.
Last, I will talk about the Ord River. The minister has been praising the stage 3 development. Yes, it is a good idea to have another agricultural development in the Northern Territory as long as the minister takes time and gives all Territorians a clear picture. I have been advised by very reliable sources that not everything is as good as the minister describes.
The minister has never told us there is a strong reaction by the traditional owners to the development of a significant area of the Ord because that development will affect some of their traditional land which is held in very high respect and is holy to those people. Many traditional owners, while they accept development in other areas, strongly object to it in that area of the Keep River. Fifteen members of the traditional owners group visited the minister in Darwin and expressed their strong opposition to development of that area.
Have we heard anything from this government? No. Have we heard anything from this minister? No. Do we hear anything about an analysis by the department, or anybody, about the opportunity the Ord presents? No. What we hear is the golden future for the Territory if the Ord is developed. The minister has never said how jobs would be created in the west of the Northern Territory area if Ord Stage 3 is developed because there will not be many.
The Ord is to be developed as a sugar production area. Not many people are employed in the planting or cropping of sugar. The sugar mill will be near Kununurra, Western Australia. All the material will be transported there for processing and the final product will be exported by the port of Wyndham, which is in Western Australia, not the Northern Territory.
In addition, even today there are strong concerns about the suitability of the Ord for the production of food and sugar. We have seen vast areas of the Ord taken for the production of trees. The member for Nelson has highlighted that some of the trees produced should not be there; there should be more productive crops planted on the Ord.
However, expansion of the Ord to our side still has problems and it would be very wise for the minister to tell Territorians the truth about the difficulties facing the development of the Ord scheme. How much will it cost Territorians to develop this area? Who will bear that cost? Will it be private companies or Northern Territory taxpayers? Those questions need to be answered, not in the never-never but now, before we proceed to any serious decisions about the Ord.
My biggest concern is the watering down of the environmental bonds for mining development and establishment of mines. The previous Labor government ensured every company wanting to develop a mine had to pay a 100% environmental bond to cover potential damage to the environment should the mining company go bust or stop production. We never want to see a repeat of the Mt Todd situation and other legacy mines that were left behind with very significant environmental costs for us to pick up and fix because the damage to the environment was significant.
Madam Deputy Chair, some of these questions were put to the minister. Others, because of shortness of time, were not. However, it was an exercise that can provide lessons for all of us. Quite a few of the members opposite realise what was presented to them was not the best model for an estimates process. I am sure there will be a robust debate within their Caucus for next year’s estimates. I doubt the member for Port Darwin will be allowed to develop the model he thought was the best one because it was not.
Ms WALKER: Madam Deputy Chair, my fifth budget estimates and my first sitting on the other side of the table as a member of the opposition is an experience I will remember for some time. It is memorable for a number of reasons: the ridiculous and almost unworkable revision and set-up of the estimates process; the quality of the chairing of the committee; the churlish performance of some of the ministers of the Crown; and the number of clear answers to questions I did not receive in my areas of shadow responsibility, as well as a couple of local member questions I managed to slip in.
I believe next year we will see a better and more workable estimates process set up because, I daresay, just about the entirety of the Country Liberal Party wing will have turned on the member for Port Darwin for insisting on a committee process which ended up hurting just about everybody but him. His fond attachment to the CLP days of old and the ‘this is how we used to do things back in the good old days; make them stay up all night to ask questions’, clearly did not work. The questioning-to-exhaustion approach folded after two very late nights in a row, with the Chief Minister doing a bit of a dummy spit and members of the committee recognising it was simply not humanly possible to function effectively after such long hours.
We had the bravado of the member for Fong Lim, the Treasurer, who said he would stay for five days if he had to, versus the Chief Minister who said he would not be there until all hours and would not be coming back the next day. Well, he crumbled and came back the next day.
Overlooked in the equation was the demand on the staff of the Legislative Assembly and the public servants. I thank those people for their patience and fortitude in working such ridiculous hours on the insistence of the Leader of Government Business.
Having been the deputy chair of estimates for four years, I have insights into how demanding this role can be and how important it is for the chair to facilitate debate in a manner which is fair and equitable to all parties with a neutral disposition. I am sure the member for Drysdale is pleased that the fortnight is over, and I am very sorry to hear she is unwell today. If I were to offer advice to the chair for next year’s estimates it would be to allow a little more latitude and recognise that the question and answer process is, by nature, often very conversational, and questions will be preceded by a statement or a preamble which will lead to the question.
Standing orders are an important guide and compass in facilitating debate but, all too often, they were used to protect ministers and shut down a line of questioning which might have been too uncomfortable for a minister. This was frequently followed by a threat of a warning or a possible ejection.
The Leader of Government Business each year sang the praises of the member for Fannie Bay’s chairing capabilities, and the member for Drysdale would do well to take lessons from him.
What can I say about the member for Arnhem as the deputy chair? Her desire to learn on the job is admirable, but she was unleashed on the committee and, at times, was almost embarrassing and cringe-worthy. I would be willing to cut her some slack as a new member in the role for the first time, but her insistence on standing orders associated with offensive words was simply wrong and silly. For heaven sake, ‘cow cocky’ and ‘former Chief Minister’ were phrases that were ruled offensive and members who uttered these words were lectured by the member for Arnhem. It was ridiculous, and obviously many of the ABC Country Hour listeners thought so too, given the online comments they posted. Also, her desire to interject, offer commentary and ask local members questions when it was not her turn was simply bizarre.
I thank the Attorney-General for answering questions and entering into discussions about crime statistics and the merits or otherwise of alcohol supply measures such as the Banned Drinker Register. Essentially, he conceded nothing, even though crime statistics from his agency show crime has risen since the Banned Drinker Register was axed. By the same token, he was unable to explain exactly how they will reduce crime by 10% and the methodology by which this will be measured. He continues to ignore the evidence about the effectiveness of the BDR and is on the record as being confident there will be no legal challenges to the Alcohol Management Treatment Bill due for passage later today. I would not be as confident as him, especially with dozens of amendments already brought forward to this bill.
In relation to the costs associated with an anticipated increase in the number of people locked up as a result of new laws, including minimum mandatory sentencing, the answer from the Attorney-General was $162.351m. I look forward to next year’s estimates to see how accurate that figure is and whether locking more people up will, somehow, be a deterrent and reduce the recidivism rate as well as reduce crime by 10%.
The Attorney-General responded to questions about the abolition of the SMART Court, advising that 230 defendants were referred and 146 accepted into the SMART Court program, with 52 graduating. I consider that to be a reasonable result; however, the Attorney-General dismissed it as, ‘disappointing in effectiveness and bang for buck for millions of expenditure’. Given this, I look forward to hearing next year’s estimates about how many graduations we will see from the alcohol management treatment programs and whether there is a bang for the taxpayer buck from the $45m about to be spent there.
As for the Corrections portfolio, we heard much about how the CLP continues to build on Labor’s new era of Corrections, some of which is under the rebadged program Sentenced to a Job. The minister, disappointingly, was unable to quantify how many people have dropped out of the program other than to say ‘too many’.
I welcomed the opportunity to spend time in estimates with the Minister for Regional Development around my other shadow responsibilities. I remain unconvinced the minister is adequately across her Homelands Extra Allowance, given she had to take as a question on notice what I would have thought was one of the most basic and obvious questions: how many applications had been received; how many approved; how many declined; and how many were pending?
The reality is the application forms have only very recently - in the last one to two weeks - appeared on the department’s website, and I do not recall seeing any advertising to let homelands and outstation residents know they are available. I, therefore, suspect the answer to my question on notice will be that no applications have been approved because none have been received, and that is because the forms have not been out there.
It does confirm that when the minister announced at GanGan on 2 May that, ‘This money is available from today’, that statement was plainly untrue. I also note that the application form for the Homelands Extra Allowance has a deadline of 31 August on it. It states on the form that it must be lodged by 31 August. This is a real problem for homelands and outstation residents which will seriously limit the number of residents who will apply. Given that it is the Dry Season and we are now into school holidays, many homeland residents will be travelling and by the time they get back from school holidays they will have little more than a month to complete and lodge their application form through their homeland or outstation resource agency.
The demands of the form for those with low literacy levels will be challenging, and the task of providing help lies with service providers, not with the agency. How service providers will meet the administration cost of providing this assistance and any administration of the scheme remains unclear. But I know the minister will be held to account around her commitment that the whole of the $5200 will go to eligible households and nothing will be deducted for administration costs.
What was also unclear during the Estimates Committee was the judging of eligibility criteria, especially in relation to the means testing. Nowhere on the website or the form does it state that the means testing will see a householder earning more than $44 752 eligible. That was the figure given to me during the estimates questioning yesterday. That is a fairly key figure which should be on the form and the website, so when people fill out this paperwork they know where that cross-off is in eligibility with income.
Could the result be that people may find ways to reduce their income to meet eligibility? Maybe, but what a terrible shame that would be, given the scheme is about trying to incentivise people to work. However, it goes to the heart of the scheme, which is inherently unfair in its eligibility when it goes to means testing.
We, on both sides of this House, know homelands and outstation housing is in need of funding for repairs. Labor was committed to funding homeland housing repairs in a very similar program, but there was no means testing under Labor’s policy.
If we know dwellings are permanently occupied, are in need of repair, that kids will go to school, and adults are in a job, training, CDEP, or voluntary work, then we should be spending money to fix that house, not delaying the process and making it difficult for residents by linking it to their income through a means testing process. It is a system that is set up to be unnecessarily difficult and will not see as many homeland dwellings receive much-needed funding as would have been the case under Labor.
Another fascinating revelation was to learn from the Minister for Regional Development that the Bush Subcommittee of Cabinet tasked with visiting bush communities to investigate expenditure and waste had managed to make just one trip to Lajamanu before that committee was disbanded.
The minister then advised that those bush members had been made parliamentary secretaries and were assisting ministers with their duties while learning the ropes of how to be a good member of parliament. It was perhaps 10 minutes or so after this that the minister received advice that was then delivered: ‘I have been informed that we do not have parliamentary secretaries, we have Community Engagement Officers to assist the bush members.’ So we no longer have parliamentary secretaries to support them to do their jobs and learn the ropes, but we have three Community Liaison Officers who have been employed to support these bush MLAs and help them do their jobs.
Unfortunately, no details were available about these roles, given they are not through the minister’s agency but, rather, through DCM. It is a far cry from a Bush Subcommittee of Cabinet to suddenly have three new public servants employed exclusively to assist bush members in doing their jobs.
I also spoke with the minister about the unfairness of power price increases in remote Indigenous communities, especially when residents use prepaid power tokens, as well as the atrocious communication program - or lack of - to inform bush residents reliant upon prepaid power tokens that these power increases were coming.
I thank the minister for the discussion she had with me on this important subject. She summarised when she replied:
With this recognition of failure to people in the bush, I hope the member for Katherine takes this on board, as the responsible Minister for Essential Services and issues me with an apology for accusing me of lying and scaremongering when I first raised this as a very real issue in January.
I thank the member for Namatjira, as Minister for Local Government, for answering questions in that section. Clearly the focus was the current reform process, the review of local government, the work of the Regional Governance Working Group and the very costly round of consultations over the last few months. The minister has made a commitment to put the question on notice to provide costs of taxpayer dollars associated with these consultations.
Anecdotally, I am hearing people are very confused about these consultations; they thought they were working with the CLP government which will get rid of the shires. Getting rid of the shires is not an option in the options paper. Some people are dismayed by this and they are wondering what the point of these consultations is; they had not been told. I have heard that at some of the consultations they were told the only change will be a rebadging from local government councils to regional councils. Taxpayers will want to see what the return on the investment is for this massive and very costly consultation period. I look forward to seeing the report that will come out in the coming weeks about that process.
I look forward to next year’s estimates. Indeed, I look forward to the next sittings and Question Time: another opportunity where not only I, but my colleagues, have the opportunity to ask questions around our shadow portfolios. We will continue to hold this very untrustworthy government to account on their promises and election commitments and why it is they say one thing and do another.
I also look forward to receiving, I hope, a positive response from the Treasurer. I wrote to him last week with an invitation, a request on behalf of the people of Nhulunbuy, for him to attend a function whereby stakeholders who are interested - and there are many from business people to community members and people involved in local sporting organisations and what have you - to know more about the Territory budget. The budget road show was axed this year. The Treasurer said in estimates last week that was because he had been told there probably would not be the numbers to warrant going to Tennant Creek, Katherine, and Nhulunbuy. I have written to the Treasurer and assured him that I consider a turnout of 30 to 40 people at one of these functions in Nhulunbuy - which has been the case over the last few years - to be very worthwhile. I have offered to host the function. I have offered to provide a modest morning or afternoon tea for people who wish to attend. I hope he takes me up on that offer.
Madam Deputy Chair, I am sure with his good connections in the aviation industry and the access he has to Queen class travel that, one way or another, the Treasurer will get there. We will certainly welcome him. People have many questions they wish to ask him.
Ms MANISON: Madam Deputy Chair, it has certainly been an interesting few weeks for me as a local member going into the estimates process for the first time. It is an important opportunity to be able to sit down with the government and the Independent to ask some important questions about how they are going with the budget and whether they are delivering their commitments, to get some baseline data, and to see what is really going on under the CLP’s watch.
In regard to the Housing portfolio, for which I am shadow, I gained much interesting information about what is going on. The first thing that came up for me was looking at the government’s plans around the construction of new public housing. It became very clear, when I looked at Budget Paper No 4 to see what was on the books in infrastructure under the Public Housing portfolio, that there were no plans for new public housing that was not revote. There was nothing new there that was not already under way under Labor.
It was a real shame to see, at a time when we know demand for housing is high - people need it; they are finding things pretty tough - we are not seeing public housing moving forward in any extra or new additional stock.
It was also my opportunity to ask a few questions regarding the plans of the government around the sale of 50 public housing properties at the moment. The minister has made it very clear that 50 properties are going under the auction hammer when they go up for sale. What I found to be a real shame was, of those properties, most of the money from those sales will go straight into repairing and upgrading homes, as opposed to the construction of new dwellings.
Today we heard an announcement about the Runge Street complex which has been vacant for some time now. That is 24 units people in Darwin cannot access. There is an expression of interest going out about that but, again, it is very vague on details. There is no real sense of urgency about getting stock back up and running in public housing, and no real details about what that final number will be in regard to those public housing dwellings.
We also saw in the budget papers that public housing numbers had gone down to about 5036. We are also seeing a reduction in the numbers through the sale and the unloading of stock.
The fact is, the demand for public housing is not diminishing; the wait list times are increasing. It was concerning to see the wait list times, at one point, disappear off the Internet altogether. I was very pleased when that was bought to the minister’s attention and they were promptly put back on for all to see where they would stand if they applied for public housing. We can keep track of how things are going in public housing, and how long those lists are.
It was a worry to see the wait periods for all public housing are increasing. For example, the waiting period for a one-bedroom dwelling for pensioners in Alice Springs has increased from 50 months to 64 months; in Darwin and Casuarina from 70 months to 83 months; and in Palmerston from 60 to 65 months. The waiting period for two-bedroom dwellings in Alice Springs has gone from 49 months to 63 months; in Casuarina and Darwin from 52 to 62 months; and in Palmerston 54 months to 67 months. The number of applicants for public housing is around the same as it was this time last year, yet the wait times have increased.
I also asked some questions about the vacancies because it is an interesting question to ask: how many public housing dwellings across the Territory are vacant at the moment? How many have nobody is in them at a time when we have such high demand? The answer to that was 299, so almost 300 dwellings are vacant. That is 111 more than at the same time last year; 111 properties with nobody in them at a time when the need is immense.
I also asked a few questions about the vacancy turnaround times, which is something that is included in the report on government services every year. It was something that formerly, under the Labor government, you would see in Budget Paper No 3: what is the average time to turnaround a vacant public housing dwelling? We do not want them unoccupied; we want to get people in them as quickly as possible. I was unable to get a figure on that. I also ask that the government reconsiders putting that back into Budget Paper No 3. It is disappointing to see that disappear off the books because it is about being accountable and transparent, and it is important for the agency to be able to monitor and track how it is performing when it comes to turning over vacant public housing stock as quickly as possible to get Territorians most in need into that housing.
Estimates was also an opportunity to ask a few questions about the recent rent price hikes for many public housing tenants. Many people have been slapped with a $200 a week increase in their rent. That is almost $12 000 extra a year people need to find to pay the rent when they are not earning much money in the first place.
I found it a bit off-putting that day to see a media release issued by the minister that stated:
He was referring to the people who have just been slapped with an increase in rent of $200 a week. If I was slapped with an extra $200 on top of my mortgage or my rent I would be shocked. It is a huge amount of money to find every week to pay the rent, especially if you are not earning a high income. It concerns me that the minister appeared to show a complete lack of concern for those people.
I also asked whether anybody else was paying $400 a week to live in the Kurringal Flats. We have seen an example where one person is paying $400 a week. I asked if they knew of any more people who have been slapped with $400 a week rent to live in Kurringal. They were unable to provide me with an answer. Either way, it is concerning to know that, according to the minister, $400 a week to live at Kurringal Flats is acceptable.
The process around those rent increases has caused considerable shock and stress, and many people will reconsider how they go about their daily lives. What astounded me about this process was there are many people now asking themselves whether or not they should keep working. Because they have had such a huge rent increase they have looked at their options and discovered that if they cut their working hours they do not have to pay the extra rent. Some people are also considering quitting work. That is not what we want to see in the economy; we want to see people being productive members of the community and contributing, taking up those jobs we need filled. I found it quite concerning to hear the stories of people who are, in many cases, stopping work or rearranging their working schedule so they can avoid having to pay this extra rent. I asked for a figure on how much extra rent these Territorians would pay and I did not get an answer. One thing is for sure, it is a cash grab from some of our most vulnerable Territorians, which is heartless and concerning.
The other thing I found quite shocking through this estimates process was how the CLP government’s new home ownership program, HomeBuild Access, is performing compared to the old HOMESTART NT program. In the mini-budget, the CLP scrapped the HOMESTART NT scheme. It was a fantastic scheme that helped many young people, couples, and families buy a home who, otherwise, would have found it really difficult and may have missed out and still been renting.
I asked how many people had taken up the HOMESTART NT loans for the six months to December last year, before they scrapped it. The answer was 283. That is 283 homes across the Territory which have been purchased by people with the assistance of the government. Clearly, it was a scheme that worked, allowing 283 young people, couples or families to obtain home ownership in the Territory and get out of a life of renting.
When I asked how many Territorians had accessed the new scheme, HomeBuild Access, the answer was 25. That is 25 versus 283, which shows what a good scheme HOMESTART NT was and that HomeBuild Access is not kicking the goals we need. It is a real shame to see that and I will be keeping an eye on it.
During estimates I also asked about the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing, a very important program that has changed many people’s lives for the better through new or improved housing. We have heard the government is moving toward some new models of housing, including modular houses that will be built in some of the communities. I asked the question about whether or not these homes are being constructed on site in the communities so you can get local workforce benefits from employment and training opportunities. I was given a fairly vague answer that they are generally constructed off-site, and some are brought in. I did not really get to the bottom of that. It is something we will also be asking more questions about in the future.
The Public Employment portfolio has been an area of much debate to many people. Prior to the election the government made some very firm commitments to Territorians in the public service that their jobs were safe. They made some commitments that frontline services would not be compromised. Many members on the other side stood outside the front of workplaces handing out brochures saying, ‘Your job is safe’. On election day we saw big corflutes at the polling booths saying, ‘Your job is safe’, targeted at Territory public servants.
During the estimates process I was provided with information from the Minister for Public Employment. It was very clear in that document that between August 2012 and March 2013 there was a loss of 471 jobs in the public service. That is 471 people who were told before the election that they would have a job, only to find, under the new government, they no longer had employment. That is almost 500 families dealing with somebody without a job. That makes life very tough.
One of the departments with the biggest hit was the department where we have the greatest need in the Territory: the Department of Children and Families. Through the estimates questioning there was debate about the figure of 171 positions, of which 40-odd were transferred to other agencies. However, that still leaves about 130 fewer jobs in that agency. That is a real concern when we know the need is so great in that area.
We also heard through the estimates process that 126 teachers through the middle and senior years will be losing their jobs in Education, and that is alarming. Before the election, people were clearly told by the CLP that there would be no frontline service jobs lost. As soon as they got into government, what did we see? There are 126 teachers being taken out of the Territory education system. That is a disgrace. In the department there are 25 fewer staff in housing.
The department of Sport and Recreation, which is not a big agency, has nine fewer staff, going from 55 to 46. It makes a fairly big impact when that many people go.
Lands, Planning and the Environment has lost 21 positions and there are 34 less in the Department of Infrastructure. This is leading to higher workloads and more stress for those who are left behind. They are carrying a bigger, heavier load on their shoulders, and we are hearing that morale is at an all-time low in the public sector. People are still quite concerned about where their futures lie.
I also asked a few questions about the upcoming EBA, particularly about the new government asking public servants, as part of their normal working hours, to consider working on Saturday mornings at a single rate of pay. I asked the minister, ‘Who exactly are the public servants you would like to see working these hours?’ Unfortunately, I was unable to obtain an answer.
With regard to my electorate, I had answers, got more information, or heard a few statements from the government regarding other matters at estimates. One that raised concerns for me was that Casuarina Senior College and Dripstone Middle School will be affected by having fewer teachers in the system. I do not think it is much comfort for them to see that a maximum of only five teachers will leave a school per year. We know that education is critical to the future of the Territory, and teachers play a very important part in that, so it is very disappointing to see fewer teachers in our middle and senior years.
I was glad to hear the minister say he would like to build a new Henbury School. I am looking forward to seeing what happens in the future. I can assure you, minister, I will be keeping the pressure on, because it is critical that we have a new Henbury School. It is bursting at its seams. They are anticipating about 100 enrolments next year. It is too full, but there are no commitments in this budget going forward, not even for the planning of a new school. That is something we will be keeping an eye on.
One thing that was also quite clear going through this process is that for my constituents in Wanguri the cost of living is impacting them. It is still hitting them quite hard, particularly the power and water price increases, in the first instance, hitting the hip pocket. The flow-on effects are impacting on them, from childcare through to the ability to pay to play sport and that type of thing. Businesses are having to pass on those costs to their customers and increase prices for their services and products.
Overall, it was a very interesting process going through estimates. I thank the ministers I spoke to for providing some of that critical baseline data that we need going forward to measure the performance of this new CLP government and see how it is going.
Madam Deputy Chair, I also thank the public servants who put a lot of work into this process and made themselves available to answer questions. I noticed there were a fair few lights on in the buildings of certain agencies going home one evening, so I knew many people were still at work preparing information.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Chair, I will respond to some of the comments that have been made.
The opposition was given everything they asked for in this estimates hearing. Ministers made themselves available for as long as they were required. I was there for 17 hours and the Chief Minister was there for 20 hours. We did everything we could to be on hand for the Estimates Committee.
I have received some criticism about not being around when the Power and Water Corporation was questioned. Normally, one would expect that government owned corporation sits outside of government and, as such, they would answer questions put directly to them. However, I made the point during the time I was being questioned as the Treasurer, as the shareholding minister for Power and Water Corporation, that I would be more than happy to answer any questions there and then in relation to the Power and Water Corporation. I was more than happy to turn up, if the committee had asked me to, to the GOC output earlier today.
The opposition is quite hollow in saying we were hiding behind public servants. Absolute arrant nonsense! As I said, the fact is we have made ourselves available, listened to the opposition bang on for a few hours in relation to this appropriation, carrying on about price hikes in certain areas and the cost of parking at RDH.
I remind the opposition that it was they who left $5.5bn worth of debt which has to be cleaned up by this new government. As such, we are tightening the belt. It has not been a slash-and-burn budget; it is more about focusing on areas of waste and trying to find efficiencies in the system. As I said during the estimates period, we found more than $200m in savings without reducing services pretty well anywhere.
All in all, it has been a responsible budget. I am disappointed with the opposition; I thought they would have used their time more prudently, asked questions more prudently, and would have tried to delve for information. Unfortunately, it was seen as an opportunity to grandstand and get on their soapboxes. Listening to the Opposition Leader rant on, sometimes for 15 minutes, at the end of which there was no question, you wondered what the hell you were doing sitting there in an estimates process.
All in all, the process that was put in place is for the Estimates Committee or the Public Accounts Committee. It is a process that is there for the opposition to question government. The opposition was given every possible opportunity to question whomever they liked. To carry on now that they only saw the Mines minister for an hour shows how badly they managed their time during this estimates process.
Madam Deputy Chair, as I said, it is a responsible budget. There is more belt-tightening to come. Government will continue to make responsible decisions to drive the Territory’s economic growth.
Motion agreed to.
Remainder of bill agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 15 May 2013.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I thank the Treasurer for his briefing. I will take note of learned colleagues in this House who commenced with, ‘I will not be on my feet for long contributing to this debate’, then went for 45 minutes with an extension. However, I will not be on my feet for long contributing to this debate. I thank the Chief Minister for his briefing. The opposition will support this bill.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague because he adjourned the debate while I was out of the Chamber in the first reading. Whilst we support this bill because the government anticipates it will raise $10m through these revenue measures, it is quite different to the mining amendment which will follow. One of the concerns we have consistently had, and have raised through the estimates process and previous debates, is that the resources sector is critical to the Territory economy. Irrespective of politics, we have both governed under a federal Labor government, but we both have an attitude of being ‘open for business’. Through estimates and the debate we had, the Treasurer indicated he was confident some mining companies did not view these measures in an onerous light. That is not the feedback that was received publicly from the Resources Council, which described the new levies as putting up a ‘closed for business’ sign.
I appreciate that every government looks at every opportunity in revenue-raising capability. I have been on the record supporting that, and I enter into the realm of the federal debate supporting the mining rental resource tax because, as I have said ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am little confused; the Leader of the Opposition is talking about mining revenue measures, which relate to item no 3 or 4 on the Notice Paper today. She is either doing so because she thinks we are on the topic or, alternatively, it is potentially a breach of Standing Order 68, which is anticipation of subject.
Ms LAWRIE: No, I did distinguish between the coming debate of the mining revenue measures and these levies, which are different and go to structural incentives; for example, if you relocate your head office to Darwin and the like. I am distinguishing between the two.
I am saying I am supportive of levies for an industry where the government believes they will enhance efficiency and productivity within the structures of the company, and the revenue section of Treasury can more efficiently work out the revenue amounts. These are productivity efficiency-style levies in a broad brush sense.
Whilst I appreciate what the Treasurer put on the record during the estimates debate regarding feedback he received from companies which was supportive of these levies, we know industry has a big problem with the bill we will debate later.
I am a fan of structural changes that deal with specific issues within a sector which bring in revenue if there is a result that also enhances productivity. The link I was making is to the amarity, for example. That then moved to taking additional revenue out of a sector and channelling it into a profit-based regime, which I am a fan of, more than ad valorem. I supported that because a nation building infrastructure fund was being established out of it. The analysis we did at the time, if it had passed as we intended, said it would produce a benefit to the tune of $300m over about five years. A $300m Commonwealth investment in infrastructure in the Territory, particularly in roads and ports, without having the usual arm-wrestle argument, is nothing to be sneezed at; it is, in fact, welcomed.
The point I am making is you will receive revenue from these levy changes. They are revenue measures; let us be clear about it. That being said, I know Treasury is never a fan of hypothecation, but this does present an opportunity for a greater emphasis and focus on infrastructure. I know that will run counter to the countercyclical view you have of the capital program. I note your Infrastructure minister, in the estimates debate last night, indicated that while they put additional into roads, it brought forward an additional $10m into roads R&M.
My contribution to this debate is pretty clear: whilst we support actions for a levy where you are trying to drive productivity and efficiencies, where that revenue is and, ultimately, grows to, presents opportunities to turn it into further productivity in that sector. If you go into levies that restructure the productivity and efficiencies within a sector, then you should have a very good look at the resources sector, which is such an important sector to the economic growth of the Territory, and at the opportunities around regional economic development. In the future, as it grows and there are opportunities, do we say we will put more and more emphasis into the infrastructure of growing the regions?
I know it is often the case that you want to sit back and say the federal government needs to step up, do this, and do that. I look forward to hearing what Tony Abbott will promise for infrastructure into the Northern Territory, because I have not heard anything yet other than the broader vision for northern Australia. However, there is not a cent attached to that broader vision. There is no rubber hitting the road in them saying, ‘We will kick in $50m to the port, or $150 into regional roads’. There is no rubber hitting the road with Tony Abbott’s grand plan.
Your Infrastructure minister last night complained about the reduction in Nation Building funding into Territory regional roads which was, obviously, announced by Albanese. There is a reduction because the Victoria Highway bridges and Tiger Brennan Drive are finished. However, put that aside and you still have about $110m of investment coming through into regional roads that would not normally occur out of the Commonwealth. It is additional to the normal Roads to Recovery programs.
Madam Speaker, in short, in imposing these productivity efficiency-led levies you see the opportunity for the revenue, but do not forget the opportunity of putting that investment into productivity, particularly into this resources sector and regional infrastructure.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, this is a situation where the Treasurer’s legislation affects the mining sector. I will be very brief with my comments.
It is not a levy, it is revenue raising. As the Leader of the Opposition said, we will support any measures to raise revenue for the Northern Territory. However, we urge the government to at least consult with the industry before putting new taxes on it. I was a minister for 12 years, seven of those as minister for Resources. Never in my experience as a minister have I seen such a reaction by the industry to a measure by government. Even when we raised the royalties from 18% to 20% the mining council, AMEC, did not issue a media release so critical of the government’s action - not critical of the fact that they tried to raise revenue, but that there was a total lack of consultation.
My information is that not even the CE of the Department of Mines and Energy knew about this measure. My information is that when the people from the mining sector were present at the lock-up for the budget and heard about these new measures, the internal commodity transaction intra-office expenditure taxes, they flipped. We then saw the flurry of media releases from AMEC and the Minerals Council of Australia; not because of the problem of raising revenue, but for the lack of consultation. This is a significant sector of the Northern Territory and has the potential to generate thousands of jobs and millions of dollars for the Northern Territory. Somebody should at least talk to them before something like that is presented to them. I am aware that the documentation about the new taxes was delivered a week after the budget was introduced to parliament. This is not consultation, this is dictatorship. Is this the way we will do it, like it or lump it?
Madam Speaker, I have no problem with introducing legislation to increase the revenue for the Northern Territory, but when it affects such an enormous industry, and when we have been telling people for years the Territory is open for business and then impose two new taxes on the mining sector without consultation - somebody sent the wrong message.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I have not had a great deal of time to go into this bill thoroughly, which is one reason I will not vote on it. I did not know we were going to debate all these bills at this sittings. I knew we were going to debate the mandatory rehabilitation bill. I was surprised when I was asked if I would like a briefing on amendments to the Motor Registry Act. I asked if there were any more bills and they said, ‘Yes, there are quite a few of them’. It seemed unusual that at the end of estimates we had these important bills …
Mr Elferink: It is to do with revenue.
Mr WOOD: It might be revenue, but it is very important legislation. I have been trying to do the best I can in investigating it. I am not necessarily against government raising money from mining, but I have not had enough chance to investigate the issues the Minerals Council of Australia, Northern Territory Branch, is concerned with. It wrote a letter, I presume to the government. It just says ‘Secretary’. It is a submission on the 2013-14 budget measures. It was written on 21 June, so it has only just been sent. The Minerals Council said:
Further in the submission it said:
When I receive something from the peak body that says they have not been consulted, I find it very difficult to say this is a great idea. The people who will be affected by this bill are saying they have not been consulted. This letter is only a few days old. It leaves me in a bind because I would like to talk to the Minerals Council. I certainly would like a briefing if I had time but, as you know, minister, it has been a hectic period over the last couple of weeks. Sometimes, you just cannot physically fit all these things in.
I think the member for Casuarina said the government talks about the three pillars of the economy. One is mining. It seems strange to me - I would have thought that is a good philosophy; we should be promoting mining in the Northern Territory. I believe the mining industry should give its fair share. When I hear the industry you want to tax say it was not consulted, I say I will not make a decision on this until I have all the facts and figures.
The Local Government Act has gone out for consultation; it has been out for a couple of months. People in the local government industry were asked what they think of changes that might happen. I presume that the government, after consultation, will put out some legislation for changes.
In this letter the Minerals Council says you will enact legislation about which you have not consulted. In fact, when you read the second reading - I went through it - there is not one mention of discussing this with the industry. For a government that has been pushing hard for the economy to grow, I thought that would have been a fundamental process for you to show you support the industry and are willing to talk through these issues because you really think the government is open for business.
My feeling from reading this and some of the media releases they have issued is there has been a complete - whether it is complete the minister might be able to tell me - lack of consultation with the peak body, which will be the body you would, obviously, expect the government to talk to about serious issues like the Mineral Royalty Act.
In some ways, without being an expert, I agree with what you are trying to do; I am not knocking the principle. However, I cannot say I support this bill when the industry is saying, ‘You have not had much time to talk to us’. You might say that is the government’s right, ‘If we think there should be more money raised from the mining industry, as the government we can do that’. You have every right to do that. However, the process of doing it seems to be in opposition to your promotion that mining is one of the key aspects of the growth of the economy in the Northern Territory, and that is a concern for me.
Madam Speaker, the industry should be treated better regardless of whether it agrees with you on increasing or introducing this bill. It should have been treated with more respect so it understood where you were coming from.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, in summing up I will make a few points. First, as I said in my budget speech, 80% of the Northern Territory’s budget revenue comes from the Commonwealth government. By far and away, the jurisdiction in Australia most reliant on Commonwealth funding is the Northern Territory.
For the illumination of some people in this Chamber, when the Commonwealth Grants Commission determines funding for jurisdictions, it looks at their revenue-raising capacity and efforts. It is fair to say that the Northern Territory is a very low-taxing jurisdiction, and long may it stay that way. However, the danger of being a very low-taxing jurisdiction is the Commonwealth Grants Commission takes a rather dim view of it. If we are not seen to be doing our fair share of the lifting in relation to raising revenue, the Commonwealth Grants Commission, probably rightly, says, ‘You can forgo some Commonwealth government revenue as well’.
Therefore, it is important, from time to time, to look at protecting our revenue base. That means looking at what we get from the Commonwealth, and what we can do better in the Northern Territory to raise our revenue. At this point in time, I give my particular thanks to the Northern Territory Taxation Office, the Taxation Commission, and a range of other people in Treasury who worked through and found this information in relation to these two revenue measures in this budget.
In summary, the bill makes amendments to the Mineral Royalty Act and the Payroll Tax Act to implement revenue measures. The key aims of the bill seek to protect the integrity of the mineral royalty regime by capping the amount of transfer pricing miners can claim and limiting the deductibility of certain costs only to those that are incurred within the Northern Territory. There is a number of minor administrative changes as well being made to the Mineral Royalty Act which clarify the operation of existing provisions and allow Territory employees to share information with the Commonwealth on uranium royalty matters. A minor part also is that the bill amends the formula contained in the Payroll Tax Act so the original intent of the outcomes is achieved.
I have heard a great deal about the opposition and the Independent being very concerned about consultation. Every speaker who commented on this bill has made note about the consultation. I can tell the Chamber that no public consultation was undertaken because these measures were announced as part of the 2013-14 budget. Public consultation prior to the introduction of these measures would clearly have compromised that process and released sensitive information that may have been used to inappropriately minimise royalty liabilities. For that reason there was no public consultation undertaken.
The member for Casuarina suggested that the Chief Executive of the Department of Mines and Energy was not aware. I can tell the member for Casuarina that is complete bunkum. The Chief Executive of the Mines department, being a key stakeholder in government, as is the Minister for Mines and Energy, was certainly involved in those discussions.
The Royalty Secretary is consulting with the Minerals Council and the mining community to ensure that proper implementation of these reforms occurs. Whilst we did not consult about the introduction of these two new measures because it would have been inappropriate to do so, the royalty sector, the Territory Revenue Office and others are consulting with the industry. The Minerals Council has been consulted in relation to the implementation of these two new measures. The Minerals Council considers the transfer pricing cap to be a positive reform and it is welcomed to avoid unnecessary administrative costs. As you would expect, the council does not support the initial royalty payable as a result of the changes and has requested more guidance be provided in relation to the practical application of the new measures. The Royalty Secretary will continue to work with industry on the implementation to ensure a smooth transition and provide further clarity on the guidelines.
As I said during the estimates process and in the second reading speech, both of these measures are designed to raise revenue and we estimate $10.6m will be raised. However, they are also very much about cutting red tape and reducing the administrative burden on industry. That fits very much within this government’s election commitment to cut red tape.
Additionally, reducing the ability to claim operational costs from interstate or overseas head offices is a good thing for the Northern Territory because it encourages businesses to locate their head offices in the Northern Territory. I am appalled that some businesses operate in the Northern Territory and claim costs interstate.
If I may be so bold, I am disappointed that INPEX has its head office in Perth. The only project they have in Australia is the massive new $35bn Ichthys gas plant project in the Northern Territory, which we all welcome. If we can do more to encourage these types of businesses to set up head offices in the Northern Territory that will be good.
I thank all those members opposite who contributed to this debate, particularly the member for Barkly who straight up said the opposition supports it. The Independent member supports it as well, whilst having some concerns about consultation and the like. I understand that, although I have outlined why there was no consultation in this case.
I was disappointed to hear that the Opposition Leader thought this was an appropriate place to get on her soapbox and complain about Tony Abbott. I was stunned that she referred to the Victoria Highway and Tiger Brennan Drive as being achievements of the Labor government. Of course, they were put in place by the previous Coalition government. They would never have been on the federal horizon had it not been for the leadership of the former Prime Minister, John Howard. It is a fantastic legacy from John Howard and his government that the Victoria Highway and Tiger Brennan Drive are now completed. Well done, Mr Howard and the previous government.
In relation to the farce that is going on in Canberra, it is time for the Independents to look at what is in Australia’s national interest and demand an election as soon as possible, because this farce, this circus in Canberra, must end. It is not good for Australia or the Northern Territory. The sooner the Australian people get to decide, the better in my view.
Having said that, Madam Speaker, I thank members opposite for their contributions. I hope this bill is supported by this Chamber.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MINING MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 30)
Continued from 16 May 2013.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, we will not oppose any measure of this government to address the issue of legacy mines. There are about 2000 legacy mines in the Northern Territory through a long history of mine development. Some of them date back to the days of the Commonwealth; some of them, unfortunately, date back to CLP government days. Any measure by this government, or any government, to address the issue of legacy mines will be welcomed by anybody in this Chamber - opposition or government.
The issue of legacy mines was in our mind when we were the first government to introduce the 100% rehabilitation bond. We did not want to see a repeat of a disaster like Mount Todd. We do not want to see a company raping the Territory’s mineral wealth and providing wealth to their shareholders, then for various reasons - either going bust or not being able to meet the requirements - packing up and leaving the Northern Territory to address an environmental disaster which will only get worse if left. It is not only Mount Todd, Rum Jungle is another environmental issue dating from the days of the Commonwealth government and, of course, Redbank goes back even further in the Commonwealth era.
With Rum Jungle we were fortunate, because the Commonwealth has recognised liability, and is contributing to the rectification. That does not mean it will continue to do so forever. It might decide one day to pull the plug, which means we will be left with the tab of a multimillion dollar disaster. Redbank is another example. If you have seen photographs of the area around Redbank, you will realise what the problem is.
My concern is the mechanism this government has chosen to utilise to get some money to rectify the legacy mines. My further concern is that not all of the money raised under the proposed legislation will go to the rectification or rehabilitation of those mines, but some will go to establishing an environmental unit and hiring people for that unit, which is clearly the responsibility of the government.
My other concerns relate to what I read in the minister’s second reading speech that, currently, there is a 100% rehabilitation bond imposed by the government, which is true. For your information, minister, it is not commercial-in-confidence; there is no legislation to say you cannot tell people how much the environmental bond is. It was always a practice to provide information to the people. It was part of the agreement we had and part of the amendments of the Mine Management Act that this advice be published through a website.
The minister said - and he is quite right - there is a 100% environmental bond. That means if a company goes bust, there will be enough money left in the till in security for the Territory to rectify the environmental issues. However, there is a 15% contingency fund on top of the environmental bond. If somebody wants to create a mine, if the board assesses that the environmental bill is $100m, the company has to provide $100m plus 15% of the environmental bond, which is $115m.
What worries me is - I read from the second reading speech:
That means if the environmental liability is $100m, the government proposes to let the company provide only $90m and 15% of contingency. What happens if that company goes bust and the environmental liability is $100m? There will only be $90m to fix it. This is my first concern. It has not been thought through very well.
The second issue is that the minister said in his second reading speech there is $719m held for current mining operations in securities. Great! Fantastic! That is really good security for the Territory and the government, whatever government it is. However, the levy will be 1% of the securities held. That means a $7.19m levy should be raised under the proposal of the government. However, on page 2, paragraph 2, the minister said the fund he will establish for the levy will receive $2m in the first year. Hold on, minister, hold on a minute! You have $7.19m under your 1% levy, but you are only going to put a $2m bond in the unit you created. Where will the rest of the money go?
Yes, it will go to the Mining Environmental Compliance Division. It will receive the remainder of the funds to boost resources for its valuable work. Nobody doubts that establishing a unit to look after the abandoned legacy mines is a good idea. That is fantastic. However, we slug the mining industry with a levy which is also retrospective - not in the future, not for the new mines; everybody has to pay it. Instead of all the money going to rectify the mines, two-thirds of it will go to hire people in the new unit. It is the role of the government to hire public servants to ensure things like that never happen. That is a main concern to me and the industry.
The other issue that concerned me is this is about abandoned mines. These are the mines the mining industry in the past, and governments, stuffed up. We are hitting the mining industry now for mistakes of the past by governments and other mining companies. Why, then, are we going to hit the exploration companies? Exploration companies come to the Territory, they have a very small footprint, they drill a few holes, they get a few cores, they make an analysis, then they start to mine, or not. Why do we slug them with a levy when they have not left any legacy behind them? These people have a very small footprint and, at the same time, we ask them to cover all the expenses in case they do not rectify it? Are we really trying to drive the exploration sector out of the Territory? If we do not have the exploration sector, we will not have a mining sector. All the mines that exist today in the Northern Territory started from a small company that went exploring somewhere in the Territory, made the big hit, sold it to a big company, and a new mine started. That will be the story from now on.
We know - and the Speaker knows very well because of her previous position - big companies do not explore anymore. BHP will not spend money on exploration because it is a risky business and they do not want to risk their shareholders’ money in exploration. Other small companies such as Emmerson Resources will raise the $10m, do the exploration and, when they get the big hit, offload it to BHP which pays millions of dollars.
Your proposal does not discriminate between mining and exploration companies. The exploration companies’ peak body is furious about it, because it says they never create a legacy mine or an environmental disaster legacy in the Territory; however, they are now asked to contribute to this levy.
Your idea has merit, and I will tell you why: raising some money to fix the abandoned legacy mines in the Territory is a very good idea. However, it is not very well thought out. If you looked at the Western Australian legislation, which refers to exactly the same thing, you will see how well-constructed and well-thought-out it is. I downloaded it from the Western Australian government’s website and read it. That legislation is a thousand times better than what we have in front of us. It is very detailed, it engaged the industry, it has different levels of risk, it has a risk assessment, and companies are asked to contribute to the fund depending on their potential risk and liability. That is a good idea, because big companies and small companies have different risks.
I strongly suggest you look at the Western Australian legislation which, I have to say, was developed by a Liberal government minister, Norman Moore, who is a good friend of mine, even though we have totally different political views. The framework that was created by the Western Australian Mines department was a very good one and it is a mile ahead of yours.
Minister, I compliment you on your idea to fix the legacy mines. It is something we struggled with. We were the first ones who asked the department to create a list of the different mines and the risk they posed to the environment in the future. We compiled that. If you ask the department, you will be able to get all this information.
However, the way you go about fixing the legacy mines is wrong. Even if you raise $7.19m a year, you will need to raise much more money over time to fix all the abandoned mines in the Territory. One thing you will probably have to look at is who was responsible at the time. Was it us or was it the Commonwealth? If it was the Territory government, it is the Territory government’s responsibility to fix it. But if it is the Commonwealth we should put our foot down and ask for money - a contribution from the Commonwealth for rehabilitation - the same way we did with Rum Jungle. We were successful there.
Minister, it will also be a good idea, next time you have something that will impose on the mining sector, to talk to them beforehand. As the mining sector operates throughout Australia, if you had spoken to them before, they probably would have come up with some good ideas and, most likely, brought to your attention the Western Australian model, which is acknowledged to be one of the best in Australia. Minister, your idea to fix the legacy mines is good. It continues our idea to do exactly the same; we started the ball rolling. However, how can you talk about a three-hub economy, and then the first opportunity you have you slug the mining industry with an extra tax that you call a levy? It is retrospective and penalises companies that have done nothing wrong in the past, but are doing everything right now and will in the future.
At the same time I urge you not to touch the environment bond. It is a recipe for disaster. If you are going to place a levy on the industry, a different way of doing it is with a thorough assessment where you look at what has happened at that stage, and do not take the easy way out. Taking the easy way out will not solve your problem.
Madam Speaker, we will not support the legislation on the grounds that there has not been any consultation with the industry, and this is not well-thought-out legislation. That is the only grounds on which I refuse to support your legislation. If it was to rectify the legacy mines I would support it, but the way it has been put together and is penalising the industry makes me unable to bring myself to support it.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I believe the member for Nelson wanted to say something on this but he appears to have missed the jump.
I thank the member for Casuarina for his contribution. I also thank the Leader of Government Business, the member for Port Darwin, who delivered the second reading speech in this debate. As the House would know, I was overseas when this bill was introduced and I had to ask one of my colleagues to stand in for me. I also take the opportunity to express my thanks to the departmental staff who have worked so hard on this bill. This has been a tedious and long process. There are many complexities in this bill, much detailed work went into it, and I appreciate the amount of work that has been done by the staff in the department.
As I walked into the Chamber 20 minutes ago I circulated to the members for Casuarina and Nelson an updated explanatory statement. There was an explanatory statement originally tabled with the bill when it was introduced. There were a couple of small typos in that explanatory statement, and this new one is the updated version, which I table. There are about 20 to 30 copies so there is no need for further copies to be made.
I appreciate the comments of the member for Casuarina with respect to his support for any measure that addresses mining legacies across the Northern Territory. Clearly, we have a major problem in the Northern Territory with respect to legacy mining and have had to find solutions. When I came into government and was given the portfolio responsibility for Mines and Energy, one of the very early things I did was seek information about the scope and scale of legacy mines in the Northern Territory. I found that some estimates put it at $1bn worth of legacy issues we face.
We have a clear policy position on this side of the House about developing our three-hub economy. It was quite rightly pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition that mining is an important part of that. However, we also take our environmental responsibilities extremely seriously, and some may say we even go a little beyond what might be expected of a conservative government. It is my clear view that in order for us to progress the long-term prosperity in the mining sector the government needs to, can, and will establish strong environmental credentials as we do that. We believe there is a place for significant development and growth of our mining sector and all sectors that support the economy in the Northern Territory, but we will do it in a fashion that recognises the environmental responsibilities we have.
The member for Casuarina and others spoke this afternoon about the level of consultation, or lack thereof. The Treasurer spoke about the reasons why there was no consultation on changes to the mineral royalties scheme. Clearly it was because it was a budget decision, after deliberations, that brought those changes of legislation about. This was the case for the mining levy. This was a part of a budgetary process and, even though it had been in train for some time, it would breach budget confidentiality to go too far outside of that process.
The point was also made that even when there was some consultation, it was not enough. To be perfectly blunt, when you are introducing a new levy - I will call it a tax because the bill calls it a tax - it will be unpopular in the circles that will be affected by it. I do not believe any amount of consultation would take away that pain. Clearly, the representative organisations in the mining sector feel they have not been consulted enough. They probably could never be consulted enough on a matter that affects their members like this. This has been blown out of proportion a little by some of the rhetoric around the imposition of this levy.
I will now move on to the effects this levy will have and talk a little about the dollar mechanism and how it works.
In the Northern Territory, for some years we have charged 100% security on the assessed level of a disturbance on any mining activity, including exploration. On top of that 100%, we charge a 15% contingency. I heard that the member for Casuarina thought that 15% might go towards some administration costs around the 100% bond, but that is not the case. We hold - either in cash or an unconditional bank guarantee - 115% of the assessed amount of the bond required to remediate a disturbance on the ground as a result of mining activity. We have 115%; I want to get that clear.
As a part of the imposition of the 1% levy on legacy mining activity, we decided we would reduce by 10% the amount held by the department in trust for the security amount. Therefore, if you take the 115% we currently hold, reduce that by a factor of 10% - 11.5% - that leaves 103.5%. In effect, what we still hold in a security bond for mining is 100% plus a 3.5% contingency. Member for Casuarina, we do not hold 90% as you have said today and in the past. I am a bit surprised that, given you were the minister for a number of years, you did not understand this. We do not hold 90%. When this comes into effect we will hold 103.5%.
I am not sure how the member for Casuarina misinterpreted what was said. Perhaps he was cherry picking or taking some things out of context, as he does from time to time.
Nonetheless, that is the basis upon which this levy will be charged. A levy of 1% will be charged on the 103.5% as calculated. That is a fairly simple explanation; it is not difficult maths for people to understand. We wanted to keep this as simple as possible.
Indeed, the levy affects exploration companies, but it is important to point out that in reducing the security bond being paid by the many companies operating across the Territory, in most cases we are reducing a cash liability. Those companies that pay cash for their security bond will, effectively, receive a 10% refund on the amount of bond they have lodged with the department. They get that back, then they will be charged the 1%, so they will have to give us a little back to make up the mining levy. In the vast majority of cases, operating companies in the Territory will be better off under the arrangement.
We are diverting some of those funds into a levy that is being put aside for work on remedial action on legacy mine sites. About a third of that will be put into an account and left for the physical works. However, the remainder of it will be applied in a fashion that provides support for the work that needs to be done, and administration.
The member for Casuarina talked about money going into the department and paying for salaries, which he believes is the job of government. We also have to look at the best expenditure of public funds. The question needs to be asked whether the public should be made to pay for the legacy issues in the Northern Territory. This is not government money; it is, but it is money that belongs to the public. We are charged with spending and looking after that money which belongs to the public; it is public money. Should we be applying public money for remediation work of mine sites that were abandoned and in a state of disrepair over so many years? I do not pose that question as a criticism of the comments made by the member for Casuarina, but perhaps a different way of viewing things.
I will move to another point the member for Casuarina made about the Western Australian model. We looked at the Western Australian model in coming up with this. In fact, the department is working currently on the WA model and how it might be adapted to the Northern Territory.
More importantly, the Mining Board, which has existed in the past to various levels of activity, will be reinvigorated by this government. One of the major tasks the Mining Board will be given is reviewing the regime around security bonding for mining, including this mining levy. It will have a body of work where it will be able to provide some very high-level strategic advice to government on the future of mining securities across the Northern Territory. A big part of its considerations will be around risk assessments, looking at the various operations and the level of risk they pose. That level of risk will also be factored into the calculation of security bonds going forward.
The other question that pops into my mind about all this is if this was such a good idea, and the member for Casuarina has said it is, why was it not done before? Here we are, 10 months into a new term of government. The former government was in power for 11 years. Why was it not done before? I just do not get it. It is fairly simple; it is not that hard. At this point in time, member for Casuarina, you seem to have all the answers about whether it should be modelled on Western Australia and all the rest of it - such a good idea. I leave you with then: why was it not done before?
Maybe it was because yours was a government that did not have a great deal of courage on issues like the moratorium on seabed mining. Yes, you put a moratorium on it. Do you know what that is doing? Putting it in the too-hard basket.
This government had the courage to take some affirmative action on that. This is a government that is proving it has a great deal of political courage. We are prepared to do the right thing and take some hard decisions. We know we will not be popular in every quarter, because that is what happens in government; sometimes you have to make hard decisions and you upset people. This government is committed to doing the right thing. If we have to wear some pain out of that, then we will.
The other point I want to make is there has been much said around consultation with this bill and the previous bill. I pose a rhetorical question, because I will probably answer it myself. How much consultation was done with industry when the mining security provisions were introduced? The answer I have received thus far is none. How much consultation was done when the former government lifted royalties from 18% to 20%? The answer I have thus far is none.
It is a little hypocritical for both the member for Casuarina and the Leader of the Opposition to talk about the level of consultation, when I can easily find - it is not too hard to research this stuff - that no consultation was done around what they did in imposing new levies, increasing royalties, and what have you.
We are at a position now where we have done what we believe is the right thing. The issue around securities will be reviewed by the Mining Board when it is reinvigorated properly, and we will have a look at the whole of that.
Madam Speaker, I thank members for their contribution. There have been, as I said before, big contributions by the department; the work is appreciated. I look forward to continuing to work with the mining industry across the Territory, the representative bodies, and the mining companies. Even though this may be a little unpalatable in some quarters, it does provide certainty. At least everybody knows the lie of the land and where the goal posts are with respect to this.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Mines and Energy) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr VATSKALIS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I think the member has some amendments.
Mr Westra van Holthe: No, there were just some typos in the explanatory statement.
Mr VATSKALIS: No worries.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 15 May 2013.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his offering of a briefing and the transport officials for their briefing.
I come to this with life knowledge. I can remember the day my father sat me down and taught me the important lesson around not operating an unregistered motor vehicle. He made it very clear that you should always check, particularly if you are the owner, you are operating registered motor vehicles, and the serious consequences of not operating registered motor vehicles.
Subsequently, later in life, some friends of mine suffered consequences because they chose to operate unregistered motor vehicles. They paid the price. That information and knowledge that was shared by my father, I also share with my children and anyone else who is willing to listen.
This bill is very simple and was explained very succinctly by the transport officials. I raised a couple of points at that briefing. The first was about the change and how the change will be effected. The second was about making sure legislation is inclusive of all Territorians, wherever they live and whatever opportunities they have in their lives. I considered such things as their access to technology, socioeconomic status, geographic location, and all those other important elements that will support their engagement in society.
The changes to the Motor Vehicle Act will allow for the removal of registration stickers for light vehicles. The need for change to the act directly relates to the issue of a defect notice which must be affixed in an approved form on a conspicuous place on the vehicle. In the past, it was adjacent to the registration label. The simple and straightforward plan changes this on 1 July 2013 and amends the Motor Vehicle Act for the purpose of legally issuing a defect notice on a light vehicle.
There are a number of other changes I was briefed on, which I consequently briefed the Labor Caucus on, regarding traffic regulations. The changes relate to things such as light vehicle registration checks at five and 10 years; annual eyesight tests; the first application for a motor vehicle licence, then, at age 70, annually; new 10-year driver licences in addition to one, two and five-year options; and from August 2013, motor vehicle registration transactions over the counter available at Australia Post retail outlets for renewals that do not require roadworthy inspections, or driver licence renewals that do not require a photograph.
It is definitely business representing the new government’s objective to cut red tape, reduce waiting times at Motor Vehicle Registry offices throughout the Territory, and support legislation about defect notices.
I took to the table some concerns that had been raised with me. One concern comes from an e-mail from a constituent not in the Barkly electorate. This constituent dealt with me as the opposition spokesperson. They were dealing with an appeal because they were picked up in an unregistered vehicle but had not received the transaction electronically. They were one of the new age constituents who are operating in the digital age, but it had gone wrong and they were booked for operating an unregistered vehicle.
I then asked a range of other constituents about the issue. A young contractor who worked for a company that operated a fleet of vehicles told me he would not know if work vehicles were registered if they did not have the easy identification sticker on the windscreen. He told me stories about not being confident to approach the management because of pressures of work. I told this young fellow dad’s story. I reinforced that very clearly with this young contractor. I asked him about the changes and how they would impact on his position.
I also used the opportunity to talk to some station employees who operate station vehicles in the bush and registered vehicles across public roads. They had a similar concern. It was more a traditional concern where they like a hardcopy. They like evidence, and maybe it reflects not wanting to change. These people who were operating on pastoral properties were older, but they were a little resistant to this change. There was no major opposition, but it gave me examples of how this could go wrong.
I have put that to department officials, and they were good in their explanation of the fail safe measures, and how removal of registration stickers will not be a problem. I was quite enlightened with new applications that will be available: smartphone technology that will be able to identify a vehicle and tell the person making the inquiry whether that vehicle is registered or not.
I then provided my take on that. Being a techno dinosaur, I thought that was something I would not really manage, and there are many people like me in the Northern Territory. However, I was reassured that people without that access to technology, or people who live in areas where you cannot access that technology, would still have a hard copy of a registration certificate - a document that could be located in the vehicle which could be sourced to provide the check. It was good to see there was that backup.
I then moved the discussion to education and awareness about change and how people need to be aware of the change and of employing compensatory practices so they ensure they do not end up on the wrong side of the law. I was pleased to see the department has conducted a good campaign. They have some good resources going out.
I congratulate the minister on the link to DriveSafe NT, particularly in the remote areas and all the elements of that very successful program so far. It is a good innovative program for people who live in regional and remote areas, particularly Indigenous constituents. DriveSafe NT and DriveSafe NT Remote will reinforce these changes and important practices.
It was a good briefing. I compiled the information and took it back to the Labor Caucus. We discussed this legislation, and they shared my concerns that there will be quite a diverse element of the Territory community which will need to participate in an education and awareness process around these changes to ensure they are not disadvantaged by this.
It is interesting to note that the Northern Territory is one of the last jurisdictions in the country to be going down this road.
I will make brief comment on the other initiatives being introduced by the government around cutting red tape and making motor vehicle registration processes quicker and easier. I am sure those constituents who have difficulty adapting to change, for whatever reason, will be part of this change and change management.
I also took the opportunity to talk to the minister briefly in estimates in the Transport portfolio about motor vehicle registration officers in the bush. It was pleasing to hear that the minister is still keen to pursue that pathway and to look at alternatives. The Australia Post initiative will be a good move in that direction. However, there is nothing like an MVR office in which to conduct your transactions. There will be, of course, the move, over time, to online transactions and the further use of information communication technology. However, there are many people in the Territory who still rely on that face-to-face counter service. That is the way it is and will be for them. There are those alternatives which will provide that for them; that is, the Australia Post initiative.
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this to the House. I also thank him for his support and the debriefing of the departmental officials. I also thank you for the opportunity to speak on the bill.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, before I start, the minister’s decision to drop the speed limit on a section of the Arnhem Highway was a good one. I hope the minister might have had a chance, as he was out with the member for Goyder, to look at that intersection at Humpty Doo which has caused us some problems in recent times.
This is only a small bill, but it is a big second reading for a small bill. Sometimes, I get really excited when I see introduced a bill that is ‘delivering a commitment by this government to reducing red tape for motorists’, when it is about where you put a sticker on a car.
Be that as it may, it is good this bill is before us. I know we have a bit of latitude, but it is funny this bill is called the Motor Vehicles Amendment Bill. We have not had much of a chance to talk in this place about getting rid of car stickers; it has just been done. The government said that is what it will do.
I also went to the briefing. Believe it or not, there were two Gerrys at the briefing. The good thing about the briefing is we understand what this is about; it is a fairly simple change and it is common sense. It enabled us to talk about some of the issues. We have not had a chance on this side - I cannot speak for Gerry - about what the changes will do. I have been looking at some of the feedback of what happened in Western Australia. It is obvious that people sometimes have a fear of change: they will not get their car registered; it is impossible; ‘I will never be reminded’, and all those issues. It was good to hear from the department.
I do not know how you will get around a question we discussed. Theoretically, if you hop into a hire car you should ask the company if it is registered. I have hopped into hire cars, and I must admit that is the last question I have ever asked anyone. The reality is, if you hop into a hire car and it is not registered, you are the one who is responsible. Some of those issues might need to be promoted. Also, in Aboriginal communities you have to get them to understand that they do not need a sticker, so they do not all go, ‘Oh, gee’.
It is a good idea. As you said, that is what really starts to reduce the red tape. However, there are some issues which will need a bit more promotion and understanding. The hire car issue is one. I can imagine a couple of backpackers from Germany who get the old Wicked van down the road after hiring it for a few days to go to Kakadu. I am not knocking Wicked, because I have heard that Wicked always keeps their cars registered, but I am not sure those people will go to the counter and say, ‘Before we hire this, is this car registered?’ However, after having the briefing, that may be something people have to do and have in their mind before hiring a vehicle, because there will not be a sticker on to show it is registered.
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for presenting this small but important bill. I thank the department for giving us a briefing because it enabled us to look at some of the issues around this change you are bringing forward, which is related to having no registration stickers on cars. Thanks very much, and especially thank you to the department.
Mr GILES (Transport): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for Barkly and Nelson for their contributions. It is quite clear, particularly for the shadow minister, the member for Barkly. He understands a fair bit around the transport area and that I have a very large reform agenda we in Transport want to see delivered.
Some of those issues are around the improvements in ICT across a broad range of areas, not just WiFi for buses, but also encouraging more online vehicle registrations, licence renewals, cutting red tape, and reducing the amount of time-related impact that some government services have on people’s lives. It is about change and a new way of doing business. You will see a range of reforms in that area. I have been very open about some of things we are doing. Without going into commercial-in-confidence or Cabinet details, we have given clear indications about the reform my government is leading in the transport sector.
There is a range of approaches to undertake about making business transactions a whole lot easier: changing the licence period, and putting MVRs or MVR services into bush locations. It was a commitment of the previous government which was not delivered. I would like to do it yesterday but, as you know, we were lumbered with $5.5bn worth of debt, and we cannot do everything immediately. We have to schedule when we do things to get the frameworks and governance structures in place. When we identify the resources to roll out some of these initiatives, they will be undertaken.
Madam Speaker, I accept support for this bill. I thank the officials for coming here today and for their continued support. Everyone in Transport is run ragged at the moment because we are putting out that reform agenda in a range of areas. I continue to appreciate the support of the department, and look forward to this bill being enacted so we can get rid of registration stickers in the Northern Territory, albeit, taking on your concerns, but allowing one regulation to be carried out.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr GILES (Transport)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 15 May 2013.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, we have debated the nature of alcohol-fuelled violence in the Territory a significant number of times in this Chamber. In this House it is an issue on which we are both united and divided. We agree there is a significant issue in the Northern Territory with alcohol, alcohol-fuelled violence, and binge drinking, which occurs in our towns and communities.
We have, in many ways, a common cause as parliamentarians to try to tackle alcohol and alcohol-fuelled violence. As a government, we had a range of plans working together to try to tackle alcohol, because there is no one single solution. We agree there is a problem. However, from there we disagree, because we go on divergent paths on how to tackle that problem.
We do not believe mandatory detention for rehabilitation will work. If you do not want to give up alcohol, you will not. The CLP policy will cost a lot of money and will not work. The bill we have before us is an epic fail. It represents one of the greatest Australian policy failures since the introduction of cane toads, or since the last time we had a CLP government. It is condemned by experts and rejected by those who will be required to administer and police it. Yet the minister continues to praise its virtues, deaf to those complaints and blind to the obvious: that it will not work.
Before I turn to the details of the bill, let us explore the way in which this government has acted to keep our community safe and address the many issues we face as a result of problem drinking. The first thing this government did, with amazing haste, was to stop doing anything to address alcohol-related harm. Immediately on being elected, the government, swiftly and with great fanfare, decided to scrap the successful and applauded Banned Drinker Register and replace it with their own groundbreaking approach: doing nothing. They did nothing at all for 10 long months. Small businesses, families, schools and sporting groups all told the government about the rise in public drunkenness and the problems occurring in our communities. But they still did nothing – yet another broken promise.
Alcohol rehabilitation was first given to the member for Port Darwin - fail. It is almost difficult to remember because it was whipped from him so quickly. Then it was handed to the member for Fong Lim - fail. Finally - or perhaps I speak too soon - it was handballed to the current minister, the member for Araluen. This minister has continued the strong tradition of doing nothing but dismantle the things Labor did, simply for the reason that Labor did them, and then work out ways to bring them back.
As I previously outlined in this House, income management is a great example. Through the Northern Territory Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal we had the ability to income manage problem drunks. The CLP scrapped it and is now trying to find a way to bring it back.
Let us contrast this approach with the approach of the previous government. We had an integrated, comprehensive process to address the harm alcohol causes in our community. We had the Enough Is Enough reforms and a well-thought-out approach. We introduced a strong media campaign that promoted safe enjoyment of our Territory lifestyle, tackling the violence that had so many Territory mums and dads concerned for the safety of their sons or daughters on a night out. We had SMART Courts and alcohol tribunals where appropriately qualified people could make decisions about treatment, income management, and other strategies to help people get their lives back on track. We had the Banned Drinker Register through which problem drunks could be prevented from buying more alcohol. People knew who was on the Banned Drinker Register. It gave certainty to retailers who knew who was and was not prohibited from buying alcohol.
We looked at points of intervention where you could bring in rehabilitation, because we believe evidence-based interventions are important. We had voluntary and mandatory rehabilitation programs but we did not have mandatory detention. We understood, and still understand, there has to be a point where people make the commitment to change. If they do not, it will not work. You might use a point of intervention such as going before the courts and diversionary programs to get somebody into rehabilitation but, at some stage, they have to opt in or it will not work. If you do not want to give up alcohol, you will not - just like any addiction.
The CLP introduced alcohol protection orders that allow problem drunks to walk into any takeaway outlet and buy as much alcohol as they want, and no one will know. They have no protections in place such as an ID system for the responsible alcohol retailers who try each and every day to do the right thing and minimise alcohol harm. The only difference, essentially, between the Banned Drinker Register and the alcohol protection order will be that no one will know if you are under an alcohol protection order.
The previous government worked with the people who know firsthand the problems caused by alcohol in our community and who deal with this issue day after day and night after night.
In the days before the NT Police were gagged, they heralded these reforms. In October 2011, a senior member of the NT Police said of the Banned Drinker Register:
… what steps we have in process at the moment are really working and we’d like to see them continue. From a policing point of view, we see some tremendous results from these initiatives.
That same month there was a media report recognising there were 1500 who could not buy grog because they were on the Banned Drinker Register for violence, public drunkenness or drink-driving. What did the police say about the Banned Drinker Register?
… one of the most powerful tools, if not the most powerful tool available to police to actually deal with the source problem of the antisocial behaviour and the violence that was occurring in our community.
Despite the attempts of the member for Port Darwin and his colleagues to gag the police, what are they saying now? Let me read onto the record the words of Mr Vince Kelly, President of the NT Police Association, in a recent statement to his members. It is a long statement but, given the importance of the issues, I am sure you will appreciate the necessity of committing these comments to the Parliamentary Record:
Let me once again outline our position on the proposed approach. The CLP’s alcohol mandatory treatment regime is incredibly expensive and will not work - $45m this year for a very small number of people. It amounts to $90 000 per person for the CLP to attempt to rehabilitate someone, and only attempt, as there is no evidence that such a scheme will work. In fact, the minister has suggested that only 10% of those who undergo treatment might actually stop drinking. That is $90 000 per person - an astounding amount. If the success rate is as low as the Chief Minister believes - at 5% as he said during the estimates program - that is the success measure he will have.
Not a single expert, nor police, doctors, the legal profession, or Indigenous organisations support this policy. The CLP’s mandatory treatment regime does not have the support of the very people who are supposed to be making it happen. Earlier this year, John Paterson, the head of Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance described the laws as a ‘very expensive white elephant’. AMSANT has pointed out that there is very little evidence it will work, and asked the reasonable question: what happens to people after their 12 weeks inside? John Paterson is also on the record saying they are not happy with the reference to mandatory rehabilitation, but believe the resources and funding commitment needs to be given a multipronged approach.
Many people have called for this legislation to be delayed. Is it a reasonable request that this legislation be delayed until they find somebody who supports it? Even their own members do not support it. Quoting from The Australian:
Well put! What a difficult decision for the member to make. What is the advice for the member for Arnhem? Should she be loyal to her people or to the government?
However, there is more. From ABC radio early this month, the Aboriginal Peak Organisations NT said the government is refusing to listen to expert opinion on its planned alcohol laws. The government has watered down some of its draft mandatory alcohol rehabilitation legislation after several groups raised concerns that the laws criminalised alcoholism. John Paterson from APONT said the entire policy is flawed and needs to be scrapped:
What about the views of the NT Australian of the Year, John Boffa, a man considered by many to be a role model, described by the Chief Minister as a whingeing lefty feeding off disadvantage? Dr Boffa and the People’s Alcohol Action Coalition consider that the Giles Country Liberal government has:
He told a rally in Alice Springs:
More recently, he commented:
Mrs LAMBLEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Chief Minister should be referred to by his correct title.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Araluen. Member for Fannie Bay, if you could refer to the Chief Minister by his correct title, either member for Braitling or Chief Minister.
Mr GUNNER: The reality is that the Chief Minster has not been in the Northern Territory that long:
We have covered health professionals. What are members of the legal profession saying? Priscilla Collins from NAAJA, on ABC radio only a few days ago, said:
For a Central Australian perspective from the President of the NT Criminal Lawyers Association, Mr Russell Goldflam, commented on the minister’s flawed committee stage amendments:
There is a new twist. The Aboriginal Peak Organisations NT points out its concerns that the bill discriminates against Aboriginal people, echoing the member for Arnhem‘s concerns. John Paterson again said:
How does the government respond? By attempting to hide the facts, by introducing a committee stage amendment that will remove the public reporting of the cultural identity of the person being detained. Does the minister honestly think the member for Arnhem will be fooled by this approach, or that John Paterson from AMSANT or the APO will somehow not notice what is going on?
Even the federal Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, is not a fan, expressing his concerns at this government’s decision to scrap the Banned Drinker Register, arguing that it should be preserved.
Since the introduction of this bill, I have taken the opportunity to speak with a number of alcohol treatment centres including CAAAPU and Vendale. I place on the record my appreciation for the time they took in working with me on these important issues. In talking to these service providers, I did not hear a commitment to mandatory detention, or the use of force to restrain people from leaving, or return them to treatment. I, basically, heard that these organisations will continue to provide the same services next year in the same way as they are this year.
I was astounded to hear during a recent briefing that the organisations are, supposedly, ready to commence delivering services on 1 July 2013, with all the necessary infrastructure in place. When I was at CAAAPU, it was full. When I was at Vendale, it was also full, and they raised concerns about the capacity of the current Power and Water infrastructure to manage demands of new infrastructure and new clients. As of two weeks ago, no building works had commenced at Vendale, yet the briefing from the minister’s office is that these buildings will be in place and ready to go as planned. We are looking forward to seeing those new buildings from 1 July.
I have also received letters and e-mails from constituents and concerned members of the public, and I thank them for their time and contribution as well. I will outline some of their concerns now. I call on the minister to address the important issues these members of the public have raised.
A number of my constituents are concerned there are not sufficient support services such as counselling, mental health evaluations, life skills programs to assist re-entry into society post-treatment, employment services, assistance with housing, financial counselling, and so on. They point out that patients have no chance of getting better unless they address all these other issues. One of the main concerns about problem drinking is that when you leave a place like mandatory detention, you return to an environment with family and friends who are drinking, and you will go back to drinking; there will be no support.
There is concern that isolation from family and friends, confusion about what is happening to them, and being detained against their will may have a severe emotional impact on the client that may cause trauma, anxiety, and depression.
There is concern that, despite all their rhetoric about development support for remote Aboriginal communities, the CLP government only wants to tackle problem drinkers in urban areas and not in the remote communities, which are struggling with alcoholism and antisocial behaviour at sometimes greater levels than what is experienced in urban areas. Many of these communities are desperate for positive programs to address these issues. Issues in remote communities will continue if more rehabilitation is not offered in our regional areas.
There are concerns, and rightly so, that the program will cost a massive amount of money to implement, and there will be very few people who will achieve success from being forced into rehabilitation.
I also have some specific questions for the minister from constituents:
I will add to these some additional concerns of my own. When you leave prison, there is a requirement to repatriate you to the community you came from. Under the CLP mandatory treatment regime, you may be returned to your place of residence or not. Under the CLP’s scheme, you could leave after just three months, walk to the closest takeaway alcohol outlet and buy a drink. There will be nothing stopping them from doing this.
When it was revealed by doctors that alcohol admissions at Alice Springs Hospital Emergency Department had doubled, the minister blocked the release of the statistics. Minister, you should be making available the data on the operation of the scheme including absconding and the number of people who have successfully completed the full length of treatment and are not drinking at three months, six months, or 12 months after release. The Chief Minster said the success rate would be 5%, but we do not know; 5% of what? Is the CLP concerned that being open and accountable would demonstrate clearly that this scheme is failing?
It makes it difficult to believe that this scheme will be ready to commence on 1 July, given you have acknowledged the serious failures with the construction of this bill, with 43 committee stage amendments finalised only yesterday. The whole approach to this bill has been fatally flawed.
Madam Speaker, it is Territorians who will suffer and pay the exorbitant amount of $45m this financial year for the CLP’s policy failure. If people do not want to give up alcohol, they will not. This policy will cost a lot of money and it will not work. I will leave my additional comments for the committee stage.
Mr STYLES (Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I am stunned at some of the comments the member for Fannie Bay has made. He just said that this is a failed policy, but it has not started yet. I do not know how you put the cart before the horse or the egg before the chicken but, for someone to make such a bold statement that it is a failed policy when it starts on 1 July and today is 27 June is amazing.
I remind the member for Fannie Bay of what he said on 27 October 2011 as he is now shadow minister for alcohol policy. He gave some advice about measures of success in relation to mandatory rehabilitation:
I will stop there. This is the member for Fannie Bay who was part of the former Labor government, saying there will be mandatory rehabilitation for problem drinkers:
I made a couple of notes in relation to the member for Fannie Bay’s speech. He said, ‘We do not believe it will work’.
I have a number of other quotes from the member for Karama who said mandatory sentencing would work. I note the member for Fannie Bay talked about his experts and everyone in the community. That is a big bold statement; ‘everyone’ supports his view! He quoted Dr John Boffa of the People’s Alcohol Action Coalition from Central Australia. I have met him and chatted with him, and it would appear his opinion is that anything which is not his idea is not correct. He has one particular aspect to his policy; that is, cut the supply. We all know what happens when you try prohibition.
I also bring the member for Fannie Bay’s attention to a number of endorsements we have had. I quote part of what the Chief Executive of the Barkly Region Alcohol and Drug Abuse Advisory Group, Stewart Naylor, said about the government’s proposed mandatory treatment services:
That is what will happen on 1 July.
I quote Mr Matthew Bonson, the Chief Executive of the Council for Aboriginal Alcohol Programs, and the former Labor Party member for Milner, who said:
I note the member for Fannie Bay also said he visited CAAAPU in Alice Springs. I have a letter from Ms Eileen Hoosan who is the CAAAPU Chairperson. I read this into the public record:
She highlighted:
I am very moved by that letter because what we have been doing for many years has not worked. We have seen increasing numbers of people in prison as a result of alcohol-related crimes. We have seen the number of people going through sobering-up shelters increase. We need to do something totally different.
Again, I go back to the member for Fannie Bay’s statement that this a failed policy, when it has not even started. I do not know how he works that. He must have a crystal ball or gets in the Tardis from time to time and does a bit of time jumping.
I also draw your attention to comments of other members in the opposition, who were in government at the time, and of the member for Nelson. On the ABC news site, which was updated on Tuesday 1 February 2011 at 11.23 am, was an article titled ‘Call to lock up problem drunks’. There are also other articles. It says:
It went on to say:
That is the member for Nelson. Further, the then Attorney-General, the member for Karama was quoted:
What we have now is, apparently, a total backflip on what their policy was and what they were promoting. The problem with the mandatory alcohol rehabilitation they introduced is you did not have to go. I have asked before in this House: how do you have a mandatory program you do not have to go to? Those two words are not synonymous, and I do not know how you put them into one sentence. You have to sustain that treatment or else face gaol; so it is mandatory. But, you do not have to go. If you did not go to that, what happened to you? Nothing; you stayed on the Banned Drinker Register. It is amazing that you just stayed on there.
When you look at how successful that was, there was one person taken into protective custody 117 times in the year, and he received 114 BAT notices. BAT is an acronym for Banning Alcohol and Treatment Notice. That is a stunning figure. The Banned Drinker Register worked so well! Well, if it worked so well, how was that person taken into protective custody 117 times and given 114 BAT notices? That worked really well, didn’t it? It must have been scary for them to buy alcohol again!
The problem was the previous government’s Banned Drinker Register did not stop anyone walking into the bar of a hotel; it simply attempted to prevent them from buying takeaway alcohol. The sad thing was it also prevented many other people who forgot their driver’s licence - tourists, and other people. We were the laughing stock of the tourism industry where people would say, ‘You people here are crazy; you cannot even buy a drink or anything’. It was a ridiculous situation.
To go back to the experts, on 9 December 2011, as the then shadow minister for the alcohol rehabilitation program, I attended a meeting of all the alcohol service providers in the Northern Territory. It was held in Darwin. I went into that room and I was to be there for an hour. I left three-and-a-half hours later because these people wanted to hear exactly what we were proposing. I might add it was a policy we took to the election.
At the end of that meeting, I asked those people, ‘Who supports the current BDR?’ I knew the answer was that not many of them supported it. They did not support it because it was not working as it was supposed to. I then asked the people in the room, ‘Who supports our policy?’ Not much stuns and amazes me these days; however, it was a unanimous decision in that room. Everyone put their hand up; every organisation and person in that room supported us. That is not something I wanted to say in parliament when we were in opposition, because those people did not want everyone to know it was a unanimous decision of support by all the service organisations and people who work in the alcohol rehab area. There are a few people who do not, and we do not pretend that everyone supports our policy, but there are so many people who support us. Everywhere I go I get support for it.
People such as those who work in accident and emergency cannot wait for this to start as they see drunk people come in who have committed serious crimes. If you are in rehabilitation, you are not going to be drunk. You are not going to be harassing your partner, your kids, or other people in the community. You are not going to be murdering or bashing people because you are drunk.
Some really good things are happening. The member for Fannie Bay spoke about his understanding of all of this.
I am probably the only person in this House who has ever worked with habitual drunk legislation. In the beginning of my working life in Western Australia as a brand new police officer, I worked with the habitual drunk act. People would go through three times in 12 months. You were taken in and locked up for being drunk, when being drunk was an offence - you experienced some penalty. We had people go through in lots of three months’ incarceration. We did not have many of the services available now in those days, but we rehabilitated people.
An Aboriginal man whose name I will not use, out of respect for him, was an habitual drunk. He was sliding down the slippery slope and had all sorts of problems in his community. This is just one example of many. He was incarcerated in a town on the coast of the north of Western Australia. He came out after a couple of those incarcerations and stopped drinking. Actually, he did not stop drinking; he stopped getting drunk. That was about mid-year. At Christmas time he sent a message to me and asked if I would come to this home, which was a Nissen Hut on the banks of the Gascoyne River, and have a Christmas drink with him. As a very young police officer, I was very proud to be able to go there. He opened a bottle of beer, sat down and said, ‘I would like you to enjoy a beer with me now because I can do that thanks to some of the work you and your mates did for me’. I was 21 years old when that happened, and he was an old man - a senior man who thanked a 21-year-old boy who was on the way to becoming a man for what we had done.
We did that with many people, not all of them Aboriginal - many were white people. I do not think we had any Chinese people go through at that stage. This is not a race issue; it is about everyone in our community who needs a hand. I go back to the letter from CAAAPU. We have to help these people.
When we talk about habitual drunk legislation from Western Australia and mandatory rehabilitation, what we have here is far better resources and professional people who can help these people who are in a position where they cannot help themselves. I heard the member for Fannie Bay talk about this targeting Aboriginal people. I can assure him this will target people in Mitchell Street. It does not matter who you are; if you are in Mitchell Street on Friday night and you are making a not-very-nice person of yourself, then you will be targeted. If you have had too much to drink and you are taken into protective custody, and there are plenty of people in Mitchell Street who are taken into protective custody, then you will suffer the result of having to go into mandatory rehabilitation. If that happens, then ...
Mr Giles: It will have a positive benefit of having mandatory intervention.
Mr STYLES: That is true. I will pick up the interjection. There will be a positive outcome of mandatory intervention. For these people, it is about changing their level of personal responsibility. There are people who are in a situation and this will bring them back in and allow them to focus. There will be other people, like my Aboriginal friend in Carnarvon in Western Australia, who will make positive choices because this mandatory rehabilitation is about giving people the ability to make positive choices.
The other statement I recall hearing earlier was in relation to experts and police. As a former police officer, I am in contact with some very good friends, and many new friends, in the police force. I stated in this House when we were in opposition some of the information I had from police officers. Police officers did not believe in the Banned Drinker Register. Obviously, there were some who did but the majority I spoke to said it was not working. The BDR simply stopped people from buying takeaway alcohol. You could still go into the bar and, whilst you were sober and did not appear to be affected by alcohol, you could drink and then leave. In regard to getting takeaway so they could have a drink, the problem was someone else could buy it.
The member for Fannie Bay talked about secondary supply. Police officers and lawyers thought it was a joke. How do you get a conviction for supplying someone who you do not know is on the Banned Drinker Register? You say to somebody, ‘Are you on the Banned Drinker Register?’, and they say, ‘No’. Right, I supply them the alcohol. What if they lie? Then, when you go into a court, people simply say, ‘I did not know they were on the Banned Drinker Register’. Due to privacy rules, you could not find out who was on that register.
I will not mention the name of the place I heard about just before we got rid of the BDR, but a person went in there, had their alcohol, had their money out, and said, ‘I do not have my driver’s licence with me’. The person there - I do not know who it was – said, ‘Do not worry, we have one’. They pulled out a box in which were at least 250 driver’s licences people had left behind and scanned one of those. They said, ‘Fine, see you later’, and the person left with their alcohol.
The other problem with secondary supply is there were people, obviously, going around town making a huge profit from selling alcohol to people who either could not or would not buy their own, or those who were on the Banned Drinker Register and had run out of driver’s licences.
Dawn House kept its own records, and an independent report from Dawn House said its records indicated that after the BDR commenced the number of domestic violence assaults went up by 7%. They interviewed their people and found that people who were put on the Banned Drinker Register were threatening and hitting people because they would not get them alcohol. That was an appalling situation where women were put in a position by men who had been on the Banned Drinker Register. If these people were told to do mandatory treatment, that was not going to happen because they did not have to go. There was no teeth in that.
When we look at a range of situations in relation to the problem that besets our community - the Banned Drinker Register was about limiting supply. In fact, it did not limit supply; people got around that problem. As the member for Fannie Bay rightly said, when people have an addiction they will get their drug of choice. If they cannot get that, they will substitute. The sad part was, in my electorate drug dealers were targeting Aboriginal people living near the Leanyer area and were delivering marijuana to them. They were still getting a drug, still getting smashed, getting into trouble, having fights and arguments. They had just changed the drug of choice. The sad thing was these people were profiting because they were charging way more than it cost for alcohol. It goes back to the original situation: these people have a problem, an addiction, and they need some help.
We, on the other hand, do not wish to penalise the entire community, which generally consumes alcohol in a responsible way. We do not want to penalise tourists or our tourism industry.
The interesting fact that came through was that in Alice Springs, when the alcohol accord came in, the biggest deliverer or supplier of alcohol was Australia Post. That might seem a bit funny, but people who still wished to consume alcohol in a responsible manner simply ordered all of their alcohol online. There was an average of 15 000 L of alcohol going through Australia Post over a couple of years. The interesting point about that is those interstate sales do not go on to our records. Any payments to the liquor commission and any taxes are not paid, nor is that alcohol going through the local businesses.
Who is being inconvenienced? Basically, the general public, tourists and others who are normally responsible people. We have a policy that is pushing business out of the Territory. It is being delivered, sure, by Australia Post, right to their front door. I heard there were people on the Banned Drinker Register who would simply get online. There were people running little supply businesses and black market alcohol was on the increase.
With our policy, it will be a lot different. The member for Fannie Bay said it definitely will not work, but I do not believe that. I have worked with it. I believe it will work and we should all support it, because there are demonstrated successful programs around this country where mandatory rehab does work. In the case of alcohol, it is a part of our health program. The problem drinkers need to have the assistance we will give them. It will reduce their exposure to committing crimes whilst under the influence of alcohol. It may be they might have to go through one or two times, or maybe more.
It is about changing people’s behaviour and encouraging people to take responsibility for their own actions. That will be hard for some, but for many people who go through mandatory rehabilitation, I believe that will occur.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to the House and ask that the opposition listen to what many people in the community are saying, not just their own experts who are obviously supporting what their view is this week. As I have read out, there are a number of media releases - I have about a dozen here - from the opposition, when they were in government, that support what we are doing.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I take issue with the misleading comment the member for Sanderson made that there were media releases from Labor supporting what the government is doing. No, we clearly do not support you. If you want to talk about mandatory rehabilitation and whether or not we had the process for mandatory rehabilitation, we will discuss that. However, do not try to spin to the point that it is misleading. For you to say that, in any way, Labor supports what you are doing is wrong. Not only do we not support what you are doing …
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Introducing mandatory rehabilitation treatment for problem drinkers. Whose photo is on it?
Ms LAWRIE: There is no point of order. If you want to do a personal explanation come back into the Chamber and do it later on. I have the call.
Never have we supported the CLP’s plan for mandatory rehabilitation or mandatory detention. You have no credibility on this subject because some of us remember the absurd comments from the member for Sanderson during the debates on the Enough is Enough alcohol reforms such as, ‘You should not have the BDR because, essentially, what will occur is bottle shop attendants will stalk attractive young women because they are scanning their ID’. That was one of the more absurd comments you made. It did not pan out. It is completely bizarre.
Mr Styles: You do not know what is going on in the community. It is actually real.
Ms LAWRIE: I will pick up on the interjection. This man, in his own bubble, still says it is actually real. The member for Sanderson still maintains that bottle shop attendants stalked attractive young women based on the scanning of their ID. You are so far out in your own bubble you are completely irrelevant and absurd.
The debate has been a difficult one for the government, granted. They have become increasing hysterical in their response to the criticisms. It is evidenced by the hysterical expressions by the Chief Minister at the CLP Central Council, referring to the people who were against the government’s proposals on the mandatory rehabilitation as lefties who just need to get out of the way. He used a phrase I will not use in this Chamber, but we have all been acquainted with it in the media commentary. It was hysterical. I can understand it has touched a raw nerve with the government.
To have the experts lined up, one by one, coming out - not because they are Labor lefties, they are somehow at the behest of the Labor Party in the Territory, or we somehow control these experts - but because they saw the devil in the detail, finally and belatedly, of the legislation.
The Australian Medical Association, the AMA, has pointed out that the government should not proceed with the legislation. It is not an organisation that takes these debates lightly. It is obviously coming from the clinical concerns of care and treatment of Territorians. My experience with the AMA has been it does not enter political debates lightly. For them to come out openly and publicly against this legislation is quite remarkable.
The Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance of the NT (AMSANT) is staunchly opposed to this legislation. It has publicly spoken out against it. This is Aboriginal Medical Services which, at the coalface, deals with, works with, and cares for Aboriginal Territorians who have a chronic alcohol problem. If there was anything in this that said this will be a good thing for those clients, AMSANT, I do not doubt, would be supporting it to the hilt.
The sad and tragic reality of this very flawed legislation is that it is wrong. It is wrong to treat people in the manner in which this government proposes. It is wrong to round people up and lock them up because they are drunk. It is wrong that when those people abscond, as they will, as they do, even when they have committed an offence and are remanded into treatment facilities - people who work in the sector know that is what happens. If you are trying to lock up a drunk person against their will and you do not have the means to secure them in the facility, they abscond.
Yes, this legislation has been amended on the journey so that when you abscond three times you will be criminalised. You will be criminalising people who have a chronic alcohol addiction ...
Mr Elferink: Yes.
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Port Darwin, ‘Yes’. There lies a stark and clear difference between the policies of the CLP and of the Labor Party.
We are advocates of mandatory rehabilitation. We introduced it through the tribunal we established under the Enough is Enough reforms, and introduced it through the SMART Court. The cute reference the member for Sanderson made to try to misrepresent my position and, indeed, Labor’s position in our alcohol laws, was in regard to people who have committed an offence. Very clearly, under Labor’s laws, if you committed a criminal offence then, absolutely, through the SMART Court, if it was not a violent offence, you would be mandated to rehab. You would be detained and, if you absconded, you would go to gaol, where you otherwise would have gone if the SMART Court and the rehab options had not existed.
The difference is we would not gaol people who had not committed an offence. Under Labor’s policies, someone who is a chronic alcoholic stayed on the Banned Drinker Register ...
Mr Elferink: Let free.
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection by the member for Port Darwin, ‘Let free’.
They would be called to the tribunal. One of the powers that was about to kick in when the CLP scrapped the legislation, the Enough is Enough reforms, was the income management of up to 70%. That was about to kick in. It did not kick in because the CLP came with a rush of blood to the head and tore everything up. They did not just tear up the BDR, they tore up that tribunal with the income management as well.
What stupidity! What folly! What a better place many people would be in today if you had not done that. In recognition that you got that so wrong, you are creating your own tribunal and trying to have referenced to it Commonwealth powers for income management. You are so arrogant in how you go about your task that you did not have the conversation with the Commonwealth that has to reference those powers. You did not sit at the table and explain the tribunal and how it would work to try to get income management powers. You just publicly announced you would have them.
Such conceited arrogance, after you had scrapped a tribunal with income management powers. Then, when you sought to establish your own version of it with income management powers, the Commonwealth recently said, ‘Hang on a second, you have not even spoken to us’. You had not even sought those referral powers, so how could you announce it?
We were very clear that people who did not commit an offence, who had a chronic alcohol addiction, needed treatment pathways. We established the tribunal and the funding for treatment pathways. The leverage of income management, had it been allowed to occur - as has been the Family Responsibility Commission experience in Northern Queensland which we modelled it on - shows that people turn up for the assessment because they do not like the idea of 70% of their income being managed. That is the leverage that gets them to the tribunal, through the assessments and into the rehab pathways.
The rehab pathways were a variety of alternatives, by the way. This view that it was ‘one size fits all’ is a nonsense. The Enough is Enough reforms by Labor had funding for the rehab institutions such as CAAAPU, CAAPS, Vendale or FORWAARD. Each of those could apply for additional funding for beds because institutionalised rehab has its place and its role - absolutely.
We also picked up on the sector’s advice on ambulatory treatment; that is, treatment that plugs into existing Aboriginal medical services such as Congress, Danila Dilba, and the AMSANT clinics in remote communities where you plug in your Alcohol and Other Drugs specialists, and they are dealt with through, first of all, the doctors system where they are clinically assessed. Holistic programs are designed and mapped around that individual and, irrespective of where they live - whether in a remote community, a regional town, or a large urban centre - are there for them.
Funding came through the forward estimates for years for organisations to be able to apply to establish different rehab models designed for remote communities in remote locations such as the Tiwi Islands, for example, or if someone wanted to establish something like Mount Theo in Central Australia, which is a fantastic rehab centre. The ‘one size fits all’ was never part of the Enough is Enough reforms, but all of that was torn up and thrown out by the CLP when it came in and not only scrapped the Banned Drinker Register but tore up all of the reforms.
Now it is doing some catch up and is starting to introduce a language around different rehabilitation options. However, the experts cannot get away from it and we cannot stop fighting it being so wrong criminalising drunks and mandatorily detaining them. There have been no answers yet about fences or guards. It is nonsense that somehow because you pick someone up and take them to a facility they will stay there. They will not! Evidence shows people abscond. Thanks to the CLP, after they abscond three times they are criminals. That is appalling!
When I am in remote communities explaining to people these laws, people say to me very clearly, ‘We did not vote for that; we were not told about that; we do not know about that.’ My question to the CLP is, where is the information about these laws that is going out across the communities of the Northern Territory? How are you explaining them? Is it in language? What communication will occur? People have the right to know what they are confronted with under the laws being introduced by your government. In the remote communities they certainly do not know about the minimum mandatory sentencing laws for assault. Are you going to keep them in ignorance about these laws as well, or will you have a communication strategy covering every area of the Territory …
Ms Walker: They did not even know power prices were going up in the bush.
Ms LAWRIE: Exactly, member for Nhulunbuy. They certainly did not tell people about power prices going up in the bush.
This attack you have made on the expert response is very shameful ...
Mr Conlan: Labor experts.
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Greatorex ‘Labor experts’ ...
Mr Conlan: Yes, that is all they are.
Ms LAWRIE: Again, I pick up on the interjection, ‘Yes, that is all they are’. I will read from a media release from the Aboriginal Peak Organisations of the Northern Territory. These are the people you describe, member for Greatorex, as Labor; that is all they are. How insulting to people who do not have a political bias. There may well be members of the organisation who are Labor. There may well be members of the organisation who are not. But to dismiss the Aboriginal Peak Organisations of the Northern Territory - an alliance of the Central Land Council, the Northern Land Council, CAALAS, NAAJA and AMSANT publicly stated, ‘The Mandatory Rehabilitation Bill must be released for public consultation’. That was on 24 April 2013. They went on and stated why they needed to be properly consulted.
After they had been consulted and after they had seen the devil in the detail - which we all waited an awfully long time to see, and no wonder you kept it hidden; here we are with 43 amendments. If you actually listened you would be stopping the process altogether.
This is what the Aboriginal Peak Organisations of the Northern Territory said on 13 June. This is the alliance of the Central Land Council, the Northern Land Council, CAALAS, NAAJA and AMSANT. Their media release was headed, ‘Bite the bullet and drop the bill - and talk now’. Have you listened to that? Have you done that? No.
I will read the media release onto the Parliamentary Record:
I will go on to quote from Mr Paterson.
Completely ignored! The CLP has ignored what is genuinely a very real and reasonable call from the Aboriginal Peak Organisations of the Northern Territory ...
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! Just seeking clarity. Did the opposition, when in government, have an alternate solution and do they offer any alternatives now? Or are they just criticising?
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Ms LAWRIE: Thank you. Chief Minister, you only serve to make a fool of yourself when you do that, trying to be a statesman; I know it is difficult. You asked whether the Labor Party had an alternative solution in government. It was called Enough is Enough. It established a supply measure, the Banned Drinker Register. It established an Alcohol and other Drugs Tribunal, with clinical assessment and pathways to rehab and treatment, as well as leveraging income management referrals from the Commonwealth. It also had the Substances Misuse and Alcohol Referral Treatment Court, called the SMART Court. It was a $75m, five-year program, comprehensively designed to tackle chronic alcoholism in the Territory. The experts at the coalface all said it was good: AMSANT; NAAJA, CAALAS; the AMA; the police; rehab providers. They lined up and supported the alternative, Enough is Enough. I will send you a kit to read if you somehow missed it when you were in opposition.
Do we have an alternative? Yes. Did we introduce the alternative? Yes. Did we implement and fund the alternative? Yes. Did you come to government and scrap it? Yes. Do we maintain that the alternative should have continued? Absolutely, and we are backed by experts.
The Aboriginal Peak Organisations said supply measures are essential; go back to the table and work with the experts. It has gone on to call for a board of inquiry, which we have supported. We have supported the member for Nelson’s call for a parliamentary committee. You continue to turn deaf ears to all of those calls, through your arrogance and foolishness.
The whole question of whether or not it worked was not answered because you scrapped it. Everyone who understands programs and evaluations knows you need something to operate for a minimum of three years to evaluate it and truly understand whether it is on a pathway to success. You scrapped it a year in. We know that since you scrapped it, domestic violence has increased 24% and the number of assaults against the person have increased 17%. I heard you say ‘no’, member for Port Darwin. Why would you ever want to embrace the fact? Because it enters your world and disturbs you. I refer to the source: NT Territory’s quarterly crime statistics for the March quarter 2013, and June quarter 2012, which was the last with the Banned Drinker Register.
Under the June quarter 2012, there were 977 reported cases of domestic violence and in March 2013, there were 1214. That is an increase of 237, or 24%, in domestic violence incidents.
Mr Elferink: An 18% drop in property crimes.
Ms LAWRIE: I will pick up on your interjection about property crime. A woman would rather see something stolen from her fridge than be bashed. No one wants property crime and, under the Labor government, we halved it from what we inherited under the CLP. You think that having a drop in property crime is fantastic compared to a massive 24% increase in domestic violence. Shame on you! Unbelievable! A 24% increase in domestic violence since you scrapped the Banned Drinker Register - under your watch, under your own quarterly crime statistics.
Also under your quarterly crime statistics there was an increase in the number of assaults and in alcohol-related crime of 17%. That is since you scrapped the Banned Drinker Register. But do not let the facts get in the way of your agenda.
What you have created, what you think is right, is totally wrong. Every expert says it is fatally flawed - AMSANT, the Alcohol and other Drugs Network of the NT, the AMA, and the police.
You covered yourself in shame, member for Port Darwin, when you gagged publicly, one of the most senior serving police officers of the Northern Territory. But you cannot gag Vince Kelly, the President of the Police Association, who has spoken out on behalf of police in the recent Police News. I quote from the Police News.
Mr Kelly continued:
You cannot gag the Police Association. It is very clear in its support of the continuation of the BDR. It points out there were pathways to treatment; it calls it underfunded pathways. Obviously, as the former Treasurer, I take issue with that, but they recognise it nevertheless.
You have the AMA, AMSANT, the police, NAAJA, CAALAS, CLC, and NLC all saying, ‘Stop’. Stop what you are doing and listen to what they are saying about it being fatally flawed. Yet, you plunge headlong into it.
You will pass this legislation by the fact that you have the numbers. Then what? What are you proposing? Let us look at the figures in the budget paper. In the budget paper you say you will assess 800 people in this coming financial year and 480 will go into rehabilitation. Your Health minister has said you expect a success rate of about 10%. The Chief Minister has publicly said he expects a success rate of about 5%. Therefore, we can guess it will be somewhere between 5% and 10%, which fits with what people in the rehab sector say are the normal success rates. Based on this, it will cost $90 000 a person for assessment, and $900 000 a person for rehabilitation ...
Mrs Lambley: $900 000? Come on! That is misleading parliament.
Ms LAWRIE: For successful rehabilitation, $900 000 per person. Just check your maths. Oh, that is right, you were sacked as Treasurer!
Mrs Lambley: Resigned, sweet pea.
Ms LAWRIE: Oh, stormed out!
Mrs LAMBLEY: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! The Leader of the Opposition is misleading parliament. No way is it going to cost $900 000 per person for them to go through rehabilitation.
Ms LAWRIE: For successful rehabilitation. Do your maths! You are saying 800 people will be assessed, and 480 will go through rehab. Even on a 10% success rate, with the $45m you are investing, that is $900 000 per successful rehab. Seriously? Do your maths.
Mr Tollner: You are wrong.
Ms LAWRIE: Oh, here comes the bovver boy, he is back in the Chamber to do some shouting. He has had his dinner and he is back to do some shouting across the Chamber.
Those are the numbers: 800 to be assessed, 480 they are predicting will go through rehab, 5% to 10% success rate of rehab. That is $900 000 per successful rehab. There were 2500 on the Banned Drinker Register, but this system is only picking up 800 for assessment and 480 for rehab. When you ask where the beds are, you hear things like …
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: Where are the beds? Okay. The government said we will have about 50 beds at some stage in the Alice Springs Central Australia region. Fifty beds when? CAAAPU does not have 50 beds today. We visited CAAAPU. I said ‘Where are you going to have mandatory rehab beds here?’ They pointed to the vacant block of land on their site and said the government will have to build a facility there because their existing facility is at capacity. There are a few beds spare but it is nearly at capacity. They do not have capacity. They pointed to the block of land where they said the government will have to build a purpose-built facility because they recognise the concerns around deaths in custody of people who are being mandatorily detained. They also pointed out they do not have the capacity to deal with the first 72 hours. Anyone in the rehab sector will point out the real inherent dangers in the first 72 hours of taking someone in.
The real question remains: where are you going to take the 50-odd people in Alice Springs and Central Australia after you force these laws through? Where will people go for their first 72 hours if not to CAAAPU …
Mr Tollner: Where is the hospital? Anywhere near there?
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Fong Lim. He said, ‘Where is the hospital?’ That is the model then? You will put people into the Alice Springs Hospital for 72 hours? The capacity at Alice Springs Hospital runs at what today? What additional funding are you providing to Alice Springs Hospital to deal with the first 72 hours involvement in the rehab model? That is a serious question. I am sure you will be able to answer it in the committee stage, Minister for Health. According to the member for Fong Lim, in the first 72 hours these 50 clients in Alice Springs will be processed through the hospital then, according to what I have heard in this debate …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! I ask that the Leader of the Opposition be granted an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: According to the CLP model, in the first 72 hours the 50 people they envisage being able to be captured by this program in Alice Springs - even though we know there are many more than 50 people who need treatment pathways in Alice Springs; but let us go on the figures articulated by the government. Fifty people into the hospital in Alice Springs, then to CAAAPU which does not currently have the facilities. I am looking forward to your advice in committee stage, Minister for Health, on the funding, scope, and design of facilities for CAAAPU in Alice Springs, quite aside from the funding, scope and design for facilities at Vendale outside of Katherine, because Vendale is at capacity.
Then we have the medi-hotel. You have no arrangement with the Commonwealth for use of the medi-hotel, which is where you would get the bulk of your numbers from in the new rehab system. You say 100. It is a facility designed for about 50 people but, obviously, you are double-bunking. I do not know how you run a clinical model on that sort of arrangement, putting 100 people into a facility that is designed for 50: 100 people with chronic alcohol dependency and serious withdrawal issues into a facility not designed for that, aside from the concerns we have in hanging points and the issues you would find in the deaths in custody inquiry.
You follow that path at significant risk. It is so risky you cannot find a provider to run that. You cannot go out to the non-government sector; they will not touch it because they know of the liabilities inherent. What will happen? What will you say and how will you respond if you have deaths in custody? Do you have a plan in your system’s planning and design for responses to deaths in custody? I look forward to hearing that advice in committee stage.
That members of the government find this a laughing matter is a sad indictment of where this government is at on this subject.
You will pass the legislation because you have the numbers. You will pass the legislation ignoring the advice of the experts. You will pretend, in your folly, that there was no Labor alternative, that there is no Labor alternative, when everyone knows there clearly is, and was, but you will not countenance it.
Then you will have a system where no one in the rehabilitation sector is geared up to be able to admit people to deal with the first 72 hours or, indeed, the capacity in designed buildings to deal with the type of clinical model required to support this. Then, at the end of the day, you will be criminalising Territorians because they have a chronic alcohol addiction, to your eternal shame.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, we will continue to point out the technical flaws and the abhorrent aspects of this as policy.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I speak in support of minister Robyn Lambley on the alcohol mandatory treatment plan.
Recently the Minister for Alcohol Rehabilitation, Robyn Lambley, visited Bathurst Island at the invitation of traditional owners to inspect the potential location of alcohol treatment facilities there. She met with the traditional owners and other stakeholders to discuss the importance of the facilities to the Tiwi and to the government’s mandatory treatment plan.
The Tiwi traditional owners strongly support the mandatory facilities on Bathurst Island. Many Tiwis are very concerned about the terrible impact of the continuing cycle of alcohol and drug dependence upon individuals, their families, and the wider community. On the island, the Tiwi try very hard to encourage a responsible community approach to drinking alcohol. The club at Wurrumiyanga, for example, is only open from 4.30 pm to 7.30 pm for four days a week.
Currently, some Tiwis come to Darwin to try to purchase heavy beer because it is not available in a supervised managed club environment on Tiwi Island. Often they are locked in a downward spiral of dependency on grog and they become ill, and sometimes die in the long grass around Darwin. Many Tiwi find themselves locked up just to be released and then locked up again, with no hope or means to change the deadly downward cycle they find themselves in.
Wurrumiyanga, formerly known as Nguiu, has an alcohol management plan for community. The community wants to achieve the following main objectives: access appropriate services for treatment, rehabilitation and support services for alcohol and drug misuse; empower elders, community leaders and role models to have ownership of community laws and orders; facilitate education and information about the problems and danger associated with alcohol and drug abuse; and provide community safety and protection for women, youth and children.
The alcohol management plan aims to reduce the amount of harm in the community that can occur as a result of misuse of alcohol and drugs. The threefold strategy is to be used to focus on demand reduction, changing individual attitudes, personal acknowledgement and behaviour relating to drinking alcohol: changing the tolerance of the community to irresponsible, risky, drinking; harm reductions - reducing the harm to individuals and the community; encouraging safe drinking choices and drinking environment; providing support intervention - compulsory if necessary so as to prevent further harm to individuals and community members; and supply reductions - reducing alcohol consumption and delayed harm by managing availability and accessibility of an alcohol supply.
It is very important for the community within Arafura to be involved in working out the best way of managing alcohol as far as they are concerned. I aim to continue to consult widely within Arafura in the coming months to gauge community feeling towards alcohol management issues. This is why I have been strongly supportive of placing people who are in grave danger of losing their lives in a facility where they can have a chance to dry out and where they can think very hard about the dangerous direction their life is taking.
Such a mandatory arrangement is important because it enables Tiwi people to receive important work training that will enable them to become work ready. It is a clear measure, both within our demand reduction strategy as well as our harm reduction strategy.
Many young Tiwi Islanders are losing contact with their important cultural obligations and responsibilities. As they lose such an understanding, with no skills in the basic areas of literacy and numeracy, they are unable to work in productive activities. Every job now in our communities requires people to be able to read, write, and understand basic calculation. The ability to work and contribute in a positive way in the community is essential to building self-esteem and self-respect so people can appreciate that there are, in fact, important ways out of the current cycle of destruction and death.
It is hoped that the Tiwis can contribute a number of jobs in forestry, for example, by assisting with planting and looking after the many seedlings needed for our forestry project. Art and craft will also be important as an activity and to strengthen peoples’ culture linkages and understanding. These two would be important for building and strengthening self-respect and self-esteem amongst our people.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I see mandatory facilities as a way in which people can be given a chance to think about the opportunities available to them and approach this life they have been given. It is a way to break the terrible cycle of dependency, despair, and early undignified deaths. I know I am supported in this by many Aboriginal people within the great electorate of Arafura.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I am disappointed to be here on the floor of this House discussing a bill which is so seriously flawed that it requires 43 amendments. I am disappointed that Labor’s alcohol reforms were thrown out with the change of government, in line with CLP election promises. It was a political and populous decision led by the CLP: a decision not based on any evidence. Since scrapping the BDR and the other alcohol reforms. we have had nothing put in place for 10 months. Clearly, the CLP has been very challenged to meet its election commitment in finding a model, a legislative instrument, that will suit its purpose.
However, with or without the amendments, this bill and the whole policy approach of the new CLP government was seriously flawed from the outset. It is not just me or my colleagues on this side of the House who say this. It is the flaws of this bill’s punitive approach, which potentially see problem drinkers criminalised, that have been highlighted by medical and health experts, professionals, and social justice advocates. There is a conga line of those advocating against this approach of the CLP, including the Australian Medical Association, the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency, the Criminal Lawyers Association of the Northern Territory, the Northern Territory Council of Social Services, the Northern Territory Police Association, the Alice Springs-based People’s Alcohol Action Coalition, the Aboriginal Peak Organisations of the Northern Territory, and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Social Justice Commissioner.
As the Leader of the Opposition highlighted, as recently as yesterday APO NT, the Aboriginal Peak Organisations of the Northern Territory, issued a statement calling for a bipartisan approach through the creation of a board of inquiry into alcohol consumption and harm in the Northern Territory, not unlike what the Independent member for Nelson had been calling for and which the opposition supported.
I urge the Chief Minister to man up and listen to the pleas of Territorians and the strong and collective voices of health, legal, and social justice advocacy groups to withdraw this bill before the House and to heed the advice of the Aboriginal Peak Organisations of the Northern Territory, having not heeded the advice of opposition, to establish a board of inquiry.
However, I am not very confident he will do this, not only having dismissed the calls of these groups, but to have labelled them as:
He then offered some advice which told these lefty oriented welfare people to ‘get out of the way, to p… off’. It is as offensive as the member for Sanderson saying the opposition needed to listen more widely than only our ‘little experts’ as he described them. Who exactly is he referring to, and what credibility does the member for Sanderson have on this subject after going on national television saying the link between alcohol and crime in the Territory was negligible?
I go back to the comments of the Chief Minister. Those comments speak volumes about the attitude and sheer arrogance of this new government and the very arrogant and pig-headed approach the new Chief Minister has adopted. To dismiss the views of doctors, nurses, rehabilitation workers, lawyers, and Aboriginal organisations and accuse them, bizarrely, of somehow feeding off the misery of others is despicable, highly offensive and calls into question his capacity to lead, especially when he adopts language which is unbecoming of a public figure and demeans the position of Chief Minister.
The Chief Minister should be listening to these experts, these Territorians who understand the alcohol issues far better than the Chief Minister - a Chief Minister who, by the way, proclaims drinking to be a core social value in the Northern Territory. He is not listening to them but, rather, ploughing headlong down a path and dragging the Health Minister with him to implement radical and alarming measures to deal with problem drinkers: people who are sick and have addictions.
On national television recently, when asked on Lateline if he could name an expert or organisation which supported the bill, he could not. The fact that he then chose to lash out at those experts is absolutely shameful.
What is missing in this entire debate is evidence which shows the CLP’s reforms will work. The fact is, there is no evidence. However, the CLP, in the absence of evidence and, yet, with an abundance of advice and criticism from experts, continues to forge blindly ahead with ‘do not tell us what to do because we know what is best for you, and we will be deciding the approach to governing the Territory’.
They at least recognise that the former Chief Minister, whose best offer to the debate about how to handle problem drunks was to walk up to them and tell them to stop, was hopeless and they got rid of him. But with the new and unelected Chief Minister installed, there was at least a recognition that stupid CLP policies were hurting Territorians and, from there, we have seen a number of backflips. The Chief Minister is clinging on desperately to save face, and is refusing to back down and away from this disastrous and costly path of legislation, locking up problem drinkers and forcing them to be detained whether they like it or not.
At least under the amendments, absconders are given a second chance before being charged with a criminal offence, but it is a very small token. Essentially, the amendments make a terrible bill a bad bill, but a bill we are not convinced will work and fix the issues of alcohol abuse in the Northern Territory.
The removal of Labor’s measures, as I said at the start, was done with no evaluation or assessment, despite pleas from experts to at least have an evaluation and assess what was in place and the degree to which it worked before they axed it. But, no, they went. Let us remember these measures were put in place a few years ago in response to the Territory’s terrible alcohol-related problems which cost taxpayers around $640m a year in costs associated with our health system, police, corrections, social services, human services, and the terrible cost you cannot place a dollar on: the misery it causes to families, children, and women in particular, being on the receiving end of those who are problem drinkers.
I have spoken in this House on a number of occasions about the reform measures implemented in northeast Arnhem Land. These measures work because they are supply measures that deal with restricting problem drinkers’ access to alcohol. They were implemented first of all in Groote Eylandt, and then followed in Nhulunbuy. In Nhulunbuy they came into place on 1 March 2008. There was resistance to that process at the start. The idea was that you had to apply for a permit to purchase alcohol and, from there, each time you purchased takeaway liquor you needed to show your driver’s licence, or whatever the other approved identification was. There were people who objected to that, in the same way people, with the BDR, objected to having to show ID.
However, over a period of time, people became very accustomed to it, in the same way that if I want to enter the Arnhem Club in Nhulunbuy, I cannot enter without an access card which I must swipe to have entry to the premises, or if I walk through the door because it is open, I must show that card before I enter. That is a measure that ensures these places are kept safe and problem drinkers are not allowed in.
However, the important thing about the measures in northeast Arnhem Land with the alcohol management plans is they did not come from the government saying, ‘Here is a plan for you’ but, from a grassroots level - from the same grassroots that, I dare say, my colleague from the Tiwi Islands talked about when he said what his people want and see as being best for his community. Good on him for working with his colleagues to see a rehab place put on the Tiwi Islands.
However, the issue is about forcing people into rehabilitation, and detaining them. Obviously, I only had a briefing on the amendments on Monday, so there is an awful lot of information to take in. There are an awful lot of questions we will be raising with the minister as we work through these amendments.
I feel very sad, knowing as I do the success of what was a forerunner of the BDR in northeast Arnhem Land - it still operates. A number of people - and I continue to have people who are listening to this debate on what is happening now the BDR has gone and what will happen next - asked me if the alcohol management plans in northeast Arnhem Land will be affected. ‘Is the government going to stop our alcohol management plans? I objected to them at the start but I can see they really work.’
We know they work because there has been a formal evaluation of the alcohol management plans which confirms they work. The Attorney-General can play with the crime statistics all he likes, but the crime statistics, as quoted by the Leader of the Opposition - and I quoted them in estimates the other day with him - show that since the BDR has gone, the increase in alcohol-related crime is 17% and the increase in domestic violence associated with alcohol is almost 25%. Those figures are real.
In northeast Arnhem Land I recently had a meeting with - forgive me, I think he is Assistant Commissioner - Jamie Chalker, who visited Nhulunbuy. I was very pleased to be invited as a community stakeholder to a meeting with him and a couple of colleagues, along with the OIC of Nhulunbuy Police, about what the current community issues were. The crime statistics had only just come out and we talked about that. I said there were a couple of reasons for that. One was very good community policing, very proactive work undertaken by our police, but that is in tandem with the fact that we have alcohol supply measures, such that the Nhulunbuy region had the lowest crime stats on record. You cannot walk away or turn away from the correlation between access to alcohol and crime. It is a crying shame. The system has worked in northeast Arnhem Land, not just in my electorate but in the member for Arnhem’s electorate, as well.
If we had not been seeing results with these alcohol measures then they would have been axed, but the fact is they do work. After just over 12 months of the Enough is Enough reforms introduced by the Labor government, to axe them without an evaluation and assessment, is incredibly short-sighted.
I am concerned about people being taken into protective custody, insofar as the randomness of it. I think again of my electorate where we have a very effective night patrol that will pick people up who need to get home - people who are inebriated on occasions. Under their processes, they do not return a person to the neighbouring communities of Yirrkala or Gunyangara if they are intoxicated. They give that person the option of going to the sobering-up shelter in Nhulunbuy run by the East Arnhem Shire, and that is where people are taken.
On any random night, if the night patrol is not operating, it could be that those people who would normally be picked up and taken into the sobering-up shelter will be picked up by the police patrol. That would see them entering into the system. There is that randomness about it; it is a bit of a lottery as to whether you get in there or not.
I make a comment about the removal of the SMART Court and the Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal, along with the new legislation. The fact is that whilst the CLP will completely deny it - because they are not interested in listening to evidence or experts - the SMART Court, Substance Misuse Alcohol - what does the R stand for?
Mrs Lambley: Who cares?
Ms WALKER: I know you do not care, Minister for Health, you do not care at all.
The SMART Court was supported by a number of experts. It was strongly supported by the Chief Magistrate. The Chief Magistrate has been quite outspoken about that in the media. Interestingly, the SMART Court is about dealing with people’s issues before they become serious offences - before they find themselves in the Corrections system. It goes to the heart of dealing with the substance misuse problems they have. Substance misuse problems often do not stand alone; there are other problems going on in people’s lives that connect them to alcohol or other substance issues.
When I talked about the SMART Court in the estimates process the other day with the Attorney-General, I asked for a few figures. He told me that 230 defendants in the life of the SMART Court had been referred. Out of the 230 who were referred, 146 were accepted into the SMART Court program. Out of that 146, there were 52 who graduated. So there was nowhere near a 100% success rate and the SMART Court would not expect that. However, 52 graduating out of 146 in the program is more than a 30% success rate. That is a pretty good success rate when we look at the predicted success rate for rehabilitation, according to the CLP, being 5% or 10%, depending on who it is you are talking to.
The Attorney-General dismissed the SMART Court program, as ‘It just costs too much. It just costs too much; we just cannot afford it.’ There is something incredibly short-sighted about that in looking at the longer-term benefits of investing in programs like that which go to the heart of the problem and do not criminalise people. You could not go into that program if you had committed a criminal offence, but it gave people an opportunity and kept them out of prison.
I know the alcohol mandatory treatment program is not about prisons, but it is about locking people up; it is about mandatorily detaining people. There are so many issues that will arise with this and there is no guarantee of its success rate. In fact, we are predicting a very low success rate.
The other thing that concerns me is the CLP government is desperately seeking beds to meet its commitment. One of the key targets is the medi-hotel on the campus of the Royal Darwin Hospital. I understand the federal government Health minister has yet to indicate you can have it for that purpose. I believe the use of that facility would concern bush members on both sides of this House because the medi-hotel was a purpose-built facility designed for people who have to travel from outside of Darwin for medical treatment. That person could be somebody who is not sick enough to occupy a hospital bed but needs to come in for some treatment and needs somewhere secure, safe and affordable to stay, particularly Indigenous constituents. That treatment could include pregnant women whose closest hospital is the birthing unit at Royal Darwin Hospital. They need to be in at around 36 or 37 weeks of their pregnancy. These are the people who would have access to the medi-hotel.
I have amongst my constituents people who come in for surgery. They often need a day or two to recover from that surgery before they are fit to travel back to Nhulunbuy or whichever community they come from. They are being denied access to that medi-hotel, and that is the part of the debate that seems to have been fudged over by the government. In fact, the Treasurer made it very clear he is not interested in these medi-hotels. He sees them as places for long-grassers, basically, and the taxpayer is not a hotelier. I find that highly offensive. The medi-hotel at the Royal Darwin Hospital was fought for long and hard by the Labor government and delivered by the federal Labor government. I believe those people out bush have no idea this facility has been withdrawn from them.
The Leader of the Opposition asked the CLP where their communication plan for the roll out of this program was. She asked who you are talking to, and how people out bush know what the consequences of being picked up twice in the space of three months for being drunk are. They do not know. They did not know their power bills were going up. They could not work out why their power card that used to last five days was only lasting two days. This government is terrible at communicating with people.
I am also very concerned about the facility in Nhulunbuy. I do not know how this facility will be adapted to meet the new legislative requirements of a detaining facility, given the special care centre in Nhulunbuy is co-located with the sobering-up shelter. I talked about the randomness of someone, potentially, one night being picked up by night patrol and another night being picked up by police. One night they could be in the sobering-up shelter, and a week later they might find themselves in the mandated treatment bed where they will be detained alongside voluntary participants in rehabilitation. It is really difficult to understand physically how this will work and how it will be communicated to people.
What is involved in the aftercare programs? I look forward to hearing a little more about that because we know if we put people through this mandatory alcohol treatment they do it for three months. They may not want to be there. There will be an element of people who will not want to participate, and you cannot make people want to go through something. However, at the end of the day, what are you releasing them to? How is the aftercare program going to work? If people have come from a dysfunctional environment and are returning to a dysfunctional environment, how will lives be improved? No doubt we will see these people going through the cycle of going in and out of these rehabilitation centres with limited success, all the while with enormous costs to taxpayers.
Madam Speaker, I will have questions as we go through the many committee stage amendments. Essentially, I do not support the bill, do not support the amendments, and do not support the course of action this CLP government is taking.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, this is an extremely serious bill. It has ramifications that are, to some extent, new from the point of view that the intention of this bill is to take away the right of someone to be able to freely walk the streets, because of an alcohol addiction. It is something we should take seriously. I heard a bit of laughter before, and I understand there is a bit of argy-bargy across the table in much of what we do here. However, this is too serious a bill to just knock another person’s opinion. People will have different opinions. I have a different opinion from the opposition and, to some extent, from the government.
I agree with the principle that there comes a time when some people need assistance when they cannot help themselves anymore. I also think society needs a break from those people who are simply a nuisance. No matter how hard people try with charity and support, some of those people are simply at a point where there has to be some intervention. I do not say that lightly, because we are moving into an area that is controversial. We do it with people who have mental health issues or cognitive impairment. There are cases where we already do that, and it is only done with much care and legislative control. I feel we have a case that sometimes we have to help people.
I am looking at this from a point of what I believe is compassion. It has to be clearly stated that if you do not come to the debate from what you think is the correct way to help these people, or the belief that we have to do this with compassion, then you might as well throw people in gaol. That is where I differ from the government. We can talk about the legislation, and I believe there are still some errors in the legislation, but my main concern is if we are to do this correctly and with compassion, then we need to build facilities first that show that compassion.
I will go through some of the things we should look at. Mandatory residential treatment should definitely be the last resort; it says that in the act. We cannot deny that most of the people who will be put away will be Aboriginal. Many of them will be well out of their own country, for whatever reason. The member for Arafura put it pretty succinctly; many people come into town because they want beer they cannot get on their island. I believe many people come to town from other communities for a very similar reason: theirs is a dry community and they cannot get alcohol.
We should be looking at an Aboriginal solution as the top priority. We should have healing centres as a top priority. We should be taking people back - maybe not to their own country, because sometimes family could be an issue. We should be using the resources of Aboriginal people to help overcome what is killing their people. That needs to be the first priority of government before we take the more drastic step of locking people up.
I would like people who are assessed as being suitable for this program to be given the option of going out bush where they can go hunting and are comfortable, where they are in familiar surroundings and can go fishing, hunting, and have time to dry out with people who have compassion and believe they can help. There are people in Arnhem Land and other areas - I mentioned my sisters-in-law. There are people out there; they may not be professional but they are compassionate people who find their countrymen in the city drunk and fighting to be a shame job. If we had the right approach and had this organised, they would help with the solution.
The solution will not be easy and will probably be minuscule because you are dealing with people with serious alcohol problems. If you talk to anybody in the rehabilitation business, getting people to stay off the grog permanently is no easy task. Most people would know you can get someone off for a short while, and then they go back on it. I put that first as an option that needs to be looked at.
In relation to the mandatory residential facilities, I said they should be purpose-built because they need to be home-like. They need to be places where people will feel they are not in prison, even if they cannot go out. They are, for instance, in the bush; perhaps have vegetable gardens, facilities where they know they will get three good meals a day and will be cared for and have medical treatment, because many of these people do not just have an alcohol problem, they have other medical problems. Again, if do not have that word ‘compassion’ involved in the mandatory rehabilitation, then it just becomes a means of removing people from the streets. If that is the case, I do not think that would work, nor would it be compassionate.
I spoke to someone today from one of the alcohol rehabilitation groups, and they said they are not great supporters of this bill. I heard one of the members talk about support. They will go along with this because they need to be part of it. I do not necessarily think they are great supporters of it but, for them, they see a bit of an anomaly. They are running systems which probably have a much higher chance of rehabilitating people because they are voluntary - people make a decision they want to change their lives. Yet, the amount of money they get is not great at all. Of course, what we will do is put a large amount of money into a program that probably has a much smaller chance of success. From their point of view that is slightly imbalanced. A program that will probably have results, which will unlikely be something you will rave about, will take money away from those groups which have been working for many years through voluntary rehabilitation.
If the government wants to go down this path of spending a large sum of money, and I understand it will cost a large amount of money, it should have been supplying more money for the alcohol rehabilitation groups which are operating presently so they have the opportunity to try to spread their facilities over the Territory to reduce the need for mandatory rehabilitation. I understand that they see the approach as a little skewed.
I travelled to Katherine to see Vendale, and I also went to Alice Springs to look at CAAAPU. I also went to the medi-hostel - I call it the hostel; medi-hotel is probably not the right name. First, the people at CAAAPU were fantastic - great people. When you go in the front door and meet the people who are at the coalface and have to deal with what is a fairly difficult and a continuing issue - people think they are banging their heads against a brick wall trying to fix it. Those people were most generous in showing me around.
They showed me their plans, which I have here, for a series of demountables. I discussed it with them and asked if they had taken into consideration that those demountables might be a risk to the welfare of a person because one of the big issues in locking people up is deaths in custody. People can argue whether they are technically in custody. I will not get into that argument at the moment. You are locking people up against their will and, if you were to lock the people up in the prison and someone died there would be an inquiry. If you went to a modern prison today, there would be a purpose-built room where people cannot harm themselves.
I understand the most important phase of a person withdrawing is about the first seven to 10 days. There are issues I am not overly clear about, and I thank the minister’s advisor and staff for the two briefings I have had; I appreciate that very much. They know I have concerns. One is to ensure that these assessment facilities, because they would be separate, I imagine, from the rehabilitation centres, will be built or designed in such a way so people cannot cause harm to themselves, such as have hanging points. They will be going through those withdrawal symptoms, which might include withdrawal from other drugs. I am not, at the moment, confident that that is all there.
We are bringing this legislation forward. Are the assessment facilities up to a standard that someone could be held there for seven to 10 days and there would be no or negligible risk of them harming themselves? This is a risk for the government. After reading information people have sent me I have found that usually after seven to 10 days there is not such a risk. However, there is a risk. It is not the withdrawal risk, it is the risk that you are putting someone into a facility against their will. Why do people do bad things in prison? Why do people do silly things even in detention centres? Because they are frustrated that they have been locked away. You have that issue which will have to be thought about very carefully.
When I went to CAAAPU and I saw these demountables - some of them are second-hand – they looked like single men’s quarters. They are not as flash as the ones at the INPEX village, but they are a standard similar to mining camp quarters. My concern is that we have not purpose-built something which recognises we need to have compassion; that is, we need to ensure the person who stays there will not cause harm to themselves by living in the facility. We want to get this program up and running so we will put four or so demountables at CAAAPU.
There is nothing at Vendale at the moment, so I cannot comment. I assume it would be similar - some demountables. Vendale is a terrific spot. I could not meet the director, but I met the pastor and I had a look around. It is a beautiful spot. Of course, it is a voluntary rehabilitation centre, but it is a beautiful spot in the bush, 30 km out of Katherine.
Then I visited the medi-hostel, and I have concerns. The other day in estimates I raised the issue that one area we have forgotten is intrastate travel: people from the bush travelling to Darwin with their partners if someone is sick. People used to ask me how they could get their partner to come with them if they had to go to Adelaide. That happens on a local level, especially in Darwin, because Darwin has the facilities Adelaide has.
A carer, partner or spouse has to come and needs to stay in a hospital. That was one of the reasons for that medi-hostel: for the carers to be close to their loved ones. As I understand it, the medi-hostel will be used for 18 to 24 months, and maybe that is not a big deal. I just highlight the fact that the other part of the hostel was for carers. It is important for a partner or a spouse to be able to be close to their loved one when they are having a serious operation. We should be asking why we have to use that facility in the manner we are about to.
The facility is fantastic, there is no doubt about it, but the government had to make adjustments to it. They are removing some of the air conditioning vents and the prison officers or staff of Corrections have been there to look at the rooms. That, in itself, tells you they also have issues. The issue of harm is something that needs to be carefully looked at because, as I said, if that happens, everything will dissolve.
The other problem I have is I tried to provide a model of what I believe one of these facilities should be like. It should be fairly large, probably close to the bush, and have some gardens and outdoor facilities. The medi-hostel has a very nice garden and a very nice lawn, but I am not sure that is the right place for many of these people. It is flash, and by the way, they should take the TVs away. I was talking to one of the people who manages an alcohol rehabilitation centre and they said you should not allow phones or TVs because they are a distraction.
We have those facilities at Vendale, CAAAPU and the medi-hostel. I do not believe those facilities are the right facilities. I understand the medi-hostel will be temporary. However, I have not heard what would replace it.
The other area that concerns me regards escapes from a facility. There are amendments to the bill. Originally, if you escaped you would go to prison or get a fine. I suppose there is a fair chance if you kept escaping you would end up in prison. The amendments say if you escape twice you go back to the place you came from, but if you escape three times, you go to prison. Having that in there basically means you can escape from the facility. I would have thought if you want to put that clause that a person cannot escape, you would need to build a facility that you cannot escape from. The argument would be that you did not make the facility escape proof because you did not care that they went to prison.
I looked at CAAAPU and asked how they would keep people there. I asked if they were going to put a big fence up, but they do not want a big fence. They want a fence similar to one they have. It would not be hard to get over that fence. It would only take a couple of chairs and you would be over the top in no time.
I do not know what the facilities will be like at Vendale, but if they are similar there will be a three-strand wire fence with chain mesh at the front because it has been built for voluntary rehabilitation. It is easy to escape and it would not take much to walk 500 m up the Stuart Highway and you would be in Katherine. I know the government department will spend a great deal of money on fencing at the medi-hostel. I am not so sure how difficult it would be to get over a solid fence - maybe just get a couple of chairs and get someone to hoist you over?
Although the government is trying to do the right thing for the medi-hostel, these facilities should have been purpose-built before we put anyone through this program. People might say that will take a long time. That is true. We built the secure care centres for people with cognitive impairment, and then we passed the legislation for people with cognitive impairment, so they had a facility up and running which was purpose-built. I have looked at the facility in Darwin. It is being used for a different purpose now, but that was a facility that was made with a lot of thought so the person going in there would not be harmed. There was space outside. The one at Holtze backs on to the bush and has a little garden. There was a lot of thought before people were permitted to stay there. I will not get into what has changed now, but that was the basis of that place.
They are my basic concerns. I do not think things have been built as they should have been. I am concerned about the welfare of the people who will stay there, especially from a self-harm point of view. I am worried that if the facility is not secure, then it will be too easy to make the three escapes and end in prison. I would also like the option of the Aboriginal solution. That is not forcing it on Aboriginal people, by the way. If they felt they could contribute and be part of this without people being locked up in facility near a big town, then the government should be open to it to see if we have alternative ways of not locking people up in some of the facilities.
The other issue I came across was the sobering-up shelters. I met the people at the Katherine sobering-up shelter. Sometimes it is enlightening if you have been sitting in offices and you go and meet people at the front counter of the sobering-up shelter. That was sobering for me because you see people at the coalface. They were great; they showed me around. They showed me the rooms, the showers, and where they have breakfast. There is always hope for people because when I asked them what they have for breakfast they told me they have a cup of tea and vegemite sandwiches. Vegemite actually has a nutrient …
Mr Vatskalis: Vitamin B.
Mr WOOD: … vitamin B in it so, of course, it is good for people who have alcohol problems.
They were fantastic people. They told me that people who come into the sobering-up shelter are generally dropped off by the police and, if they can walk in, they take them. They can stay there for six hours or until they are sober, and they look after them. Of course, if they do not go there, they go to the watch house.
The member for Nhulunbuy raised the issue of whether people will get to the watch house by accident when they should not be there. This is an issue I also raised with the department. The sobering-up shelter has 18 places at Katherine. If it is full, then the police take people to the watch house, and they will get a tick against them on the way to getting three ticks, and on the way to becoming part of a mandatory rehabilitation program. After raising this with the police, that is a hypothetical example I have given.
However, I agree that most police in country towns know who is who. They will know the regulars, the people who obviously are a problem. I hope some common sense will prevail. I am not 100% sure; maybe the minister can tell me whether a person automatically gets a tick if a police officer takes them to the watch house. If it is automatic, there is a problem. It was an issue raised by someone at the sobering-up shelter. You can get a ringer who comes in for the weekend in Katherine, get on the turps a bit, is picked up by police and put in the watch house, gets a tick, but you do not see him again for another six months. He has just come in, as some ringers do, to celebrate. It is all right, member for Barkly, my daughter was a ringer. They do that. If they have been out bush mustering cattle for three months, a place like Katherine or Tennant Creek looks pretty good.
Those issues about how you work on the coalface - and that is the coalface - need to be assessed as there needs to be guidelines. When I raised this with the Police Commissioner, I got the impression there are no guidelines yet for police in dealing with this. We do not have mandatory rehabilitation presently, so it is not a really big deal if the policeman takes them to the sobering-up shelter or the watch house, because he does not have to make a great decision. He can also take them to the hospital if they look like they are sick and need hospital treatment.
The police are currently in a different world where they know they will be the people ticking the box. If people get three ticks, they then see if they need to be put through the system. That is an area that needs a bit more debate and discussion. I would like to see some guidelines.
I only have five minutes left, but I would like to say a couple of things. We should have had a select committee. I know the government does not agree. This was a perfect example of a select committee’s job. A select committee could have run for three or four months. I do not think it would have made much difference to what we are doing. It would have given ownership of this to the parliament to go out to the community. I get so tired of the system which tends to fight itself when we are all trying to get to the one result. Politics sometimes makes me angry because it is about you having the solution and this mob not. That is my concern.
I said today in relation to the Estimates Committee that when I went to New South Wales to the Public Accounts Committee conference, people said when there is a committee there are far more chances of it being bipartisan. People tend to work together because they do not have this atmosphere around them. They tend to work together because they have a goal to reach. People have worked in a bipartisan way in all the committees I have been on in the Territory.
There was a letter in today’s paper from Paul Everingham. I will give you two sides of the equation here:
I agree, except there are successes, because, as I said, there are people working and doing their best with voluntary rehabilitation centres, and we know who they are.
Paul Everingham went on to say:
That is great; I have no problem with it. I applied the same theory to the BDR. That was my cry: let us give it a try. I know people were laughing.
Vince Kelly said something similar. He supports mandatory rehabilitation legislation. He said:
Vince is not a fly-by-nighter; he has been around a long time. He has a pretty good idea of what he is talking about. He went on to say, in relation to the BDR:
Paul Everingham said …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request the member be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Paul Everingham said instead of criticising the government’s program, let us at least give it a try. I will not be voting for it. I am happy for them to give it a try, but they will know the reasons for my concerns. I am saying give it a try. The BDR did not get a trial because it was knocked on the head from day one. Paul Everingham is saying what I feel.
The two programs running together might have been great. However, we are all looking at this much of the problem - a little - when the problem needs to be looked at from various angles. The BDR, working with mandatory rehabilitation, might have reduced the number of people in mandatory rehabilitation. Perhaps the two together might have given us something we could have assessed. That is something the select committee could have looked at: whether they could have the two running side by side, with a three-year or four-year trial to assess it.
We will spend a great deal of money on this program. As we know from the budget estimates, we will put something like $80m into it. We will have some nice buildings, many reports and all sort of things. However, what will be the outcome? Will it do what you are trying to do? If it takes some people off the street, that is good. Members who have city electorates know - and I have been to some of these places. People have called and said ‘I am sick of it’. I have visited these places, not far from here, where people are sick of people lying on the front lawn defecating, swearing - all sorts of things. Believe it or not, I used to be a gardener and worked in Geranium Street. I can tell you what it is like to be the bloke who turns up first in the morning to clean up the mess. It is not pleasant ...
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Yes, it is not. The point is, we need to help those people, and we need to give the community a break from that. However, you have to balance that with compassion; we are trying to help people turn their lives around so they have an opportunity to get off the grog. That is what we are trying to give: an opportunity to think about where they are. If it is only 1%, that is a good 1%.
As I said, I agree with the philosophy of what the government is doing. My main concern is more about how it will work in operation, on the ground. That is my biggest concern.
I am sad it could not have gone to a select committee. We could have looked at it a little more broadly in context with other things. We could have gone out to the community and tested the legislation. When you need 41 amendments, that would have been a good thing for the select committee to look at.
I gather with the Queensland committee model we are talking about, the legislation is put on the table of the parliament and the committee thoroughly analyses it to see if there are any mistakes. When it comes back it easily goes straight through with no amendments, and often it goes through with bipartisan support. I believe the government missed an opportunity to go down the path of a select committee.
I will be watching carefully, and I hope the government reconsiders, when it comes to the facilities, pulling back for a while and saying demountables are not the way to go. You need special facilities for these people; they are still human. You need to ensure they are not subject to self-harm and, at the same time, we work to try to turn their lives around from this scourge we have in the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I will finish off with what the previous Chief Minister of the Northern Territory said:
Mr CONLAN (Central Australia): Madam Speaker, I support this bill. I pick up on a couple of interesting comments from the member for Nelson. He loves committees. I understand why, member for Nelson, when brokering the deal with the previous government, you never played yourself into the game and requested to become a minister, because you do not like making decisions. It is pretty clear; it is all about committees ...
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am being misrepresented. Would you believe I had the opportunity to be a minister, but sometimes principle gets in the way of personal ambition.
Madam SPEAKER: Please withdraw those comments, member for Greatorex.
Mr CONLAN: For what, Madam Speaker? I do not understand. Please, what …
Madam SPEAKER: The reference to the member for Nelson wanting to be a minister.
Mr CONLAN: Okay. He just said he wanted to be a minister, Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: Just withdraw!
Mr CONLAN: Okay, I withdraw. However, he did have every opportunity to become a minister. We agree with that. It was obvious he did. It was right there for the taking but he walked away from that opportunity to have some influence over these types of issues and all that is dear to him. But, no, he gets to his feet all the time and drones on and on. I have noticed he has a conversation with himself, he plucks hypotheticals out of the air and then answers them himself. It is extraordinary and takes up 30 minutes of the parliament.
He came up with this incredible comparison between Paul Everingham and Vince Kelly and said, ‘I am going to give you both sides of the argument’. Here is something from Paul Everingham and here is something from Vince Kelly. With greatest respect to Vince Kelly, he is no Paul Everingham and I do not think that is a very accurate comparison. It is not really oranges for oranges, member for Nelson.
I do not know what it was you just said in that 40 minutes. You do not support it but you will give it a go, ‘I kind of agree with it but kind of do not. Some people say this so I agree with them but, then again, some other people say this so I agree with them.’
We have just seen what has happened in Canberra with regard to a hung parliament and how destructive it is to the nation. We have seen in the last four years how destructive a hung parliament has been to the Northern Territory, and you are responsible for that. Now, you say, ‘Well I am not really sure, it should go out to a committee’.
The time for committees is over. It is time to make a decision on this very serious issue facing the Northern Territory. It is absolutely time. We have the numbers. Yes, the Leader of the Opposition is absolutely correct; it will pass tonight or, perhaps, tomorrow morning, because we have the numbers. This government firmly believes that what we are about to embark on is not only ground-breaking but will address the very real problem that has been plaguing the Northern Territory for decades. Paul Everingham is correct; it has been a problem for time immemorial. However, the policies of the previous government did not work. You failed Territorians and now we are about to embark on something that is ground-breaking. We believe it will work.
Mandatory rehabilitation has not been tried and we are now about to embark on it. As of 1 July, mandatory rehabilitation will become law in the Northern Territory and will remove people from the scourge of alcohol for three months. Not only will it give the families the break they so desperately require - the children, wives, spouses will have the opportunity for some respite - it will also give the rest of the community a break such as those businesses that are confronted by it day after day, and the tourism industry that is confronted by it year after year, time and time again.
It will also give the alcoholic, the drunk, the person with the problem, a break from the booze, which is a key component. It removes their ability to consume alcohol. It is a real measure that removes them from accessing alcohol. Under the Banned Drinker Register – which was really the banned buyer’s register - alcohol was still available to those people by walking into a bar, or through secondary supply from friends who bought them drink at a bar or bottle shop. A couple of bars in Alice Springs installed a swipe card system. However, not all of them did, so they could still walk into a bar or a club and purchase alcohol. This removes their ability to physically access alcohol because they are in a treatment facility. That has to be good.
I do not understand what is wrong with that. I cannot understand what is wrong with removing the ability to access alcohol from someone who clearly has a desperate problem with alcohol, to the point where they have become one of the most vulnerable Territorians. How is removing the ability for them to access alcohol and give them respite for three months wrong?
The minister for alcohol policy is across all the detail, and I am across some of it, but my understanding of this legislation is it will also require that person to undertake some type of course, such as literacy or numeracy or some job skilling. That will mean when they emerge after three months, they have some ability to contribute in a meaningful way to society, rather than just being a drunk on the street. That is crucial to that person’s wellbeing and to their future. It is also crucial to their families and the rest of the community. The community and their family expect it, and we are providing that person with that precise opportunity.
I fail to see where the problem is. We have tried so much with so many programs over the years. We have seen what Labor has done over the last 10 years. When they first emerged on the scene in 2001, they really did try, but towards the end it just became too hard. You could tell because of the continual amendments to their programs or regimes.
This has never been tried; never did they go as far as mandating rehabilitation as we have done. This is something that needs to be rolled out and applied to the Northern Territory because nothing has worked. We are drowning in a sea of drunks, and the drunks are drowning in a sea of their own misery. The families are suffering, the drunks are suffering. I have to say it again, we put so much emphasis on the families and giving them respite, but there is nothing wrong with giving someone a chance to re-evaluate themselves under the auspice of sobriety. If you are sober you can make a clear and conscious decision about your future. You can wake up in the morning feeling refreshed; you can undertake a literacy or numeracy course. You can take a job skilling course and throw yourself into it. Once that three months has ticked over, you can emerge and contribute in a meaningful way to society. We expect it from that person and they should expect it from themselves.
The member for Nelson said he is not too sure about what to do because some people might say this, and some people might say that is a degradation of his duty as a member of this parliament. He had an opportunity to step up to the plate. He had every opportunity, but he still could not bring himself to sign on the dotted line and say, ‘Okay, I will take some responsibility’. He is all care and no responsibility. It is appalling the way he has walked away from that responsibility. He preaches it to every one of us when he does not like what we say. He is very quick to preach it to all of us, but the moment he is thrust into the hot seat he cannot take it. It is appalling.
As we have discussed today in the second reading of the bill - we are about to move into some 47 or 41 amendments; there are quite a few, but this is hefty legislation. When this kicks in on 1 July, the government’s alcohol mandatory treatment legislation, we believe, will succeed where Labor failed.
I pick up on some of the interesting comments by the Leader of the Opposition who talked about the experts. I said across the Chamber, ‘The Labor experts’. She said there was no political bias by any of these so-called experts. It is very interesting, because one of those so-called experts - probably the main player in this anti-CLP, anti-mandatory rehabilitation argument – is Dr John Boffa. His name has been mentioned a lot. John is quite happy to put his neck out, so I am sure he will not mind if I shoot it off.
Dr John Boffa was handing out how-to-vote cards for the Labor candidate in Greatorex, Mr Rowan Foley, during the last Northern Territory election - standing there with ‘Vote 1 Rowan Foley ALP’. I do not know what other experts the Leader of the Opposition is talking about, but John Boffa claims to be the leading expert in this; he is certainly the most vocal. He is the ‘go to’ person, for the ABC in particular, whenever they want a comment about mandatory rehabilitation or the Country Liberals’ approach to alcohol rehabilitation. He is the poster boy for anything that is anti-Country Liberals’ policy. He is supposed to have no political bias, yet we saw him there for four hours on the Sadadeen booth handing out how-to-vote cards for the Labor candidate for Greatorex. So, go figure.
How many of these other so-called political experts have no political bias? I am sure you will not find too many, because this debate polarises people. It forces people’s hands politically, except, maybe, the member for Nelson’s. He might be the only one who can sit there, hand on heart and say, ‘I cannot really make too much of a decision’.
We watched for 11 years as the former Labor government failed. We have planned and devised this real program of mandatory rehabilitation. It is a comprehensive program which we believe will work. Under the plan, those identified as problem drinkers who are placed in protective custody three times in two months will face up to 12 weeks of mandatory treatment. Alcohol, that potentially addictive drug, will be taken away, and that is how you get to the problem.
We have emerged out of this regime of trading restrictions and swipe cards, the BDR, and the alcohol restrictions that have been imposed on communities such as Alice Springs, Katherine, Tennant Creek and, recently, towards the end of the previous government’s term, some small restrictions imposed on Darwin, with very little to show for it.
The thrust of those policies was to attack supply. They were supply measures; they were not demand measure policies. They were there to address the supply of alcohol and not to address the demand of alcohol. This is a highly-charged political debate that goes to the heart of people’s ideologies, there is no doubt about it. That is why it is so heated in here, because we think you are wrong and we are right, and vice versa.
Tonight, we will win this. We have put up with yours for the last 11 years and we have seen that it does not work. We will try it our way. We believe - and it is our ideology - that demand is the problem. There is no doubt that some supply restrictions make an impact. If you shut down a bottle shop and people cannot get to it, then people cannot buy alcohol from that bottle shop; there is no doubt about it. But it does not quench the thirst - pardon the pun - or the appetite for alcohol. If a person has a problem, is an alcoholic, they still have the desire, the thirst, and the appetite for alcohol.
Therefore, our measures, we believe, go to the heart of the demand side of it: treating that person who has an illness because it is a health issue. Alcoholism is very much a health and wellbeing issue. It is an illness and our measures will go right to that. Tinkering around with supply measures and not putting money or resources into demand is counterproductive.
The argument we hear from over there is, ‘Yes, this will cost a lot of money. You guys will cost the Northern Territory a fortune to do this; it is too expensive.’ Well it has already cost $642m to not do it. That is what alcohol-related issues in the Northern Territory have cost the taxpayer. Imagine if we could spend just some of that doing what we are doing. It might come in at half. In fact, the figures are $35m a year to roll it out. The minister for alcohol policy, I am sure, has plenty to say in response to the Leader of Opposition’s assertions about the figures and how much it will cost. What did she say? It was $90m or something?
Mrs Lambley: $90 000 each.
Mr CONLAN: Yes, the Leader of the Opposition has her figures wrong. I am sure the minister for alcohol policy will take great pleasure in correcting the record.
It costs $642m a year to not roll out a mandatory rehabilitation program. We firmly believe these treatment programs will go a long way to reducing that cost to the Northern Territory taxpayer, because they will be targeting the problem. Alcohol is not the problem; it is people who have a problem with alcohol that is the problem. The issue is people who are addicted to alcohol. Most of us in this House enjoy a drink and there is nothing wrong with that. Enjoying a drink in a convivial environment is fantastic. It is a great pathway to wonderful conversation, and brings on such great social enjoyment; there is no doubt about it. I love having a drink, as do many of us. Enjoying a drink with friends is fantastic.
However, there are those, as we know, who cannot. They either choose not to because they do not like it, because they have a problem with it, or have a problem with it but, yet, still choose to drink. They are the people we need to target; those who cannot control their own behaviour through this illness, which is alcoholism.
I thought I might just touch on, for the sake of this debate, some of my portfolio areas that alcohol affects. Tourism is probably the biggest. The effects of alcohol as seen through the eyes of a tourist cannot be underestimated in the Northern Territory, particularly in some of our smaller communities of Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and Katherine. It is very prevalent in Darwin but, in those communities, it is just so obvious. The problem is still just as bad, but it does not necessarily appear to be as obvious in Darwin, although I am sure there are plenty of Darwin MLAs who would disagree with me. It is widespread, nevertheless, across the whole of the NT.
Not only did Labor take their eyes off the ball when it came to Tourism - we have made that point a number of times in this House since coming to government - but their failed alcohol policies have put more drunks on the streets and made the Northern Territory a less desirable destination. It is as simple as that. There is a direct correlation with our image around the world and Australia and the number of visitors coming to the Northern Territory.
Alcohol is involved in 60% of assaults and 67% of all domestic violence in the Northern Territory. Most worrying of all, alcohol-related deaths in the Territory are three times the national average. The figures are pretty staggering. This is the message we are sending to the rest of Australia and the world about the Northern Territory. The Territory has so many incredible destinations; it is a wonderful attraction, a world-class tourism product. But, for too long, our problems with dealing with alcohol have been exposed to the rest of the world. We believe that has been related directly to the visitation and expenditure our visitors bring to the Northern Territory. There is a number of other factors too, and I have gone into that when specifically talking about tourism with regard to marketing.
However, with the effects of alcohol, violent assaults, and assaults in general, Alice Springs was, sadly and unfairly, labelled the murder capital of Australia which, as a local, I know is ridiculous. However, that is how these things were portrayed to the rest of the country and the world.
To be humbugged by drunks for money is not the image we want. Being exposed to problem drunks fighting in our streets, parks, and shopping malls is not the image we want to portray. The impression our visitors gain under the failed policies of the previous government has done us enormous damage. As a local living in a town that was plagued by alcohol-related problems and, in many cases, still is, I can tell you we are not immune from those impressions ourselves. As much as we love the communities of Alice Springs, Katherine and Tennant Creek, these problems are taking place right under our noses. I have been exposed to the effects of alcohol and alcohol-related crime by having my back fridge raided twice in a row, three times in one week. These issues have been left to rot for too long.
I congratulate the Minister for Alcohol Rehabilitation for the work done in this space. This is significant legislation. It is a world first, I believe. I know it will face some enormous criticism, if it has not faced enough already. It will pass tonight or tomorrow morning, and we will see, as of 1 July, a mandatory rehabilitation program implemented for the first time in this country. That is something to be very proud of. We will give those drunks, and their families, in particular, who desperately look to us as the government for leadership, a chance. We will give them a second chance to get off the booze, get themselves sorted, clean themselves up, and get themselves into some work. Do you know what? If they fall back off the rails, they will go back in again.
We are under no illusion that someone will emerge from a three-month program and, all of sudden, be cured. It is my understanding as well, from some of the research and work and conversations I had over the years when I was handling those shadow portfolios - I was the previous shadow Health minister and the shadow Alcohol Policy minister - that to really cure someone from chronic alcoholism through treatment programs such as this requires a hell of a lot of money, but also a long period of time. In fact, I have heard the time frame of about five years spoken of. If you want to cure or treat one person successfully for alcoholism, not only is it very expensive, it also takes a long time.
We cannot afford it. We do not have the luxury of that time frame because the problem is so rife and there are so many vulnerable people who desperately need a break from this right now, but we literally cannot afford it financially, for a number of reasons, and $5.5bn comes to mind.
This will provide them with a break for about three months. If they emerge from that treatment facility and, with all good intentions, intend to go to work but do not, but fall off the wagon and go straight back on the booze, and are picked up again three times, then they are back into it again. They then have another three months and it gives their family and the community another three months of respite. Importantly, it gives them a chance to get themselves together. It gives them a break from drinking and exposing themselves to dangers, whether it be sleeping on a railway track, walking across a main road without a care in the world, or across a highway. For crying out loud, how many times has that happened? These people are oblivious to the oncoming traffic. They are a danger to themselves and the community. They are so vulnerable and they expose the community to that vulnerability as well because of their actions.
You will never convince me that giving someone a chance to give themselves a chance is the wrong thing to do. I was brought up that way. You give yourself a chance. You have to give someone a chance to give themselves a chance; that is just the fair way to go. This is absolutely fair. It is a bit tough, but it is fair. This will go a long way to addressing our issues in the Northern Territory. It will address a range of other issues because so many of the problems we face in the Northern Territory are alcohol-related.
All of my portfolios areas are affected by it, such as Sport - our sporting carnivals. Our Tourism industry, our parks, even our Arts and Museums sector, believe it or not, is affected by the advent of alcohol-related crime. Education - kids are not going to school; mum and dad are not sending them there because they are consumed with alcohol. Our health system is jam-packed with this. Everywhere you look, there is not …
Mrs LAMBLEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time for the member for Greatorex, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr CONLAN: Thanks, Minister for Alcohol Rehabilitation.
Everywhere you look, alcohol-related issues play some part in the Northern Territory.
To me, it is vital we get on with this. It is coming through on urgency and some people in this House do not particularly like urgency. It is not something we like to make a habit of, but there is much to do. We cannot afford to mess around; we cannot afford to wait.
You guys on the other side of the Chamber had 11 years. You made some small inroads in some small areas; there is no doubt about it. It is a very hard subject and, ideologically, you could not bring yourselves to take the hard yards and make the hard decisions. Some of you wanted to but, generally, Caucus or the party would not let you. You were beholden to the extreme, and no one would allow you to make some tough decisions. The member for Casuarina gets it but, of course, he was beholden to the party and to Cabinet and Caucus. There are many factions, as we know, in the ALP. He just did not have the support. However, generally, people know what is right and what we need to do.
The member for Nelson is a disappointment in this space. I have to say it. I am not trying to pick on him, but here is someone who had the opportunity to do something but, again, we heard ‘No, it has to go out to a committee. Let us put it out to consultation. Let us have a review and a committee that travels all around the Northern Territory consulting with people.’ If you did that, you would get nowhere, and that is what has happened.
People were too afraid to make a decision. We sat back for 11 years watching you guys not make any decisions in this area. Look at the mess we have been left with to clean up. It is a tragedy. Those poor families and children were never given the opportunity because you guys did not make a decision and help them properly by mandating treatment - something this government is quite prepared to do.
The minister for alcohol policy deserves my praise, and she will get it. It is incredible work. This bill is a huge document and there is a lot of work to come tonight, I believe. It is 9.30 pm and there are a good few hours of debate to come in the committee stage.
Let us make no mistake, this will be heated, if not on the floor tonight, then in years, days, or weeks to come in the community and the media, through a media release, a radio interview, wherever it might be, because ideologically, we disagree; we are at odds. We believe this is the right way to go, you do not. That is why you never did it. Look at the evidence which suggests that, perhaps, the pendulum has swung towards us a bit, because this has never been tried and the previous policies failed. Now, it is time to try something new. That is pretty clear.
Thank you for the opportunity. I have spoken on alcohol issues a lot in the past. I was the Alcohol shadow for a while and the Health shadow for five-and-a-half years. I read the Menzies School of Health report. The member for Casuarina would remember all those debates we had about this issue in the past. I am so pleased to see we have finally arrived at a point after everything we have talked about over the years - all these years as a party, a wing, a shadow Cabinet and, now, as a Cabinet. That huge body of work and debate, the think tank, the conversation that has happened to get to this point, was incredible. It is not an easy space to get to.
We all sat down in the beginning and said, ‘Alcohol is a huge problem in the Northern Territory, what do we do about it?’ It has taken a long time to get to this point. The significance of my speech and all these speeches is not lost on me tonight. This is an historic bill. For better or for worse, down the track we will see who is right and who is wrong. People will look back on this parliament in years and decades to come - maybe even a century, who knows? - and will say this was significant legislation that was passed, much as they must look back on the euthanasia debate that took place in this House. This is, potentially, as significant. We are making history tonight, for better or for worse; we believe for better. I know you guys are very sceptical and are probably convinced it will not work. We believe it will.
Madam Speaker, I am very proud to be part of such an historic and significant debate, and something we firmly believe will make an incredible difference to the lives of the most vulnerable Territorians.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, if we try to find a solution to a complex program such as alcoholism on ideological grounds, both parties are bound to fail. The member for Greatorex says that is ‘our decision, our ideology, and it will pass tonight’. I have no doubt it will pass tonight on numbers. However, will the legislation be the solution to this complex problem?
The first failure is the legislation does not really recognise that alcoholism is a disease, an addiction. Alcohol is an insidious drug. Yes, the member for Greatorex is quite right; we all have a drink; we like one, two, or three glasses. It can be the beginning of a very good conversation. However, alcohol can also be the end of a family life or a friendship. Alcoholism does not just happen overnight; it can take months or years.
That happens because alcohol changes the structure of the chemicals of your brain, slowly and steadily. Some of these chemicals control how you feel, and it is not surprising that alcohol in small quantities makes you feel really well. At the same time, it will change the chemicals in your brain, like the GABA and dopamine, so you require more and more alcohol to feel better.
There are a number of reasons why people become alcoholics. Some have it in their genes. It is well researched that people who have alcoholic relatives in their families tend to be alcoholics more often than others who do not have alcoholic relatives. The age of the first alcoholic drink is another factor. Research in the United States has shown that if people start drinking before the age of 15, they have a higher risk of becoming alcoholics than others who do not. People who smoke have a higher chance of becoming alcoholics than people who do not.
The member for Greatorex talked about supply, but controlling supply does not do anything about alcoholism. A study in America, from 1983 to 2002, showed an increase in the taxes on alcohol, hence an increase in the price of alcohol, has resulted in a significant drop in the deaths related to alcohol. In some cases, it was nearly two to four times greater than other prevention strategies such as school or media campaigns.
When people are stressed they tend to consume more alcohol. Again, studies in America have shown that soldiers who come back from Iraq and Afghanistan suffering post-traumatic stress tend to become alcoholics more than other population groups.
Beer drinking gets people into drinking every night. ‘Let us go to Mitchell Street and have a few drinks’. That few drinks happens more often as time goes by and you can finish up being an alcoholic.
Another factor, surprisingly, is how our body metabolises alcohol. Some people can metabolise alcohol very well, but others will need more alcohol in order to feel good.
One fundamental difference is people will not be treated for alcoholism unless they first admit they are alcoholics and want to be treated. Locking a person away for three months, six months or a year will not treat them for alcoholism. The person has to want to be treated for alcoholism, but first he has to admit that he or she has a problem.
The member for Greatorex said it will give a break to their families but, member for Greatorex, look around you at the people who are dealing with alcoholics today in the Northern Territory. How many of them have a stable family as we know it? How many of them care for families or children? For most of them, if not all of them, the only thing they care about is where they will be for their next fix when they wake up in the morning, when lunch time comes.
I give you an example. I have a guy in my neighbourhood who, every morning, walks from his house to the shopping centre. I watch him walk back holding a bottle of wine in his hands, rushing home to drink it, because his focus is that bottle of wine in the morning, that bottle of wine in the afternoon - nothing else. He does not care about his personal hygiene, how clean his clothes are, or what he is doing, as long as he has that bottle of wine which he carries very carefully to his house so he can consume it. He is a nice fellow; he does not cause any problems. You can see in the morning how he rushes to the shopping centre to buy that bottle of wine and carries it very carefully to his house. The same thing happens in the afternoon. You can set your clock by the time he comes by because he is very regular.
The difference between us and the legislation the CLP put in place is that restraining people will not fix the problem alone. You need a very complex solution to such a complex problem, and alcohol is a complex problem. It has to address a number of issues, not only locking people away. We raised the issue before of the way this legislation was structured and drafted from the beginning. Of course, the government did not want to take notice of what we had to say but, thankfully, somebody on the fifth floor decided to it might be worth listening to what the people had to say, and they consulted with the community.
As a result of this consultation, we see today 46 amendments to be introduced to this House. That shows you that the original drafting of the legislation was far from good or perfect. If you need 46 amendments to correct this legislation, it means your original legislation was not up to scratch. Is this good legislation?
The member for Greatorex talked about Dr Boffa, and claimed he is not impartial. Dr Boffa has his political beliefs, but we should not discount his expertise on the subject because he chooses to vote Labor, Liberal, Greens, or whatever. On the other hand, we have other people like Peter Beaumont, who is publicly raising concerns about this legislation. Dr Beaumont is not pro-Labor, at least to my knowledge.
Then you have the expertise from the AMA. The AMA is not a Labor-affiliated organisation or a union; it is an association of experts - doctors. They raise concerns and are very vocal. They have been very vocal in the last few days and, just a few days ago, we saw a letter from the AMA in the NT News raising, once again, concerns about this legislation. If Dr Beaumont and people in the AMA raise concerns about this legislation, somebody or something must not be right, and that is the issue.
It is not that we think you do not want to do anything about drunks. Yes, you want to do something about drunks; we want to do something. We have a different approach; that is fair. But, at the same time, when you have such a reaction from experts in the legal field, the medical field, the social field, obviously, something must be wrong with that legislation.
Locking people away for a period of time, three months - these people have not committed any offence, they are just alcoholics. They are sick people. The fact that you picked them up drunk on the street three times within a period of time does not mean these people are criminals. They are sick. They are people who require treatment and medical attention, not imprisonment. When you lock them somewhere for a period of time, it is called imprisonment, not medical care.
The first 72 hours these people are detained are the most critical. This is where the withdrawal symptoms start, and are stronger than any other time. This is the time when the people will be desperate for a drink and cannot get it. This is when they experience the withdrawal symptoms. This is where they will make stupid decisions about their lives. The facilities to house these people are currently considered to be not suitable for this. People will be so desperate they will try to take their own lives because they cannot take a sip of alcohol to maintain their life as they do now. There is nothing in the legislation, or at least in the government’s proposals, to provide facilities that are suitable for these kinds of people.
They require medical support, putting more pressure on the hospitals. They require mental health support. I cannot see anything in this year’s budget the government has brought to this House to say there will be an increase in funding for mental health services. They will need specialist treatment. Most likely, the Department of Health will be able to provide that to them, but at what cost? Who will miss out? If we have 10, 20, 30, or 40 people with this requirement, that will be an enormous pressure on the department without any extra investment by the government in the Department of Health to provide the service required.
We even have the situation where these people are taken into protective custody - or whatever you call it - to be treated, but are required to pay for their own treatment. I asked the department before, if people are sick and are detained because, under our legislation, they have to be detained because of a contagious disease, do they have to pay for their treatment? The answer by the department was, no, they do not; the department and the government will cover their costs. However, we are asking people who are sick – alcoholics - to pay for their own treatment.
What happens when they come out? They have been three months without a drink. Guess what will happen when these guys get out? They will go to Centrelink, or their bank account, where there is a packet of money accumulated, and the liquor store 500 m away from the place where they have been detained for three months without alcohol. Do you know what will happen? They will be queuing up in the liquor store to get the first drink to celebrate their release from the alcoholic rehabilitation service, as we call it.
I said before, if we try to resolve a complex problem like alcoholism on ideological grounds, we are bound to fail. My concern is this legislation will not only do nothing to solve the alcohol problem in the Northern Territory, but will not provide treatment to people. People will not want to be treated because, first of all, they will not admit they are alcoholic. They are not going to surrender themselves to be treated; they are being detained against their will to be treated. This will not resolve the problem of alcohol.
It has to be more than one solution; it has to be a combination of solutions. Yes, provide a treatment but, at the same time, you have to control supply. You have to have other support for the family, if there is a family, and support for the people when they come out, not just the three months, finished, open the gate, out you go, and go to the bank and get your money. You need more than that. I heard arguments about supply, and how the BDR was inconveniencing buyers, and these people could find alcohol if they wanted it anyway.
Let us look at cigarettes and minors. You are not allowed to sell cigarettes to minors, to those under 18 year olds, but I bet little kids can easily obtain cigarettes. If we think supply does not work why do we prevent supply to minors? Why do we not allow minors to buy cigarettes? Why do we not leave cigarettes to be sold to anybody? Because we know they are harmful to health. We do not want young kids to smoke, so we try to stop young kids buying cigarettes at the point of sale. They are not allowed to buy it - simple story.
We have two standards here. One is for cigarettes: we control supply very strictly because it is harmful and we do not want young people to smoke. In the case of alcohol, we do not want to restrict the supply of alcohol because it might inconvenience some people.
The reality is, at the very beginning people opposed the BDR because they thought it would inconvenience them when they went to buy alcohol. At the end, nobody complained to me. Darwin being a small city, as the member for Sanderson knows very well, if he goes to the local supermarket, everybody knows him. If he goes to Coles New World, everybody knows who he is. I tell you, many times they have complained, and will not hesitate to tell him between aisle 4 and aisle 5 what the complaint is and ask what he is doing about it. If you go into the liquor store to buy a bottle of wine, if you have three people behind who have something against the government, they will let you know very well.
However, when BDR was the law of the Territory, people never said to me, ‘Your bloody government makes us show our ID cards’. People were quite happy. Some tourists thought it was a very good idea and that it should be introduced in Melbourne or Sydney, because they have problems in Kings Cross and the CBD in Melbourne. There was no inconveniencing, but it was a method of controlling alcohol. We know that, because even people who worked in liquor stores told us that when the BDR was introduced, after a period of a few months, everything settled down. The people who could not get alcohol just disappeared but, now, all of a sudden, they say people are queuing up to buy alcohol - not one bottle or one cask, but a fair quantity of alcohol.
Minister, I know you have the best intentions. I know you want to do something about alcoholism. Every day we see it. It is not as if it is somewhere else and nobody cares about it. We see it every day. I have seen it, as I said before, in my own neighbourhood. You probably see it in your neighbourhood. I do not have a problem trying to find a solution and a way to deal with this system. The problem is, let us find the best solution based on expertise, on the best advice we can get from people who understand, such as medical experts, not on ideological grounds. If we base it on ideological grounds, next year we will be here with you introducing more amendments trying to fix it, and us arguing, ‘We told you so, it did not work, look what you have to do now’.
Madam Speaker, alcoholism is not a crime. Alcoholism is a disease and it has to be treated as a disease, not as a police matter.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I will not stay on my feet for too long. I know it will go late tonight, and there is still other legislation to cover. However, there are a couple of things I want to address in this debate.
This idea that the CLP has been promoting is not new; however, it has, through legal advice, undergone somewhat of a change. The original manifestation of this was to use the criminal justice system. However, the intent was always to bring about a health outcome using the vehicle of the criminal justice system. It turns out we do not need to use the criminal justice system because the advice we have received is that this non-judicial custody is entirely lawful and able to be rolled out without requiring people to go through a court. For that I am grateful, because it means we can achieve the health outcome we have always sought without having to sentence people, or send them into the court process.
I heard from members opposite that there is a concern we are criminalising public drunkenness. If, by criminalising, the members opposite mean we are making drunks personally responsible for their actions, then you could count it as criminalising. However, in actual fact, what we are doing is an intervention on consumption of liquor to such a point that a person is a danger to themselves and/or the community in which they live. People who are so often and so regularly drunk that they may be picked up by the police for being so intoxicated they cannot even stand upright three times in a two-month period require an intervention. They require some sort of intrusion into their lives with a view to changing their conduct for their own good, and the good of the community at large. That is what this bill intends to do.
I heard the complaints from members opposite about it not having the relevant amount of science attached to it, etcetera and, ‘You will not succeed in what you are attempting to do’. I refute that with, basically, some common sense. If a person is in custody seeking medical treatment for their addiction in the same form that a person might be held in non-judicial custody for mental problems so they can deal with their mental problems, then, as far as I am concerned, it is something worth pursuing.
I am extremely mindful of a comment that has been made by several members opposite today in relation to the potential for deaths through this process. I acknowledge that potential exists. There is that potential currently in our mental health service. There is that potential for people who go into hospital and, goodness knows, there is a potential for deaths even for people in police custody or in the custody of gaolers. I can tell you now that the likelihood of a person dying in custody where they are receiving healthcare is substantially less than the number of people who are dying right now in our communities, day in, day out, as a result of their addiction.
The addiction we are dealing with is every bit as deadly as heroin addiction, cannabinoids addiction and methamphetamines addiction, because it is an addiction to a chemical that changes the mood of the person who is addicted to it. People seek it out to change their conscious state for whatever reason they are unhappy with the conscious state they employ when they are sober. There are psychological reasons and there could well be physiological reasons that might be the case.
Currently, they are dying because they are staggering out in front of cars and getting run over, dying of diseases such as pneumonia because they are sleeping out unprotected in winter in Alice Springs, and dying because they have renal collapse. One example I can cite is of a fellow who was drunk and asleep on railway tracks and was run over by a train. They are dying now, and in large numbers. We do not get to see about them in the newspapers because they often go unmarked and unnoticed in their deaths. Their deaths represent the end of an unremarkable life awash with their drug of choice. So, why would we not intervene? Why would we not take steps to intervene when people are dying in such substantial numbers?
I will go so far as to say that this is only a partial response. A true response to this problem in the Northern Territory would include a response which deals with the way welfare is dished out in this community, because it is the welfare dollar that almost exclusively funds this calamitous conduct in our community on a near daily basis. Yet, the fact that the federal government spends millions of dollars in this jurisdiction every single fortnight, so we can spend millions of dollars in this jurisdiction every fortnight cleaning up the mess, seems to go largely unnoticed by the vast majority of commentators in this space. I would be well pleased if the John Boffas, et al, of the world - the NAAJAs, the CLC, the NLC and all of those organisations - decried the damage that passive welfare is doing to the people they claim to protect. However, they are utterly silent in that space, and to do so in the atmosphere where you are only attacking the Northern Territory government for its attempted intervention is to only be complaining about part of the problem.
I hope they would join the growing chorus of people who gnash their teeth in angst, as I do, at the destruction that passive welfare means in our communities. I do not mean just the Indigenous community, I mean our community as a whole. I understand what the former government tried to do with the BDR, and that they took the approach that you require a social approach to deal with individuals’ problems, because that is, essentially, what the BDR sought to do. A social approach to deal with individual problems is often inspired by the fact that if you decide to go down the path of asking an individual to be responsible for their own conduct, it means you have to be critical of them personally, as well as decry or denounce their chosen lifestyle.
We, on this side of the House, are not afraid to decry a person’s personal conduct and we do not see individuals’ drunkenness as a manifestation of society’s responsibilities towards that person. We place more faith in the individual to make the right choices - and the vast majority of individuals who live in our community make the correct choices - even if so many of those people who do have alcohol and other drug problems contain those problems to a degree where they do not inflict themselves in a substantial way on third parties. Where they do and they commit driving offences or alcohol-related assaults, they should be and are accountable for their conduct.
However, this is not an absolute position, because if it were the Country Liberals would repeal the Liquor Act and allow vending machines which sold beer in Aboriginal communities, in the Smith Street Mall, and in the Todd Mall. Of course, we do not; we understand there needs to be an element of control. The question is never whether you switch that on or off absolutely, because the on-absolutely position means you have prohibition, and the off-absolutely position means you have no controls whatsoever.
There is a social expectation that this dangerous drug, which it is for some people, should have some controls placed on it. The problem is, if you follow that philosophy too far, before you know it you are saying society is exclusively responsible, and what we will do is make society do certain things such as produce their drivers licence every time they want to have a drink. When you try to introduce a system like that, the problem is those individuals who are conducting themselves in a fashion which is contrary to the expectations of normal society, because of their addiction, will find a way around that set of rules. This is why we had a frequent flyer through the system of 117 apprehensions in the year the BDR operated, which means he must have received 114 banning notices.
The tribunal set up by the former government had 19 members and issued 16 orders across the Northern Territory. Of the 2500 people the former government claimed were off tap, many hundreds of them were frequent flyers through the police custody system, as well as being picked up by night patrols and goodness knows what. Much of that liquor, when they could not source it immediately or directly from a bottle shop, was provided to them through a third party, thus creating a black market. Alternatively, they stole it.
I heard the objection from the Leader of the Opposition when I pointed out there was a substantial fall in property crime in the Northern Territory attributable to the lifting of the BDR. Her answer was – and I understand it – ‘For goodness sake, would you rather deal with a person who is being punched or a person who is having their beer fridge raided?’ From the Opposition Leader’s point of view, people’s property - innocent third-party properties - means nothing in pursuit of the social goal. We do not necessarily subscribe to that extreme view. We believe people have a right to have their property protected by government, but we also believe people should be responsible for their actions.
Consequently, from our perspective, we believe people should be held individually accountable not by way of punishment - that will come later with alcohol protection orders - but by way of protecting them from themselves. How many people in this parliament have been arrested three times in two months for being so drunk they had to be taken into protective custody? Nobody. How many people in this building? Nobody. How many people across the Northern Territory? If you believe the statistics from a few years ago, 35 000, or about 12% of our population. That is nonsense. It was never that many. It was a small percentage of the population going through the spin cycle again and again because nobody was holding them responsible for their drinking.
A mandatory rehabilitation program will take them off the streets, sober them up, and then get them to ask some questions about their conduct. Will it change the world? For some it might. It will certainly give the community and their families some respite, and it will send a clear signal to those people who are drinking that they will be held responsible, not in a criminal sense, but for their drinking habit. We will be holding up a mirror to them in that process.
Is it cheap? No. Do we want to spend the money? Not really. Do we have to send the money? Yes, we do, in the same way the former government was prepared to lay $75m on the line over a five-year period. It is a lot of dough. However, the amount of money we are spending on renal dialysis or people dying from being run over by cars - the average fatal costs us $2.7m. Many of those people are drunk when they are driving. Often, the people being run over are the frequent flyers who are coming through our regular apprehensions. This is about trying to save lives and protect the community. What will happen, and we do not say it cannot, if a person dies in custody is, doubtless, there will be a coronial investigation, and, doubtless, they will be screaming from left, right, and centre about how horrendous this legislation is and how predictable that death was.
Here is the truth: the problem with a preventative program is you can never point to the death you prevented. You cannot say Bob Jones did not die at 5.55 pm on Saturday 12 September 2013. That is what a preventative program does. Unfortunately, when you are in a position where you take people into custody that is a risk you take. However, if you are so adverse to that risk, police would take nobody into custody and Corrections would hold nobody in prison. The mental health authorities, who also have non-judicial incarceration, would not take people into custody. Why do we do it and accept it so readily in those environments? The reason is we need to protect the community and/or the people themselves. We take the risk. It is a political risk we engage in.
Children and Family Services takes people into custody all the time. Any number of kids are taken away from their parents and handed over to the custody of other people. God knows, the current opposition will remember the name Deborah Melville very well and what happened in that instance; it caused the government enormous pain. One aspect that should be acknowledged in circumstances like that - I acknowledged it at the time - was if government does not intervene how high will the body count be? How high would the body count be in Children and Families if we did nothing about child abuse in our community? How high would the body count be if we did nothing about arresting and placing into custody people who are sentenced to violent crimes? How high would the body count be if we did not intervene in any number of areas?
We do and will carry a responsibility, as government, to provide a level of care. However, what we are trying to do is provide a level of care to these people so they might not to be one of the people poured into a body bag by a police officer at 3 am because they have been run over by a car, killed by one of their mates, died of exposure or, as in a case I just described, run over by a train.
Global social responses have a limited chance of success. They may have some effect, but they also often have results which are unintended. I remember the Tyeweretye club in Alice Springs – called the responsible drinkers’ club - had a body count associated with it because it was a social program where all we needed to do was tweak the social approach and everything would be sweetness and light. On Friday night, if you did not pick up 100 drunks outside the Tyeweretye club, something was wrong.
Social programs are a sociological attempt to get everybody to march in step to the beat of a single drum. Humanity is not that simple. You cannot, by some political philosophy, make the whole of humanity walk in goose step with each other whilst we sing the Das Internationale. It does not work. What you can hope for is a psychological response because that is aimed at the individual.
The former government accepts much of that. I note the former Corrections minister was going down the path of doing certain things, all of which were targeted at getting people to change their conduct by making them responsible for themselves. He acknowledged that approach is necessary because the sociological approaches have failed. Goodness knows, they are failing now in the area of illicit drugs.
How hard and how expensive is that to police? The public expects heroin to be kept illegal, expects cannabis to be illegal, expects methamphetamine to be illegal, so we work to keep them illegal. How hard is that to police? We have many deaths associated with all those drugs in our communities. We spend money on drug squads, prison cells, and all types of things policing that. However, the public expects us to spend the money for the good of the community. It is also so with this problem.
However, there is not a public expectation that we should ban liquor. There is a public expectation that we should, in some ways, regulate it, which is why we have a Liquor Act. There is also a public expectation that people who drink contain their behaviour to a point where they are not a danger to the community and not, necessarily, a danger to themselves. That is what this legislation is about.
This legislation is about containing people and making them responsible and answerable to themselves, as well as giving respite to their families and the community and, ultimately, to themselves. If a person is so sick they are unable to control themselves - let us say with schizophrenia - we have no problem with placing them in non-judicial custody. Why do we make an exception for a person who has a drug addiction in the form of alcoholism? Why should we? That is the question this legislation drives.
For all of those reasons, I support this legislation. I know it is a risk. I know there are challenges we and members on that side of the House have not even thought of yet which we may run into with this legislation. When I and everybody else in this room got into politics, I suspect we got into politics to make a difference. As the person who has put the bodies into the body bags, done the coronial investigations, and seen the calamity that liquor represents in our community to those individuals, making those people responsible and protecting them from themselves is a worthwhile change to make. If we achieve that by taking this risk, we will have done something good. We will have done something to change the Territory for the better.
Madam Speaker, I am not, as a politician, risk adverse. I believe that once we are given this opportunity, as members of this parliament and government, we should use those risks for - as the prayer we say every day in this House says - the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I am proud to participate in this debate. As we are hearing, it is a very important debate. As members of the Legislative Assembly, we are all about trying to solve this problem; there is no doubt about that. As a Territory opposition, we are holding the government to account because there are some serious issues with this legislation which we are attempting to highlight.
It is a monumental time, as the member for Greatorex said. He referred to his speech as being a monumental speech, as it was. In reference to the member for Greatorex - who I take some responsibility for intrinsically, when I challenge him to rise to the occasion as a minister of the Crown - I was very impressed tonight to hear some good elements of debate. However, if I took his speech and laid it out on butcher’s paper on that table, then I would be able to highlight the areas of personal and vindictive attack, and the really negative aspects of his contribution which, if deleted, would only leave the good. He has a bit to work on.
His personal attacks on the member for Nelson were unwarranted. People who know the member for Nelson know he has devoted his life to people in the community. Listen to his story, understand where he comes from, and reflect on the incredible workload he produces as an Independent member, as a member of a minority Coalition government, now back to being an Independent member. Reflect on the research and community contacts and the consultation he completes to participate in the political process.
I knew Dr John Boffa as a doctor in Tennant Creek with the Anyinginyi Health Aboriginal Congress. He is an excellent doctor. He is an active member of the community, awarded a Territory award. Now in Alice Springs, he is extremely active in saving lives. There are no reasons to add those elements of personal attack. They should be removed, member for Greatorex, and we will concentrate on the positives.
To make a reflection on those positives, you drew some very nasty analogies of both of those gentlemen. What I looked at when you were participating in those personal attacks was a lonely individual, speaking into a microphone and basically responding to your last caller on the radio ...
Mrs LAMBLEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask that the member for the Barkly direct his comments through the Chair. He is directing them to the member for Greatorex.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Araluen. Could you direct your comments to the Chair, member for Barkly.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Is there a standing order that does not allow you to refer to a member in or out of the Chamber?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes there is, member for Barkly.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I was saying, I am trying to cut that negative out and concentrate on the positives. That person was speaking into the microphone responding to the last caller. We can take that out of the debate, but we get to a point I have casually called a ‘Jodeen Carney moment’. I refer to Jodeen Carney, and I hope she is listening. As a conservative, in my brief time in this parliament; she was by far the best performer, the best conservative - very intelligent, smart, articulate, and a ruthless political opponent. I learnt so much from her and I acknowledged that upon her retirement.
I now refer to ‘Jodeen Carney moments’. I could use the opportunity in this House to psychologically unpack the member for Greatorex and tear strips off him, but I chose not to because it would be negative. But, for Jodeen, those elements of the debate where he said, ‘I do not know all the details of this legislation but I am supporting it’, could have been a major assault opportunity from an opposition member.
The revolving door of mandatory rehabilitation could have been a major assault opportunity for a member of the opposition. Those comments about the recovering alcoholic needing more than five years of intensive medical intervention could have been another area for a major assault by an opposition member. Member for Greatorex, I will stand off that negative, practice what I preach, and say that in those moments of really positive debate and contribution to the Territory parliament I saw you suffering the pressure of being a minister. I saw you suffering under pressure, because the pressure now is not just to talk, it is the delivery. You are responsible to deliver this legislation. You are responsible to make this legislation work, and you are responsible to the Territory public.
I relish the opportunity to speak to young Territorians, and in those environments I really enjoy the opportunity to talk about what a member of the Legislative Assembly does. When I get to the part of ‘as a government member, I am a law maker’, you always get that extended breath, not from me but from the young people. You then get a great engagement about what it means to be a law maker, ‘You actually make laws?’ Yes, that is a very important part of the job. You participate in making the laws of the Northern Territory. We have heard many times in this debate about how important this legislation is.
When those moments come about in educating youngsters, I make sure I add that I do not do it alone; I do not just make it up as I go along. I reference the experts - the community members who have expertise in the area where you are legislating. I research, I am inclusive, I have an open mind, then I go through a process of debate with the government, and we come to a resolution that will be the basis of legislation that then goes through passage and is assented to as law. It is a very long and involved process.
What has come out of this debate is that the opposition is saying it does not believe the government has fully referenced this legislation. It seems to reflect a chain of events that delivered it tonight on urgency, after 10 months, because the opposition, after a political process of promising something and then having to deliver - scrapping the Enough is Enough alcohol reforms with nothing in their place - has now had a sense of urgency to deliver something. On that journey, the Territory opposition believes the government has ignored the experts in the field and, therefore, are on the journey we all want to be on; they have a product to present to the Territory but, unfortunately, it is still full of failings.
The member for Port Darwin said, ‘Do not worry about that, we will see the results of this legislation as it rolls through’. This is far too important to leave it to Beaver, ‘We will sort it out as we go along’. Already, we have a strong element of ‘make it up as we go along’ when you see there are 44 amendments to this legislation in the House, on urgency, as we speak.
The commitment to make this legislation work in forward estimates is $100m of taxpayers’ money. The experts are telling the Territory opposition there are elements of this conservative reform missing. When you think about that commitment and having a flawed process which will deliver half the result, you have to come back to the drawing board. That is what we, the member for Nelson, the peak Aboriginal organisations, and many Territorians are saying. They do not believe the pure punitive measure of locking somebody up to deliver wellbeing and a sense of clarity and understanding will make the difference. You will roll them in, but we have some serious questions around this legislation when they walk out.
We have seen a very active first law officer of the new government work in extremely difficult situations in regard to 26 August, through to the latest line-up of Cabinet. You have a distinct theme of a punitive approach to solving Territory problems. As the first law officer of the Northern Territory says, we will see what this delivers and how it goes.
The management of alcohol misuse in the Territory has joined and lined up with that punitive approach to take people out of the scene, out of the equation, and in that magic space everything will be good and they will walk back into the community. Unfortunately for many of them, it will be into a community of choice which supports their offending behaviour.
The Territory opposition believes this is flawed and we want to get it right with a bipartisan approach. However, I do not believe the government is prepared to go all the way with our recommendations to call for the member for Nelson’s concept and what the peak Aboriginal organisations are calling for - that inquiry, the ‘Stop the bus, let us sit down before the resources are totally allocated and work through this together to come up with a sense of ownership by all Territorians’. We do not want you to go it alone, government, we want to be with you.
I will talk through some of the community debate which has been occurring because I have been very active with this. It has been all over the airwaves, right through the Territory - a very powerful debate - and I will quote from Media Network releases. These transcripts are an example of some community debate on Wednesday, 29 May 2013:
The second release is titled ‘John Elferink on impact of mandatory sentencing’ and the summary says:
The next summary:
The next one says:
The next one is:
That is just an example, reported on Wednesday 29 May, of a conversation that has been happening in the community. That is what the community has been hearing and assessing. It all comes down to the plan, which was succinctly summarised by the member for Port Darwin, to find those addicts, chronic alcoholics, and lock them up, and it will be the turning point in their lives. Under this regime, attached to this government mentality for minimum mandatory sentence, it seems they will go to their first fence, climb over that fence, meet a bigger fence, get through that fence, then they will end up in the big house - a prison. Throughout this process they will carry an addiction which will be the driver that continues to totally influence their behaviour on their way forward.
We will see different elements of the community affected like this. I looked at the place where I live. I have been walking the streets, visiting pubs and clubs, and making my own assessment of who will be captured under this legislation. It will not only be the chronic alcoholic alone in the street that is completely incomprehensible - their behaviour is totally antisocial. It will not only be that type of alcoholic or addict, there will be the next layer of addicts who represent some semblance of normal community life. Our children could possibly be captured by this legislation as well. With three presentations for alcohol-related behaviour, they may be targeted by local police. It would be a very unfortunate circumstance, but it could happen. When you pass laws you have to realise the ramifications of the legislation in its whole approach and footprint on our community. We had better be prepared to start to understand that it will not be just the chronic alcoholic; there could be others captured in any mandatory type of legislative instrument.
I now present the alternative. As the Territory opposition, we have been challenged a number of times in this debate, ‘You do not have an alternative, you are just criticising everything’. It is not like that. I am very proud of the work the opposition does; it is a great team and we pride ourselves on holding the government to account, but always making sure we present a clear alternative, a different policy setting. It is just like the budget. We are challenging the 2013-14 budget on CLP policy settings, their fiscal timing, and their lack of clarity around why the decisions are being made.
In this legislation tonight, we are putting up clear alternatives. Our alternatives have been researched through recognised sectors. I go to some more media, ‘Territory grog laws “could cause deaths”’ by Amos Aikman, Northern correspondent from The Australian, 29 May 2013. Amos wrote:
That story goes on. The critical comment I found in that introduction was ‘setting policy back 30 years’. It is funny that I have been participating in this debate in the Northern Territory for nearly 35 years. I have been through various policy changes and directions from what was 35 years ago - pretty well not a lot of alcohol policy to real prohibitionist policy under the Thirsty Thursday attempt to regulate, to what I was very proud to be part of, the legislation team into the Enough is Enough alcohol reform and, now, here I am debating this new legislation from the Country Liberal Party government.
The alternatives the Territory opposition is putting out for people to consider in this House tonight, before the vote, relate to, basically, what the Aboriginal Peak Organisations of the Northern Territory call for; that is:
That is a quote from the Aboriginal Peak Organisations of the Northern Territory’s media release on 26 June 2013. This is the latest off the press in contribution to this debate, with a premise of ‘stop the bus, let us just hold it for a minute, we are still about solving the problem of alcohol abuse but it is how we do it’.
The opposition is saying to members tonight to start to deconstruct the proposed terms of reference for the board of inquiry into alcohol consumption and harm in the Northern Territory. It was an element of Labor’s reform. Unfortunately, the Enough is Enough policy was scrapped, but people tend to focus on the Banned Drinker Register. The Banned Drinker Register was just one tool, with its relationship with the Alcohol Courts and the capacity to take the problem drinker through income quarantining. Those three links were not allowed to be tested. They had the legs cut out from under them.
As a person who lives in Tennant Creek, as I have said before in this House, I was really looking forward to that next element where the Alcohol Courts, the tribunal process, would lay out a rehabilitation program for the client. If the client refused to accept that, we were not going to mandatorily bang that person up, but that person would face a series of income quarantines.
As the numbers on the Banned Drinker Register rose, and as those people who refused to conform were compromised through the reduction in cash, the rest of the community - the other element I talked about that will be captured up in this legislation - would start to be able to make a distinction regarding the person in their community, ‘Hey, hang on a minute, you are not allowed to purchase alcohol and if I supply it to you I will lose my right to purchase it. You have no cash; they took it off you because you are trouble.’ I am going to use some cognitive processing to work out I do not want to be in that space.
As the member for Port Darwin says, we would all start marching to the beat of that drum where there were some real serious consequences. Unfortunately, that legislation was scrapped. The maintenance of trading hours restriction, the ability of communities to maintain their capacity to enforce alcohol management plans, funding rehabilitation that works, not clogging up emergency departments but properly funding sobering-up shelters, cracking down on licensed premises that break the laws, and funding night patrols, represents that alternative. We have an alternative and we have been presenting it.
The Aboriginal Peak Organisations of the Northern Territory, in their terms of reference, give us that very specific road map to look at what the government has, what the Enough is Enough Alcohol reform has, and to fuse them to deliver what will work with an appropriation in forward estimates of $100m - the sort of cash we are asking the government to invest in education under the Gonski model. As the members for Port Darwin and Greatorex have said, if we go down this road and find out we did not solve the problem, then it will be very much a wasted opportunity.
Let us go through the proposed terms of reference from the Aboriginal Peak Organisations of the Northern Territory:
That is very important to really look at that issue of harm and what it really means:
The experts summarise it by saying any good policy of alcohol rehabilitation has to have measures to address supply and demand, and must have education and awareness measures. They talk about that focus in the early childhood area, so a drunk cannot produce a drunk. A father will give the child a role model of being a positive person with a future, or the mother will give that child the same mentoring. It is all there.
People said, ‘We will pass it, we have the numbers, it is going through’. We heard members talk about an appropriation of $100m in forward estimates. We talked about members on the other side who are slowly starting to have a few nervous moments talking about revolving doors, and, ‘Maybe they will not stay here’, ‘Maybe they will run away’, and ‘What will we do if the prisons overflow?’ but ‘We will have a go’.
Madam Speaker, we will have a go. This is the exhaustion principle introduced by the government. The clock is ticking, we do not have to go anywhere, and we can stop the bus, right here and now. We can stop the bus tonight and say we will go down the road the experts in the Northern Territory, across Australia, and across the world, will provide. For what? For politicians. Who? For politicians. What are you? A politician.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, my electorate of Nightcliff has a large amount of open space, beautiful parks and reserves stretching along the foreshore from Rapid Creek to Nightcliff and on to Coconut Grove. These areas are not only enjoyed by local residents but a large number of visitors. These areas attract not only well-meaning visitors, but also have been, for many years, a place for people to gather and drink. They drink to the point of causing harm to themselves and others. There are, in many ways, a nuisance.
In the election campaign last year, your government promised you would immediately remove problem drunks from the streets. It has never been worse. My office has had to call the police regularly after witnessing antisocial behaviour. There has been so much antisocial behaviour lately; it has become a daily occurrence. Only last week, at an electorate barbecue I held in the park near the foreshore, residents raised with me how bad the problem is. They are being kept awake at night by people participating in antisocial behaviour in the parks, breaking-in, and using residents’ front yards and parks as toilet facilities. It is not acceptable, and they clearly point the blame at your government.
After 10 months of waiting to see your government’s policy we finally get a half-baked policy we are rushing through at the last minute, literally in the middle of the night. The experts have asked you to halt, to take time to understand it better, to do more research. Legislation with 43 committee stage amendments - would that not be a wake-up call that this is rushed and destined to fail? But no, on we push.
Residents in my local area are feeling so frustrated witnessing this antisocial behaviour daily, contacting me to express their unease, their distress in this dramatic increase in behaviour, mainly from alcohol and drinking since the government removed the Police Beat and the Banned Drinker Register. If it is not witnessing this behaviour, it is cleaning up broken glass and bottles.
Chief Minister, in the election campaign last year your party campaigned on the platform that Nightcliff would have a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week police station, but all evidence suggests the exact opposite has taken place with the Police Beat being removed. Police are frustrated, as they have to travel from Casuarina to do their patrols. They are doing their best, but the tools they need to support them have been removed. You say Nightcliff is better served as a column on the Casuarina Police Station roster. I am sorry, from what am being told on the ground by police, that is not working. The antisocial behaviour is worsening. The support has been removed.
Your government talks of the Banned Drinker Register, the BDR, as an inconvenience. I did not find it inconvenient showing ID to purchase alcohol. It was just another card to get out with the credit card and the flybuys card. I find an increase in antisocial behaviour inconvenient and threatening, as do other local residents. One resident told me of having to carry their dog for sections of footpath as the broken glass is so bad; that is inconvenient, not removing your licence from your wallet.
It is clear to residents that antisocial behaviour has worsened under your government. Local traders say the Banned Drinker Register worked. But, do not listen to them; they are saying it made a difference. It was a part of a suite of reforms under the Enough Is Enough program which was a well-thought-out and developed program.
A shopkeeper in the same village as my office was assaulted recently by a person not meaning to cause harm who did not like what somebody said to them about moving on and not taking a sign with them after a few too many drinks. People do not feel safe. Assaults and incidents are happening in our parks, streets and neighbourhoods.
Domestic violence is up 24%. These statistics tell us what health professionals have been telling us for months. You only have to visit RDH ED ward. As a mum, I am there quite often with two boys. The doctors tell you what the overnight statistics are overnight.
You scrapped the income management process that would help families, particularly children, by protecting income to be spent on children, not drinking. As a government, you are not interested in evidence; if you were, you would stop and listen. You scrapped the night patrol; the federal government had to step in there. You ignore the experts, you ignore reports.
So many child protection experts and reports say that alcohol is a huge factor in child neglect and child abuse in the Northern Territory. Your government has removed a measure to protect children by abolishing the Alcohol Courts and, in turn, the ability to income manage parents. Your government is removing tools and causing direct harm to children.
With 171 vacancies in the Office of Children and Families, not only are you letting Territory kids down through a lack of support, you are putting them more at risk by turning the grog back on, by allowing their parents to spend money on grog and not them. Our child protection system is in chaos, yet you are putting more pressure on services by allowing the grog to flow.
The other great concern I have around this legislation is the sudden use of the purpose-built medical hotel facilities for alcohol rehabilitation. Where did this idea come from? Were you just sitting around and thinking of places where you could host it? ‘The uni does not work; we could not do it at a boarding school. Oh, hang on, there is a building at the hospital’ - a purpose-built facility designed to support regional and remote patients who are not well enough to go home but do not need to be in an acute hospital bed. It bewilders me why your remote members of parliament can let a policy take away 50 beds that were designed to support their constituents when they have to come to Darwin to go to hospital. No paying attention there! ‘Let us suddenly make it an alcohol rehabilitation centre.’
My colleague, the member for Arnhem, spoke on how important the medi-hotel facility is for mothers from her electorate awaiting the birth of their children. I could not agree more; this is what these facilities are for. I have watched patients’ families in the children’s ward of RDH head off each day and return each night. They are using RDH acute hospital beds as a hotel. They have every right to have a bed and be supported, but not in the paediatric ward of the hospital because your government has not opened the doors to the medi-hotel. If you would use this purpose-built facility purely for what it was built for there would be more beds in RDH; we would not have bed block.
To use this facility as a rehabilitation centre is not fair. It was not built as a rehabilitation facility. I have heard comments that some air conditioners have been removed and you might remove some TVs. However, there must be huge issues of safety in preventing people from harming themselves there. I am sure you have had people look at it, but would you really feel comfortable sending a recovering alcoholic into a facility that was not purpose-built? Then, you suddenly decided the purpose-built secure care facility was perfect for a rehabilitation facility. That is also not okay; that was built for a purpose, it is needed for something.
All this for a program that will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per individual, totalling many millions on a mandatory rehabilitation program for a 12-week period that experts say will fail. There is $100m in your forward estimates and they say it will fail. There is no effort to stop supply. If you are one of the small number forced into the program which will leave hundreds of drunks on our streets - 2500 and we have 100 beds so far - upon finishing the program that has cost hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars, you will return to the same situations and the same supply of grog.
The problem with this legislation is it is not researched; it is not evidence-based. It does not have the surrounding measures to support people: night patrol, banning supply. What are you going to do when people finish these programs? They come to Darwin, Alice Springs, and Katherine. I have visited Vendale. It is a fantastic facility but if somebody does not want to be there, they will waste time, abscond, cost money and, at the end of it, what are you going to do? Put them back on the streets in Darwin, or send them back to a community? Anyone who has dealt with a recovering alcoholic knows they need support. They fall off the wagon many times. Not that I have ever been a smoker, but how many friends do you have who say it is so hard to give up smoking? I imagine drinking is similar to that; it takes them many attempts. Yet your government thinks that by spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a 12-week program for 150 Territorians it is suddenly going to clean up the hundreds of drunks from our streets and parks. There is no effort to stop or regulate supply.
I also note in tonight’s debate the arrogance of those opposite pulling faces, interjecting with comments which only matched the comments of the Chief Minster last weekend. I urge you, in this emotional debate, to stop, think and listen, especially to the bush MLAs. These are your families who are coming into town.
There is no research in this. Stop, do some research, talk to the experts, listen to them, and put in place well-thought-out plans. Do not rush a bill before the House with 43 amendments. I do not know if I have ever heard of 43 amendments to a bill. That is huge. You only introduced this legislation to the parliament in early May; it is now late June. It is a huge piece of legislation that will cost so much to introduce. It seems so patched in so many ways. ‘Oh, we need a facility, let us quickly find one. Oh, we need some legislation for that, throw a bit together, then 43 amendments.’
I am not knocking the hard-working staff who have pulled this together, because it is your government at the helm directing them to do so. But, 43 committee stage amendments is huge, and they are the ones we know about.
I sometimes wonder, from the trivial behaviour I see from the members opposite, if they realise what they are doing. This is a law you are creating which will affect Territory families. If laws are not well thought out, backed by experts and researched, they will fail. Have you asked questions? Have you looked at other states? We know a huge part of our drinking problem is with Indigenous people. Have those questions been asked?
Madam Speaker, there are so many questions, so many grey areas. These failures, if we do not stop and wake up to ourselves, could be so costly on so many levels, not just in dollar terms. We are making laws in this House this evening, and this is something we must not take lightly. That is why tonight I urge you to stop, listen and think about what you are doing.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, we are in this House again debating ways to tackle the horrors of alcohol and the impact it has on far too many men, women, and children across the Territory. It is the cause of so much misery that destroys too many lives and subjects too many people, especially in the Territory, to poverty, abuse, neglect and sadness.
People understand this is a complex issue, and a comprehensive holistic approach to tackling alcohol abuse is needed. The Enough is Enough reforms delivered under Labor were heading in the right direction.
Today, we see a bill that does not get us there. In fact, it is a mile off and fails to tackle the critical issue of supply. The experts in the field of treating abuse agreed this is not the answer. There has been a great deal of discussion within the community about the government’s decision to scrap the Banned Drinker Register upon winning government. They went into the Territory election with the key commitment to immediately remove drunks from our streets, and they did the complete opposite.
Instead, what did we see? There are 2500 problem drinkers back on the drink across the Territory. Everyone could see the instant impacts of the removal of the BDR. The feedback I am getting, loudly and clearly from my constituents is they cannot understand why the government scrapped the BDR. The police said it was the best tool they had, and most people I have spoken to have told me that they did not mind showing their ID, especially when they started seeing the benefits from less antisocial behaviour in the community. They believed the BDR was making it much harder for problem drinkers to get alcohol, and it was making a difference.
People could see the difference when they went into the city for a meal, around their workplaces, on the foreshores, in the parks, around the shops. It was plain and obvious to all. People tell me they do not get the government’s logic for scrapping the BDR, and they do not believe the mandatory rehabilitation plans will work. Most of all, they do not understand why the government scrapped the Enough is Enough reforms with nothing to replace it immediately. Instead, we had a long wait for the new government to come back to this place to put some changes in place. I struggle to accept that the people opposite believe the Territory’s alcohol problems have reduced since scrapping the BDR.
Here we are 10 months into the new government, watching you rush through legislation that experts do not back and which lacks community support. You are choosing to hold people against their will with the hope to rehabilitate them from their alcohol addiction. This is not an evidence-based approach. You are putting $45m in this budget on a new system that no expert is backing. There is no evidence-based proven performance to show that it works, and there is little chance of it working. Most people agree that if a person does not want to be rehabilitated, it is unlikely it will work. More needs to be invested in tackling alcohol abuse, but you are throwing money at an experiment that alcohol experts, medical experts, legal organisations, and Indigenous organisations do not support.
It is also of a great concern that the government is looking to force, when it is fully ready in future years, around 200 people per quarter into mandatory rehabilitation. This year the budget books say there will be 800 assessments and 480 people will go into treatment. That is 120 people in a quarter. Given we had 2500 problem drinkers on the BDR when you scrapped it, and that number was growing, what happens to the 2300-plus drinkers? Clearly they will continue to go down a track of hard drinking to their own personal destruction and the misery of those around them.
The government’s new approach to tackling the supply of alcohol is alcohol protection orders. People are telling me they do not believe this will be an effective measure to stop problem drinkers accessing alcohol. It offers little assistance to those selling alcohol in bottle shops or in a bar identifying anyone who has one of these alcohol protection orders.
People want to see those with serious drinking problems receive the help they need and have the deterrents in place to help steer them to better health. Unfortunately, this bill looks doomed for failure as the government has failed to listen to the experts, medical professionals, alcohol health workers, and the police, to name a few.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Alcohol Rehabilitation): Madam Speaker, I thank all members of this Chamber who have spoken tonight on the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Bill 2013. I am thrilled and excited about this bill. It is one of the cornerstones of our election campaign which we used going into the August 2012 election. The people of the Northern Territory voted the Country Liberal Party into government because of this commitment to roll out mandatory alcohol treatment across the Northern Territory.
Despite what the opposition will have you believe, this bill, this initiative, has very broad and wide support throughout the Northern Territory. This evening we have heard all the speakers from the opposition put a downer on this project. Any success will be major; it will be above the expectations of the opposition. I am really pleased to hear that because there will be successes. The lack of optimism from the other side of the Chamber means that any success will be far greater than they anticipated and expected, because their doom and gloom and pessimism has put me on a high. I know this will have some positive outcomes.
The discussion around experts is curious because they have all mentioned that experts overwhelmingly agree with their pessimistic doom and gloom perspective on how this will roll out and how effective it will be. However, there are levels of experts. That is one thing I will talk about before we go into the committee stage of this process. The experts supporting this pessimistic, negative view of our bill are from a group of extremely committed stakeholders, most of whom submitted criticism of this bill through the consultation process. We received 13 submissions, six from local stakeholders and seven from jurisdictions outside the Northern Territory. Through a further consultation process beyond just receiving the submissions, I had the pleasure of meeting with representatives of many of those stakeholder groups. They are very committed, and I was very interested in what they had to say - the foundation of their criticism.
However, we also consulted extensively with people I regard as the specialists in this area: the people providing residential alcohol rehabilitation services in the Northern Territory. They are the true specialists in this area because this is their bread and butter. They know exactly how these programs work, the problems and challenges, and the strength of this model of operating. When you talk about experts, you have general experts within the alcohol sector, then you have the real specialised experts in this area we are looking at: the experts in residential alcohol rehabilitation.
It was interesting talking to the people who are critical of this bill, because they were not aware of much of the information I had gleaned from the specialist residential rehab providers. My staff were with me when we spoke to many of the other stakeholders. They were not aware, for example, that the current residential rehab providers charge $25 a day, or thereabouts, for consumables. I was not aware of that before I had these discussions with the residential rehab providers. They were not aware of small things such as when people come into rehab they often have lost their welfare payments along the line because they have been so dysfunctional through their use of alcohol, and that these people are often sick and require specific things. In talking to these stakeholders, I found they were being educated by me because I was handing over second-hand information to them from the residential rehab providers.
My point is, although the opposition claims it has the support of the experts in the field, it is not quite true. It has the support of many of the general stakeholders within the alcohol field, but when it comes to the real specialists in the area we are about to embark on, it does not have the support. It does not have the support of the residential rehab providers.
My colleague, the member for Sanderson, read that eloquent letter written by the Director of CAAAPU, Eileen Hoosan, who described in some detail the value in these programs from many perspectives, not just for people who are receiving the treatment, but also for the families and communities that benefit from a comprehensive, holistic residential rehab program. We also heard words from Matthew Bonson, from CAAPS, and various other providers in the field.
This battle has gone on tonight, ‘Our experts are better than yours. We have more experts endorsing our position than the government.’ However, at the end of the day the proof will be in the pudding. Do you know what? It is all going to be okay. Opposition, I know you have worked yourself up into a state, are losing sleep over it, and this pessimism and negativity about what we are about to embark on is weighing you down. You have put on this magnificent stage show tonight to demonstrate to the people of the Northern Territory that it will be a debacle, nothing will be right, and our outcomes will be next to nothing. However, it will be okay because we will have success. At least 10% of people coming out of these programs - this was acknowledged by the stakeholders I met with - will either abstain from alcohol or will have reformed their drinking patterns to the point they can drink responsibly.
There will also be successes around the fact that their families will have respite. The member for Greatorex spoke very well on this subject. The families will have this opportunity to change their lives. Things like child abuse and neglect will be addressed somewhat through this process. Violence against women, domestic violence, family violence and all those things we struggle against as a community, as a jurisdiction, as a society, will be alleviated somewhat through this important window of opportunity - this 12-week period in which people will undergo a health focused rehabilitation program.
I heard many comments from the opposition tonight - this allegation of criminalising alcoholics. When I teased this out with the stakeholders, interestingly, the only thing they could come up with when I asked what criminalising drunks meant, was that it came down to the fact we had a provision in the legislation that the penalty for absconding was an offence. If people absconded once it would become an offence and they could be subject to a fine or a stint in gaol. We looked at that and agreed it was rather tough and are about to change that through the committee process.
The hypocrisy of the opposition is completely overwhelming. The Leader of the Opposition has refuted with vehemence the allegation she supported mandatory alcohol rehabilitation. We have the old media releases; it is in black and white. As the member for Sanderson said, in September 2010 she talked about introducing mandatory rehabilitation treatment for problem drinkers. She went on to say:
She then went on to commit to 300 treatment and sobering-up shelter beds across the Northern Territory. That is extremely consistent with what our initiative will mean through the rolling out of this bill tonight. We are on the same page. There is not much difference, historically, to what the former Labor government, now the opposition, has spoken about at length in the past. Clare Martin, Delia Lawrie, and Paul Henderson are all on the record supporting mandatory alcohol rehabilitation. They cannot back away from that; they cannot rewrite history because the history is here to see. No matter how aggressive and repulsed the Leader of the Opposition might be by her former media statement in black and white, the reality is they did support it. For any contradiction of this to come out in parliament is demonstrative of hypocrisy at a very high level.
The opposition has also given some fairly conflicting messaging around its position on this. They drift from backing it - almost similar to the member for Nelson - but not backing it, being incensed by it, but being a little confused, and always going back to BDR. Do you know what? This is not a debate about the Banned Drinker Register. I hate to inform you of this, but it has gone – it has gone-ski, it is finished - period. We do not have to refer anymore to the Banned Drinker Register; it is dead and buried. In substitution of the Banned Drinker Register, we will have a very robust mandatory alcohol treatment program.
There will be problems, hiccups, and hurdles to overcome. It is ground-breaking, it is absolutely new and unprecedented, on this scale, in this way, in Australia. There are other involuntary alcohol rehabilitation programs in other parts of Australia. I mentioned in estimates that I visited an involuntary rehabilitation program facility in Sydney last week. It feels like a month ago, but it was only last week or the week before. It feels like it was about two years ago. That was fascinating. It was a very similar model to what we are about to roll out in the Northern Territory, on a much smaller scale but, essentially, very similar. Interestingly enough, that initiative was rolled out by the New South Wales government approximately 12 months ago with very little public push back. They did not have this resistance from their opposition. It was generally agreed that mandatory alcohol rehabilitation has a place within a regime of different strategies to address alcohol in the community.
That is exactly where we sit. Yes, the scale is much larger. Do you know what? We all know this around this room: the problem we have in the Northern Territory is on a much greater scale per capita than anywhere else in Australia. We have the worst alcohol-related health problems and crime problems in the whole of Australia. Why should we not have the biggest and most profound and unprecedented roll-out of an alcohol initiative in Australia to balance that and address the enormity of what we are facing?
I embrace the feedback we have received through this process of drafting the bill. There have been some time frames around that. I make no apology for that. The former government spent 11 years muddling around. In the last 12 months it came up with the Banned Drinker Register. It flopped, it failed, we threw it out, and we move on.
We were elected to roll this out, and that is what we are doing. I appreciate the feedback. I will give you a piece of information which leads into the committee process in a few minutes; out of the 43 amendments to this bill, 42 of them came directly via the consultation process through the feedback we received from the critics of this bill. If you want to complain about the fact that there are so many amendments - the member of Nightcliff just had a spin in that direction - I will give you this as testimony to the fact that we have listened: 42 out of the 43 amendments are from your side of the House. We have listened and made these compromises because we want this to work and to be reasonably palatable across the community.
Madam Speaker, there is much I could talk about. Given that it is already after 11 pm, I will restrict my comments …
Ms Finocchiaro: It is your bed time, 11 pm.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes, I should be in bed. That is exactly right, member for Drysdale.
We believe this is probably one of the most courageous initiatives ever to be undertaken in the area of alcohol reform in the Northern Territory, in Australia. We make no excuses, we are extremely proud to be doing this. We realise we will be scrutinised and it will be controversial from whoa to go, but we stand beside this because we know we are doing the right thing for the Northern Territory.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: The committee has before it the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Bill 2013 (Serial 33), together with Schedule of Amendments No 6 circulated by the Minister for Alcohol Rehabilitation.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.1 standing in my name. This is to set a date of 1 July 2013 as the starting date.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr GUNNER: Minister, your amendment is changing it from the day fixed by the Administrator, which is obviously a day you can work out with the Administrator, to coming into effect on 1 July, meaning it starts in four days’ time. In the short time this bill has been out for consultation you have come forward with 43 amendments. Does it not seem clear to the government that this bill and your plans still require some work? It seems to us to have it come into effect in four days’ time - will you be ready on 1 July?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Absolutely, and it will start on 1 July. This amendment is to just ensure, by way of fixing a definite commencement date for the bill, that it does roll out from 1 July.
Mr GUNNER: The member for Nelson mentioned this in his remarks during the second reading debate. I was at Vendale two weeks ago and at CAAAPU five weeks ago and they did not seem ready to go from 1 July. Can you explain how and what is ready to go from 1 July?
Mrs LAMBLEY: To my knowledge all facilities will be ready to accept people for mandatory alcohol rehabilitation as of 1 July. I can advise the opposition in due course if there is a problem.
Mr GUNNER: In our last briefing on Monday, some, but not all, police have been employed for this scheme. Will all positions be filled by 1 July?
Mrs LAMBLEY: I do not believe all positions will be filled by 1 July because, of course, all the beds will not be filled by 1 July. We have 200 beds coming online and we do not expect to fill those immediately. There will be a matter of weeks in which there is no great urgency to have every position filled. I can keep you updated on staffing.
Mr GUNNER: Thank you, minister. The advice we received on Monday was that no regulations were needed for this bill, but guidelines were being developed and there were guidelines mentioned through the bill. Being four days out, are those guidelines done and ready?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes, all the guidelines are drafted.
Mr GUNNER: We asked for a copy of those guidelines. We have not seen them yet. Is it possible to get a copy of them?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes, definitely. To be honest, I have not seen the final draft either, but they will be ready for use from 1 July.
Mr GUNNER: Those guidelines have been developed fully with the external stakeholders, the service providers, the Police Commissioner, and all other people involved?
Mrs LAMBLEY: With police, not beyond the police.
Mr GUNNER: Part of what the guidelines do will go to the work that is done at the assessment or treatment centres. Will those people who have been involved in the guidelines know what is in the guidelines?
Mrs LAMBLEY: The guidelines are extrapolated from the bill. We feel the Department of Health and the police are quite capable of drawing up these guidelines, as they would for other parts of the service or the agency. However, if there is any great dispute over the aspect of the guidelines or regulations, then I am sure we can have a discussion around it.
Mr GUNNER: We are not disputing it and, in some respects, not doubting the capacity of it. It is more that we are four days away from it coming into effect and the guidelines are essential for it to be working on 1 July. It is more about whether they are ready and can we see them at some stage?
Mrs LAMBLEY: They are ready because staff are being trained and familiarising themselves with and using the guidelines. We can have a copy to you next week for your perusal.
Ms WALKER: Minister, given this bill and all the actions associated will be ready to go in four days time on 1 July, in Nhulunbuy, for instance, what will become the secure facility is currently a co-located facility with the old rehabilitation centre and the sobering-up shelter alongside. Have those two premises been physically separated with a separate entrance for vehicles that come in and out with the night patrol? Is there a separate fencing arrangement so the secure beds are separate from the rest of the campus?
Mrs LAMBLEY: The secure beds will not be separated from the rest – sorry, there will be a fence. At the moment, the sobering-up shelter is a separate building to the rehab building …
Ms WALKER: It is a separate building.
Mrs LAMBLEY: … and they have separate entrances, so I am not sure …
Ms WALKER: There is one entrance into that centre.
Mrs LAMBLEY: There is a separate entrance into the sobering-up shelter.
Mrs WALKER: Into the physical buildings there are, but one fence sits around the entire campus of the two buildings. Is the intention ...
Mrs LAMBLEY: No, there is no intention to have a separate entrance. It is the same business.
Ms WALKER: So, the one entrance will be for …
Mrs LAMBLEY: For sobering-up and admission into the rehab centre. I see no need to have two separate entrances. That would be a waste of money, to be honest.
Ms WALKER: I guess time will tell in security …
Mrs LAMBLEY: That is one thing we can keep our eye on. If it becomes a problem we can look at it then. We are dealing with the same clientele, essentially.
Mr WOOD: Minister, my understanding is this will be gazetted on 1 July, then police who pick up people can start to tick them off if they end up at the watch house; the law is three times in two months. If you have people who are picked up three times within the next fortnight in Katherine, where will they first of all be assessed?
Mrs LAMBLEY: We will be using the Katherine Hospital as the assessment centre.
Mr WOOD: They can be held there for eight days safely?
Mrs LAMBLEY: The answer to that is yes. Can we follow the process of the committee? We have so many amendments to go through, and I am sure there will be opportunity to ask these specific questions as we go through. It is not necessarily a briefing at this stage; we are looking at specifically making amendments to the bill. I, for one, do not want to be here at 3 o’clock in the morning chatting about the bill. We have had every opportunity to do that tonight.
However, I am happy to answer any questions relevant to the amendments put forward, and address the amendments you want to put forward.
Mr WOOD: This is a unicameral system. The committee stage is the most important time for debate. It is the only time we have a proper debate between members and the minister to ensure this bill is fully investigated and tested.
The reason we are asking this question is you have changed this section of the bill from a date to be fixed, which means we do not know when it will start. We might start when you have everything ready. By inserting 1 July 2013, you have made a date for this bill to start.
That is just not a simple case of the bill to start. The ramifications of this are that you will be ready whenever police pick up someone three times within two months, which could be three times in a week or two weeks. The concern I have is if you are saying that, then you are saying the facilities are ready to accept these people.
Therefore, is the assessment facility - I am using the example at Katherine - ready to take someone who fits within the guidelines of this bill? Is there a place that is ready now where a person can be retained or kept for eight days, because that is the maximum?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Member for Nelson, this program will start on 1 July 2013. If, for some reason, there is a glitch in the system and there is not a bed available at any point in time - whether it is on 2 July this year or 2 July next year - people will not be assessed for mandatory treatment, and that is in the bill.
We only have 200 beds and we can only take that number of people. If a bed is not available then the person is released immediately as they would be within any protective custody order. The next time they are picked up and placed into protective custody, providing it is in that two-month period, the process begins again.
Contrary to what most of you on that side of the Chamber are alleging, this is not a punishment; it is not a criminal system. If we do not have a bed available, if people are not captured by the system, then the consequence is that they just go home.
We do not have to make it like a corrections system, whereby no matter what, these people have to go into treatment. We will do our best to keep our 200 beds full but, beyond that, they will have to go home if there are no beds. That is the reality. It is a health service with a peculiar twist in that we are requiring these people go into mandatory treatment when a bed is available.
Mr WOOD: I am trying to argue the practical side. When I say argue, I do not mean have an argument, but I am looking at the practical side. Take Katherine. If I am a policeman and am told this law has been passed on 1 July, from a practical point of view, if they take them to the watch house and there are no beds available, who tells the policeman? I do not want this policeman doing all this work and it is no good because there is no place to keep them.
Mrs LAMBLEY: People are taken into protective custody now and nothing happens to them. From 1 July, after three protective custodies in two months, the police officer will call the treatment centre to find out if there is a bed available. If the answer to that question is no, then the person in protective custody is released at a time when it is seen as safe for them to leave, as per normal.
Madam Deputy Chair, can we move on? There will be many opportunities to ask questions throughout this process. We are getting a little side-tracked.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 9, by leave, taken together:
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Chair, I have a question on clause 4. It is not an amendment. The question is in relation to clause 4 with regard to the application of the act:
How does the legislation interact with the Parole of Prisoners Act?
Mrs LAMBLEY: That is a completely separate act. As I said before, this is not anything to do with corrections whatsoever - period.
Mr GUNNER: Obviously, minister, we will ask some questions today, but we will be brief. It is great to have access to briefings but they are not on the public record. We were advised that if someone is on parole and caught, then the Parole of Prisoners Act takes precedence. I believe that was the advice.
This clause specifically says that it does not affect the operation or application of the Mental Health Act or Sentencing Act. That makes sense. What we are wondering though, is how does it interact with the Parole of Prisoners Act? We were advised that the Parole of Prisoners Act takes precedence, but how?
Mrs LAMBLEY: The Parole of Prisoners Act deals with a completely different group of people who have committed a crime. This act deals with people who have not committed a crime but who have been taken into protective custody three times in two months.
Mr GUNNER: I understand what you are saying, but you are missing our question. If someone is on parole and has been caught under the provisions of this act, what happens to them? By what mechanism does the Parole of Prisoners Act take precedence?
Mrs LAMBLEY: I might get the Attorney-General to answer this.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Deputy Chair, if a person is on parole, then it depends what the condition of their parole is. If a condition of their parole is that they are not to drink liquor and they are picked up the first time around, then they are technically in breach of their parole.
If it is not a condition of their parole that they are not to drink liquor - let us say there is no condition of their parole other than, ‘You are at liberty, please check in once a month with your parole officer’, then being picked up under this legislation does not constitute a breach of parole. If you breach your parole you are answerable to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction and an action will be taken for breach of parole.
Mr GUNNER: I accept all that. By what mechanism is it that the Parole of Prisoners Act takes precedence?
Mr ELFERINK: It is not an issue of precedence. One act will operate to deal with a health issue, and the second act will deal with the matter of breach of parole. If you have breached your parole it is up to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction to determine you have breached parole and take action accordingly.
Mr GUNNER: The act specifically says that this act does not affect the operation of the Mental Health and Related Services Act or the Sentencing Act. If you have gone to that effort here, why did you not do that for the Parole of Prisoners Act? I am sure there is an easy answer Attorney-General, I am just wondering what it is.
Mr ELFERINK: The parole legislation is designed in such a way as to deal with people who have been released from custody and have still not completed the end of their sentence. There would be no mechanism by which these two are linked other than the fact a person, as a condition of parole, may be set at liberty. Similarly, sentencing legislation may carry certain sentencing conditions. The sentencing condition put in place is something the draftsman has clearly considered is worth incorporating into this legislation.
Mr GUNNER: I was going to talk to clause 8 as well.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Fannie Bay and opposition, please can you give me early indication if you want to ask questions.
Mr GUNNER: We have questions to most clauses if that helps, Madam Deputy Chair.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: We are on clauses 3 to 9.
Mr GUNNER: I want to talk to clause 8, which is amongst 3 to 9. We have discussed this before but have not had much feedback. The Chief Minister was almost quite cooperative in estimates. Right at end he said he could give us the information but realised he did not have it.
Essentially, the trigger is three protective custodies in two months. We have been seeking some advice around the data that has led to this. Based on the data to date, how many people will you be looking at as part of that criterion?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Eight hundred a year.
Mr GUNNER: That is how many you are budgeting for. We were wondering, because you already have the data, and have been quoting from it, exactly how many fit that criterion?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Almost exactly 800 a year.
Mr GUNNER: You picked the 800 figure based on that being pretty much the exact number of PCs of three people in two months.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Exactly. That is how we came up with 200 beds.
Mr GUNNER: We have been asking that question for a long time. My understanding of clause 8 is it also allows you to change the trigger at any time.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Which one are you talking about? 8(1)(a)?
Mr GUNNER: It is the interaction between clause 8 and the Police Administration Act. Through that you can change the entry trigger. You do not need to come back to the parliament to do that; you can change it through regulation.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes, that is true, by regulation. You are talking about 8(1)(a). Is that correct?
Mr GUNNER: Yes, that is correct. The way this clause interacts with the Police Administration Act allows you, through regulation, to change that trigger point of two times in three months?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes, that is correct.
Mr GUNNER: Obviously, this is early days, but have you given any thought to what or how you may change that trigger going forward? You have created a situation where you can change it by regulation, but have you given any thought to that or how that might work?
Mrs LAMBLEY: I am not prepared to pre-empt anything. This is new ground. To pre-empt something like that would perhaps create a whole new wave of criticism, and I do not want to go there. We have settled on what we have, based on the data provided, and we are happy to see what happens. We will review the whole thing after six months - the whole initiative - so that is an opportunity to look at those types of things.
Mr GUNNER: I can appreciate that. One thing I have been trying to find out is how we will measure this. One question is: have you thought through yet where you might say, if we are not getting this kind of target or this kind of result then we would look at this?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Absolutely. We will be tweaking, monitoring, and reviewing every aspect of this initiative.
Clauses 3 to 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.2 standing in my name. This amends threshold criteria, clause 10(e), for a mandatory treatment order. All criteria in this clause must be met for a mandatory treatment order to be made.
Clause 10(e) of the bill currently requires that the person ‘could’ benefit from a mandatory treatment order. The amendment alters this to requiring that the person ‘would’ benefit, rather than ‘could’. This was a recommendation we received through the consultation process. It is changing ‘could’ to ‘would’. I can continue with an explanation if you like, or are you are satisfied with that?
Mr GUNNER: My question was about the clause, not the amendment.
Mrs LAMBLEY: You are happy with the amendment put forward?
Amendment agreed to.
Mr GUNNER: My question goes to how this clause interacts with the principles. In the principles it says involuntary detention and involuntary treatment of a person is to be used only as a last resort when less restrictive interventions are not likely to be effective – so, it is the most effective option.
However, this clause talks about it being used only when there is nothing else reasonably available. There is a difference between effectiveness and availability. I was wondering if you see a conflict between those two?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Member for Fannie Bay, where are we looking? Is this clause 10 still?
Mr GUNNER: Clause 10. It says there are no less restrictive interventions reasonably available in clause 10(f). Clause 10(f) talks about when there is nothing else reasonably available, but the principles talk about choosing between effective and most effective. There is a slight difference between making choices about what is reasonably available and what is not effective.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Member for Fannie Bay, we can only ask practitioners to do what is reasonable. Is least restrictive a reasonable principle?
Mr GUNNER: I do not believe that is quite what we are asking. It is about the choices being made when you are looking at the criteria for an order. Are you choosing the option that is reasonably available or the option that is most effective?
Mrs LAMBLEY: You are choosing both; you are choosing the least restrictive and the most effective.
Mr GUNNER: Obviously you want the best of both worlds, but there will be times where what is reasonably available might be different to what is most effective. It goes to the decisions they will have to make when they are delivering a mandatory treatment order. The clause says pick the option that is, essentially, reasonably available, and the principle says pick the option that is most effective. I realise lawyers wrote it, but there is a difference between what is reasonably available and what is most effective.
Mrs LAMBLEY: The advice I am given is that ‘least restrictive’ is the principle. It is clinician-speak, and if we cannot understand it, that is a problem. But ‘least restrictive’ is the principle, ‘reasonably available’ and ‘least restrictive’ remain the practice principles. Clinicians within the industry understand this language and this is in the best interests of the person - least restrictive and most effective.
There are no less restrictive interventions reasonably available for dealing with the risk mentioned in paragraph 9: the risk being the person’s alcohol misuse. That makes perfect sense when you read it. What is your issue with it? Explain to me what you do want to know.
Mr GUNNER: No, it is that the two interact. Both of them read fine separately, it is the decision between the two. One of them is the last resort when less restrictive interventions are not likely to be effective - so that is the effectiveness of what is available. Then, here, it is ‘reasonably available for dealing with the risk’. From that reading, one seems to be about the effectiveness of the treatment options available, and the other is about what is reasonably available as a treatment option.
Mr WOOD: Maybe the explanatory notes will help.
Mr GUNNER: I read the explanatory notes. If it is understandable to clinicians, maybe we could get some advice at some stage?
Mrs LAMBLEY: If you do not want to pass this one, we can work on it over the next half-an-hour and give you a much broader explanation. To be honest, member for Fannie Bay, if you just read it …
Mr GUNNER: We do not necessarily have a problem with clause 10 or clause 6; it is more about the two of them and understanding how they work together. Does that make sense, minister?
Mrs LAMBLEY: I believe it is self-explanatory, unless you want us to rephrase the whole …
Mr GUNNER: No, what …
Mrs LAMBLEY: It will not change. I feel it is reasonably self-explanatory.
Mr GUNNER: I raised it for an explanation; not as something that is earth-shattering. Obviously I have not been able to get an explanation, but that is fine. We can move on. There is no problem with clause 10 or clause 6. It is more about how the two work together. One goes to the effective options available and the other goes to the options that are reasonably available. That is all. We can move on if you want, minister.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 11 and 12, by leave, taken together:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.3 standing in my name, which invites defeat of clauses 11 and 12.
Amendment agreed to
Clauses 11 and 12 negatived.
New clauses 11 and 12:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.4 standing in my name. We are basically swapping clauses 11 and 12 around. A recommendation from several of the submissions we received was that the order we placed these in was wrong. Instead, 12 will become 11 and 11 will become 12. That was seen as a more desirable order.
It was a suggestion from the legal profession to resolve the ambiguity about who was compelled in this clause, the person or the treatment provider. The intention is to ensure the more active participation be used, rather than the more passive reference to a client - sorry, being given treatment. Yes, it is just to swap the order. It was a pedantic recommendation we received and we had no reason to object to it.
Mr WOOD: I am not sure how I speak to one of these. I am talking about the section on the mandatory community treatment order. The definition says a mandatory community treatment order is an order in relation to a person and requires the person receives treatment from a specific treatment provider. Do we have a list of specific community treatment providers at present?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes, we do, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: Is that available? I am not saying tonight. Is that a publicly available list?
Mrs LAMBLEY: I am sure it would be, but it is certainly available within the sector, yes.
Mr WOOD: Is there a definition of a specified community treatment provider or a legal explanation of what that is?
Mrs LAMBLEY: The Department of Health makes the assessment of what services will be mandatorily provided community treatment and which ones will provide mandatory treatment.
Mr WOOD: That is fine. Will the provider have to be registered? Will they have to have certain qualifications? What are the guidelines to be a provider?
Mrs LAMBLEY: The guidelines have been developed by the Department of Health and are consistent with this act in what is required for mandatory treatment. We can provide you with those Department of Health guidelines if you like. I am not sure if we have them here, do we? No, we do not.
Mr WOOD: I will just have to do it the best I can. I referred to the possibility of someone providing a service out bush. I do not know whether that is a practical idea because that may not fit into your guidelines of what a specified community treatment provider is. I was saying you have that in the act. Who are they and what are they required to do to be a community treatment provider?’ If you had a healing place out bush, would that fit into this requirement or definition?
Mrs LAMBLEY: It could. In the future we will be looking at different models of treatment provision. We want to work, for example, with Francis Xavier Kurrupuwu and the Tiwi people to develop a model that suits them and their cultural and community needs. Each treatment centre will look a bit different, but there will be some essential ingredients and they are probably the guidelines you are after - the commonalities that each treatment centre will be required to have. Is that correct?
Mr WOOD: That is fine and good. I am not knocking that.
Mrs LAMBLEY: We want to be inclusive. We do not want to say, ‘You are excluded from having a centre in Yuendumu because you do not have access to Woolworths’, or something.
Mr WOOD: No, I hope you have not; that could be quite dangerous knowing Woolworths; they sell other things.
Will there be somebody in the Department of Health to assess community treatment providers? You cannot just become a community provider; you have somebody to assess it. You said it could be different case by case?
Mrs LAMBLEY: The senior director of mandatory treatment services is responsible and has the overarching responsibility to regulate and monitor these services. Obviously safety is one of the main concerns in the expectation of these treatment facilities - ensuring risk is minimised, cleanliness, OH&S, all that type of stuff.
Mr WOOD: If somebody wanted to start one in one of the outstations in Arnhem Land that would have to be assessed by the director of mandatory treatment services. They could apply and say, ‘We would like to do this’ and he would come out?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes.
Mr WOOD: That is okay. I am just working through the practicalities.
Amendment agreed to.
New clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 16, by leave, taken together:
Mr GUNNER: I have questions about clauses 13 and 14. Clause 13 is about the income management order. For that to have force you require the Commonwealth minister to recognise the new tribunal. How you are going with that dialogue with the Commonwealth?
Mrs LAMBLEY: I spoke to minister Macklin today and negotiations are proceeding for us to use income management as part of this initiative.
Mr GUNNER: Do we have an approximate date yet, or a target?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Ideally, I would like it resolved by Monday, but we are working on it. Minister Macklin and I have a reasonably good relationship so I am hoping we can sort this out very soon.
Mr GUNNER: This clause will not be operational by 1 July, but at some stage we are hopeful the Commonwealth government will recognise it?
Mrs LAMBLEY: That is correct.
Mr GUNNER: That is clause 13. I have questions on clause 14 too. Clause 14 says:
It says ‘must’ rather than ‘may’. The senior clinician, being a doctor, there will be times when as soon as that person walks in the front door and the doctor says - and it may not happen often - ‘That person should not be here’. However, the clause says they ‘must’ be admitted.
I am just wondering by what process does that doctor say, ‘I can see why you brought that person here, but in this instance they do not need to not be here’. I am wondering why it is ‘must’ and not ‘may’.
Mrs LAMBLEY: When an assessable person is taken to an assessment facility, they will be taken there by the police, so there has to be an administrative transaction, which is called an admission. If the person is deemed unsuitable for treatment or not suitable to be at the assessment facility, then they would be discharged.
Mr GUNNER: The admission in this instance is at the police end, and not at the …
Mrs LAMBLEY: No, it is at the facility end. They have to receive the person from the police.
Mr GUNNER: So when you say, ‘must admit’ that is the purpose of that person walking in the front door, it is not a paperwork question. It is just them walking in the front door …
Mrs LAMBLEY: And the paperwork; it is an administrative process.
Mr GUNNER: I guess that is my question. There may be times when the senior clinician – obviously the doctor is not a copper.
Mrs LAMBLEY: The system is based on the tribunal having the right to determine what happens to the assessable person. Even though the assessment clinician may immediately deem or consider the person is unsuitable, they still have to go before a tribunal.
Mr GUNNER: There may be the occasion when someone walks in that front door - it is not about whether they are assessable or suitable for treatment, it is more that maybe their condition has been misdiagnosed or something. As soon as they walk in that door, the doctor says, ‘I can understand exactly why you have brought this person to me and how they got to this point in this system, but this person should not be here in an assessment centre going through this process, they need to go the hospital for treatment’. Because it says ‘must’ not ‘may’, how does that practically happen at that moment?
Mrs LAMBLEY: It depends on the diagnosis of the person. If the person is taken, for example, to the assessment facility and is found to be acutely ill and requiring acute treatment, they would be taken to a hospital. Once introduced into the system and to the assessment clinician and the assessment centre, they have to be assessed at some point. The pause button can go on if they have to go to the hospital, or somewhere else such as a mental health facility for assessment in the interim. However, at some point they have to go before a tribunal. The tribunal decides their fate within that four-day period.
Mr GUNNER: So, practically, what happens then? They turn up at the door, the doctor says straightaway, ‘I have to admit you at some stage, and take you in, but right now you need to go there, and after you finish there, come back here and then we work through it’.
Mrs LAMBLEY: The doctor would always do a formal assessment. It is not just a visual, instantaneous thing.
Mr GUNNER: That is why I am wondering about the ‘must’ instead of ‘may’. I agree that a doctor would do that, but you are saying ‘must’ admit them into the assessment facility, rather than ‘may’. There must be the occasion when the doctor says, ‘I can understand why this person is here, but they should not be; they should be over here getting this treatment.’ It says they ‘must’ be admitted, not ‘may’.
Mrs LAMBLEY: The person is brought to the assessment facility, they are admitted, and they have to be assessed, even if the assessment takes five minutes. If the person is deemed unsuitable, they have to be admitted, they have to be assessed, and they cannot be taken out of that system until they are put before a tribunal.
Mr GUNNER: Let us go back to the original question. The clause says they ‘must’ be admitted and detained. I am asking whether there will not be the occasional time when, through this system, the police bring someone into an assessment centre and, at the first blush, the clinician says straightaway, ‘This person should not be here’. However, your clause says they ‘must’ be admitted and ‘must’ be detained.
Mrs LAMBLEY: That is right. There will be no circumstances in which they do not flow from the police system into the assessment treatment system.
Mr GUNNER: But, there may be a healthy …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Chair! Many people will not notice that the Clerk of the parliament, Ian McNeill, is just about to walk out of the parliament for the last time after 28 years of service to the people of the Northern Territory.
Madam Deputy Chair, I am sure I speak on behalf of all people of this House in thanking Mr Ian McNeill for his years of dedicated service to the people of the Northern Territory and this parliament. It has been a pleasure and a privilege to work with him. I wish both him and Kit all the very best for the future.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mrs LAMBLEY: Member for Fannie Bay, the answer is no. Once people come into the system after the trigger is set off - the three protective custodies in two months - police make the call, there is a bed available, and they are locked into a process. A person cannot just be removed from the system; they have to complete the process.
Mr GUNNER: My question is going to the third trigger that has led to protective custody that has been a misdiagnosis. They turned up on the doorstep, there was something seriously wrong with that person, and the doctor on the spot said, ‘I can see why you are here but, for health reasons, you should not be here, you need urgent treatment at the hospital for this other condition’. Should they not be going there? The clause is saying they ‘must’ admit them and detain them, and not take that other action.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Admission is the administrative process of receiving the assessable person from the police and taking them into the assessment facility where they will be assessed. They will always be assessed, even if it is instantaneous. If they need acute care of some description then they would be taken to the acute facility, such as a hospital, for treatment. Then, they come back into the system. The pause button goes on, they return from hospital and are assessed again, perhaps, and the process continues.
Clauses 13 to 16 agreed to.
Clause 17:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.5 standing in my name. This amendment omits existing clauses 17(2) to 17(5) and replaces them with new clauses 17(2) and 17(3).
I can give an explanation if people like.
Mr GUNNER: In making the amendment you have changed the initial period from 72 hours to 96 hours. I was wondering why you lengthened that initial period by 24 hours. Initially, you had it as three days to make the assessment, and I was wondering why you have changed it to four days. What was the feedback you got to make it four days?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Member for Fannie Bay, in the current bill it is three plus three, so the intention was to assess people within three days. If there was a problem - usually the problem would be around people drying out and detoxifying and in some circumstances they would be extremely difficult to assess within three days - we had an option to extend it for another three days.
The feedback we got through the consultation process is that, potentially, a six-day period for the timing of the assessment was way too long. So, we reduced it to four. The rationale was three days, in most cases, would be sufficient. To add on another day means 99% of cases will be able to be assessed within that four-day period. So, six days to four days.
Mr GUNNER: You touched upon this before in the other clause. This allows that commission to pause the clock, as you said, when a person is referred to the hospital. There might have been an assessment at that facility for two days, then they go to the hospital, then they return to the assessment facility for up to two days. The clock is paused. Are they technically under detention when they are at the hospital?
Mrs LAMBLEY: No, they are not.
Mr GUNNER: They could just walk out of the hospital?
Mrs LAMBLEY: They could, they are not prisoners.
Mr GUNNER: They are under detention at the assessment centre either side of the hospital trip, but when they are at the hospital - technically that has been split - and they are not actually under detention ...
Mrs LAMBLEY: They would be supervised - is that correct? If a person absconds during the time the clock is paused, the clock does not start again until the person returns.
Mr GUNNER: So, they are pending assessment and AWOL?
Mrs LAMBLEY: If they disappear, even were they to come back in a month, the clock starts again.
Mr GUNNER: All right. Either side of that period they ...
Mrs LAMBLEY: It is not an offence at that point either, because they have not been determined by the tribunal as being suitable for mandatory treatment.
Mr GUNNER: If they are too unwell to be assessed and are required to go to the hospital, the clock stops. They are not under detention at that time? They are being treated for their other illness, and not in detention?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes. It goes back to my original point; that is, we are not criminalising them. If these people are sick, we are not going to chase down the road after them if they take off at that point.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.6 standing in my name. Amendment 6.6 invites defeat on the existing clause 18.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 negatived.
New clause 18:
Mrs LAMBLEY: I move amendment 6.7 standing in my name. Amendment 6.7 contains the new clause 18 to be inserted. This amendment to clause 18 is a technical consequential amendment flying from the section changes in clause 17 around the timing of assessment. The intent of the clause remains the same.
Amendment agreed to.
New clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.8 standing in my name. The allied consequential amendments to clauses 20(a) and 21(1) are intended to streamline and simplify the existing assessment process provisions which artificially expressed assessment as being in two stages. This amendment was identified following discussions with clinicians, and the legal sector found it to be overly complicated and confusing. Do you want me to continue with that explanation?
Ms WALKER: Minister, in relation to clause 19, does the requirement to explain the intent of the assessment to the extent reasonably practicable extend to the provision of interpreters, understanding we may be dealing with Indigenous people whose first language is not English?
Mrs LAMBLEY: The requirement for an interpreter is described in the clauses pertaining to the tribunal. In this section, and other sections of the act, it does not have a prescription around that. The intention is that the clinicians would describe, advise, and explain the process of mandatory alcohol treatment and the assessment adequately. There will be Aboriginal liaison workers and language speakers within these facilities, but it was not seen as necessary to be prescriptive about an interpreter at this point.
Ms WALKER: Minister, that clause is vague on what would be reasonably practicable. My query about it extends to the provision of interpreters. I wonder, given there will be a review in six months’ time, if one of the proposed amendments may be around enshrining in legislation the requirement that an interpreter, and/or any other necessary communication aids, be appropriately utilised during the process. It is not entirely clear as it stands currently.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes, that is a reasonable comment, member for Nhulunbuy.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.9 standing in my name. Currently, clause 20 of the bill requires the senior assessment clinician to either apply to the tribunal or refer the person to involuntary mental health assessment as soon as practicable after completing their assessment under this act. The amendment to the preamble of this clause makes it explicit that there is a 24-hour time limit for such an application or referral. This amendment will ensure there are clear time frames on clinicians to ensure referral or application occurs expediently following the assessment. This has been sought through the consultation process.
Mr GUNNER: This clause allows, potentially, two things to happen: either the person goes to the tribunal or they go for the mental health assessment. Why are senior clinicians not allowed, at this stage, to exercise their professional judgment and expertise and release those who do not fulfil the criteria for an order?
If the clinicians come to the medical opinion this person does not qualify, this clause means, even in that instance, they still have to go before the tribunal. The person is then detained even after they have been declared well, healthy, or sober - whatever the clinician’s diagnosis is.
Mrs LAMBLEY: This was debated extensively and the conclusion we came to is that by referring all cases to the tribunal you get consistency across the board and probably fair and objective final decisions about what happens to these people.
Clinicians are solely clinicians. The panel, of course, includes a legal representative, a community representative and a medical representative. Those three people can provide a much more balanced decision-making process.
Mr GUNNER: I assume you have received similar feedback to us. Some of the feedback around this clause is that preservation of the potential therapeutic relationship should not take precedence over the fundamental principles of individual liberty. An individual who is assessed as unsuitable for treatment, therefore, has no therapeutic relationship with the assessing clinicians, and it is perverse that the person may be stripped of their liberty to protect a relationship that does not, in fact, exist.
Mrs LAMBLEY: That is something you could debate for hours: does the clinician assessing the person develop a relationship with that person, and is that a relationship which needs to be sustained throughout the rehabilitation process? The general consensus amongst the people we consulted was, where possible, that relationship should be maintained as a clinical client relationship which should be sustainable.
Mr GUNNER: A similar situation where someone has to use their discretion and professional judgment would be when a police officer takes a person into custody and decides, after investigation, not to proceed with the charges and that person is then released. They do not have to go to court to say, ‘I need that person released’; the police officer can just make that judgment. I am wondering why we cannot trust the doctor in the same way.
Mrs LAMBLEY: I do not believe that is a good comparison. These people have been in the custody of the police, and now they are in a health setting where the person who is assessing them will be a health professional providing care, consultation, and treatment of a highly confidential nature. The general view was that should be sustained; it should be held in high regard and that person should not then have to make a decision about what happens to them ultimately.
Some clinicians will want to make a decision, and that will come through the treatment plan put forward to the tribunal. The clinicians will try to get these people to the tribunal and out the door as soon as possible if they are deemed not suitable.
Mr GUNNER: Is this one of the clauses you will be looking at in the six months review if, in hindsight, you say, ‘We can trust the senior assessment clinicians to make the decision that a person does not meet the criteria’? The people who do meet the criteria then go up. It does seem strange ...
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes, I believe this is a classic example of an area we should monitor. It is not about trust; it is about separating powers so there is no conflict of interest. Some may see it as a trust issue.
Mr GUNNER: For us there are two things: one was the trust issue and the doctor’s professional opinion, but the other one was if you are deemed not to meet the criteria for whatever reason - and it could be a really good reason - you are then held in detention post that. You can be held up for four days. I appreciate you do not want that person held that long; you want them to go before the tribunal. However, technically, they could be found to be fine and, therefore, free to go, but they cannot, they have to be detained until the tribunal hears their case, although the doctor has said they are okay.
Mrs LAMBLEY: You are right; there could be issues that come about through that time gap between being assessed as unsuitable and getting to a tribunal. We will monitor that.
Mr GUNNER: What evidence would the tribunal need to override that senior clinician’s decision? We are thinking there may be an instance when that happens, otherwise we will not be doing this. If the senior clinician says the person is fine and the person then goes before the tribunal, what grounds or basis would the tribunal take into account to then override the clinician’s decision?
Mrs LAMBLEY: One example would be the person may be working and they have just been through a hard time. The tribunal might take those types of factors into consideration more than the assessment clinician and decide it is better for the assessable person to go home, go to work, and come in, for example, as a voluntary weekend patient. That would be a reasonable example.
Mr GUNNER: You may have touched on this before. I do not know how busy the tribunal will be. It could have 400 cases in a day or none. We are still trying to work out how often it meets.
Would there be any priority given to cases that go before the tribunal? If you have been deemed by the clinician as not fitting the criteria, would you be the first case up so you can then be released?
Mrs LAMBLEY: I do not know. On the surface that makes sense to me, but I do not know how they will prioritise. My hunch would be in order of who is on the list. It is at the discretion of the tribunal.
In the operational guidelines, the clinicians can fast-track these people. They would be at the top of the tribunal list. I believe that in the first six months the tribunal will be sitting very regularly to get these people processed and into or out of treatment, whatever the case may be.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I know we will talk about assessment facilities later under clause 127. I might have missed it before, but when you say a person is held, does that mean they cannot leave this facility?
Mrs LAMBLEY: The assessment facility?
Mr WOOD: Yes.
Mrs LAMBLEY: That is correct. They are held for four days, 96 hours in total, for assessment within this new amendment.
Mr WOOD: They are not allowed to leave?
Mrs LAMBLEY: That is correct.
Mr WOOD: What happens if they do?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Until they go before a tribunal, the pause button will be on. If they abscond then they will be brought back to resume that process.
Mr WOOD: Who will bring them back?
Mrs LAMBLEY: The police.
Mr WOOD: Is there something that says the police can pick someone up for absconding from an assessment centre?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes, that is correct.
Mr WOOD: Where will I find that? Is it in this bill?
Mrs LAMBLEY: No, it is in the Police Administration Act.
Mr WOOD: All right. This is hypothetical and is going on what the member for Fannie Bay said. If the assessment clinician said to the person, ‘You should not be here. You are quite well, but I have to hold you here for four days’, and then the person absconded, would you bother chasing them?
Mrs LAMBLEY: The police would have to try to bring them back. The issue of absconding has been the most difficult to decide how to deal with. We do not want to criminalise these people. We do not want to penalise them or be punitive in any way. However, it is a mandatory treatment program and for people to abscond is flying in the face of that intent.
When they abscond from the assessment facility it is not considered as one of the three strikes and you are out. Do you know what I am referring to? The determination about their suitability for treatment has not been made by the tribunal.
Mr WOOD: I will leave my questions about the facility until we get to that clause.
Amendment agreed to.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.10 standing in my name. This is to insert a paragraph. This amendment to clause 20(a) is a technical amendment to make clear that the referral for an involuntary mental health referral is only to occur after completion of assessment under this act where the person has not been referred previously for such mental health assessment. It was identified in the drafting of the amendments to streamline clause 19.
Amendment agreed to.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.11 standing in my name. This is also a technical amendment to remove reference to ‘an order’ in clause 22. It is a consequential amendment that flows from the amendments to clause 22 which takes out the reference to ‘an order’. I have to delete ‘for an order’ in clause 20(b).
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.12 standing in my name. This amendment was identified in the drafting of the amendments to streamline clause 19. The amendment to clause 21(1) makes it clear that a referral for involuntary mental assessment should only occur where it has not been requested previously as a part of the assessment under this act.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.13 regarding clause 22(1). It is a wording change only. It was sought by the legal profession to remove a reference to senior assessment clinicians applying for ‘an order’ and does not materially change the effect of the provision. Within consultation there was a degree of discomfort about the phrasing in this section which led to the view that orders should be the sole domain of the tribunal.
Amendment agreed to.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.14 to clause 22(3)(b)(ii) removing the requirement for an assessment report to specifically include reference to the person’s cultural group.
Ms WALKER: Minister, why is that being omitted from the bill? In regard to collecting demographic information about the assessable person, the report must still state whether the person is an adult and other relevant information. Is this trying to hide the impact of this legislation on a particular cultural group by not collecting that information? It seems a curious omission.
Mrs LAMBLEY: It is a curious one. It was strongly recommended by the people we consulted with, the people who were primarily critical of this legislation. We did not feel strongly either way, to be honest. This amendment to clause 22(3)(b)(ii) removes a requirement for an assessment report to specifically include reference to the person’s cultural group. It flows from consultations with the legal sector which queried its inclusion, where other requirements equally important had not been required in the statute. It was never included to be singled out as a specific requirement above others and has, therefore, been amended.
It is not the case that this information will not be included where it is required in an application to the tribunal; simply it will not be a stand-out reference in the act.
We agreed with the bill the way it was, but were advised this was not the best way to go by the legal people - NAAJA, CAALAS and NT Legal Aid. If you object to it strongly I do not have a problem leaving the clause the way it is.
Ms WALKER: It seems a curious omission in the scheme we will be rolling out from 1 July 2013 - collecting data as to who is impacted under this scheme by cultural group. If there is a review within six months, my view is that it may come up as part of that review. It seems a curious omission.
Mrs LAMBLEY: We are still collecting this data. We will still have the data on individuals coming through regarding their cultural group or ethnicity. However, it will not be collected as part of that initial assessment which goes to the tribunal unless it is clinically relevant. The legal fraternity felt it was a little obscure to have that identified and not other …
Ms WALKER: Is it possible to vote against that amendment to defeat it?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes, if you do not want it removed. I do not feel strongly either way.
Ms WALKER: Thanks, minister.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Can I clarify that we did not want to exclude this data from being available. It was not about hiding information. The obvious comment is most people coming through will be Aboriginal. We know that. This is not some veiled attempt at hiding that, which is what a member of the media implied today.
Mr GUNNER: Slightly different, but the same area regarding information you are not collecting for the assessment report - is it individual’s health, finances, or family obligations which I understand appear sometimes in other forms that is collected? I am wondering whether the tribunal will need some of that information to make accurate decisions, say in regard to income management.
Mrs LAMBLEY: It will be provided operationally, but it will not be specified within the legislation.
You do not normally specify that level of detail within the legislation even though in practice operationally, you would be collecting that level of detail, hence the mismatch between the legislation and the operational requirements.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I was also thinking that in many Health department documents those are the very things you tick off. For consistency’s sake, I thought perhaps that should stay. Would we have to invite defeat of amendment 6.14? Would you have to do it or, would we have to do it? I am not sure.
Mrs LAMBLEY: We can withdraw this amendment. It would be nice if we all took responsibility for it, given it was recommended by your supporters rather than ours.
Mr WOOD: That was process.
Mr GUNNER: We are not possessive of that.
Mrs LAMBLEY: I am happy to withdraw that. I move that amendment be withdrawn.
Amendment withdrawn.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.15. This amendment to clause 22(3) is a consequential amendment that flows from the changes to clauses 11(1)(a) and 12(b) whereby mandatory treatment orders are now expressed in active language to require the person to ‘participate’ in treatment, rather than ‘receive’ treatment. This was a suggestion from the legal profession.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.16 which invites defeat of the existing clause 23.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23 negatived.
New clause 23:
Mrs LAMBLEY: I move amendment 6.17 standing in my name. Amendment 6.17 contains the new clause 23 to be inserted. Do you want me to continue, or do you have a question?
Mr GUNNER: Just a question about the notice of the action which will be taken being given to the assessable person, the assessable person’s primary contact and guardian, if any, and the person’s representative, if any. It does not ask for the person’s consent. Normally you would not circulate that information to people without their consent.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes, that is why the amendment has been changed to ensure the assessable person gives consent.
Amendment agreed to.
New clause 23 agreed to.
Clauses 24 to 28, by leave, taken together:
Mr GUNNER: I have a question to clause 24. Clause 24 provides:
Essentially, if held until transferred, they can be detained at that assessment centre. How long can they be detained then? Technically, they can be held for three months, I guess.
Mrs LAMBLEY: That is within the four-day timing of assessment. That is inclusive.
Mr GUNNER: If, at the end of that four days, transport has not been arranged, then they must go.
Mrs LAMBLEY: They are out the door.
Clauses 24 to 28 agreed to.
Clause 29:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.18 standing in my name. Amendment 6.18 invites defeat of existing clause 29.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29 negatived.
New clause 29:
Mrs LAMBLEY: I move amendment 6.19 standing in my name. Amendment 6.19 contains the new clause 29 to be inserted following the defeat of the old clause. This is on the transport on release. Is there any problem with that?
Ms WALKER: I have a couple of questions, minister. Clause 29 under transport on release states that if a person is released from an assessment facility under section 18, 25 or 28, the senior assessment clinician at the facility ‘may’ arrange for the person to be taken back to their usual place of residence. It does not actually require for that provision of transport to be provided, it simply says ‘may’.
What would happen, for instance, where we have a child? That child is released – but because the clinician ‘may’, not ‘must’, arrange for transport - there could be a child who is released but could be some way from home.
Mrs LAMBLEY: This bill only relates to adults, so no child would be effected by this. The reason why it is ‘may’ is because, at that point after completing 12 weeks of mandatory treatment, they are free to make their own decisions about where they go and what they do. ‘May’ means we are not forcing these people to do anything at that point; it is completely optional. If the person wishes to go to their usual place of residence - the amendment says to be taken to another place the senior assessment clinician reasonably believes to be safe - then that will happen. It does not sound strong enough but …
Ms WALKER: What if, for instance, I gave you a scenario where somebody from Elcho Island or Groote Eylandt had come into Darwin; they have prearranged travel on the Airnorth flight going back on a certain date, but get into a spot of bother in Darwin and end up being picked up and taken in for assessment; therefore, they have missed their flight home. The best thing for that individual would be, upon release, to head back to their home, but they are back out on the streets of Darwin having been released from a facility.
I am trying to understand the level of obligation in assisting transport because it simply says ‘may’. There is actually no requirement that they ‘must’ do it.
This is release from assessment, not treatment. Forgive me, minister, I have that wrong. This is someone who has been brought in for assessment and has been released from that assessment; they are not going into treatment. The person in this process might have missed their flight back to their community.
Mr GUNNER: Clause 25 provides for if a person is not an adult. The bill recognises there are possibilities for people who are not adults being caught up in this system and then being released. There is a chance a 17-year-old child could be caught up in the process.
Mrs LAMBLEY: The usual place of residence may be in Africa. Are we obliged to send them back to Africa? Do you know what I mean? I suppose …
Ms WALKER: That is a bit of long shot, minister. I am thinking that the greater likelihood is, let us say in northeast Arnhem Land where people have restricted access to alcohol, but they may come into Darwin on a scheduled trip, get into a spot of bother, miss their flight home because they have been taken in for assessment, but they have been released from that assessment. There appears to be no obligation within this bill that requires that provision of transport. It can include children. It is unlikely but it could.
Mrs LAMBLEY: We would never include children. It would never, ever include children.
Mr GUNNER: The bill provides for the release of someone who is not an adult, so the bill recognises there is a chance - it might be rare - that a person who is not an adult could be caught up in this legislation and go through an assessment centre. It gives the power for that person who is not an adult - a minor - to be released. I appreciate it is rare, but the bill does recognise there is a chance it could happen.
Mrs LAMBLEY: As a part of this bill, the identification process with the police is tightened so a person is fully identified at the police station …
Mr GUNNER: Clause 25 says:
Clause 25 releases someone who is not an adult. It makes complete sense; I can understand that.
Mrs LAMBLEY: They are not going to get to the assessment facility in the first place because they are a child.
Mr GUNNER: Your bill recognises there is a chance that might happen. I know what you are saying. It is unlikely, but …
Mrs LAMBLEY: All right. It would be a child protection matter. Anyway, okay, so …
Mr GUNNER: The issues that may arise in the courts we are talking to can affect somebody who is not a child as well. If you are coming in from Elcho Island – and, as we were briefed, in rural or remote areas, as you explained before, minister, if you reach that trigger point of three, four of five times, but cannot get to an assessment centre, the police will let you go.
There is a chance that people living remotely might have those triggers floating; they come into an urban centre. The first time they are caught the trigger goes because they are able to get to an assessment centre. They have pre-booked travel back to Elcho Island, which they miss because they are in the assessment centre. Under this provision they are released. There is no requirement on that assessment centre to get them back to Elcho Island, but they have missed their flight. They are left in Katherine, Darwin or wherever. It is not their fault they missed that flight as they have been picked up, and released from the assessment centre. They have been found not to meet the conditions to go to the three-month treatment. I think you understand what I have been saying. So long as they are out the front door …
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes, in that type of scenario we would definitely take them back to their usual place of residence, if that is where they want to go, or to a safe place. In policy, we would transport them. We would adhere to these two criteria. It leaves us that slight opportunity to make a discretionary call - must compel …
Mr GUNNER: Will it be in the guidelines? Would this be saying that is captured in the guidelines? The guidelines say if this situation occurs …
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes.
Mr GUNNER: When we see the guidelines it will be in there?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes.
Mr GUNNER: In the guidelines it can say ‘must’, but in the legislation it is ‘may’ because of the African possibility.
Mrs LAMBLEY: That is right, member for Fannie Bay.
Ms WALKER: Minister, if I could add to that as well? Transport is provided in other situations, for instance, when a person is being released from custody such as following court or on release from prison. These are people who have been in the justice system.
However, in these circumstances around release from an assessment period, these are people who have done nothing wrong, are not charged with anything, yet may find themselves high and dry and stranded.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes. I suppose another difference is they have been placed in protective custody and referred to the assessment centre. When released from protective custody, you are not necessarily transported anywhere. The door is open and you wander out is my understanding.
In most situations, we will take people where they want to go or arrange transport. However, there will be the odd case where that is not realistic.
Amendment agreed to.
New clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.20 standing in my name. The amendment reduces the time for the tribunal to make a decision from seven days to 96 hours or four consecutive days from the time of lodgement of the application by the senior assessment clinician.
As mentioned, I have taken on board comments from the legal sector, human rights, and other welfare groups that the length of time a person remained detained in an assessment facility awaiting a tribunal hearing was too long.
Mr GUNNER: Minister, you have made this amendment based on feedback from the critics. Essentially, in the feedback we have from the critics regarding how long is too long, they were asking if you could bring it from seven days to 24 hours. You have brought it from seven days to four days. If you have made a decision to reduce it, why not reduce it to the 24 hours they were asking for?
Mrs LAMBLEY: In reality it will take less than four days to assess most people to be processed through this system and for them to appear before the tribunal. The four days gives us a little flexibility around weekends. If someone is taken into protective custody on a Friday night, the tribunal will not necessarily meet on a Saturday or Sunday. It gives time to allow for that. It also gives the tribunal time to collect more information and preside for a little longer over cases where they require more information and they see it as a bit more challenging to make a decision.
I do not believe it was put to us that it be reduced to 24 hours - one day. Going from seven days to four was seen as a significant change and improvement.
Mr GUNNER: That mainly came from the legal advice we received. Again, I know comparisons are not always neat, but a magistrate can often make orders over the phone. Things can happen quickly.
Mrs LAMBLEY: We are not talking about a magistrate though.
Mr GUNNER: I know.
Mrs LAMBLEY: It is a three-person tribunal, which is a little harder to coordinate. These are maximum periods. We do not want to have people sitting around in limbo for eight days if it is not required. The sooner they get into treatment and on with their lives the better for everyone.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.21 standing in my name. Amendment 6.21 invites defeat of the existing clause 33.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 33 negatived.
New clause 33:
Mrs LAMBLEY: I move amendment 6.22 standing in my name. Amendment 6.22 contains the new clause 33 to be inserted.
The amendments to this clause are wording and structural changes suggested by the legal profession. The key change is to remove reference to the balance of probabilities and make it clear that if a mandatory treatment order is not made the tribunal must otherwise order the person’s release. New clause 33(b) also resolves a view that the former wording was skewed to decisions by the tribunal to making an order for treatment rather than considering the merits, or otherwise, of making an order.
Amendment agreed to.
New clause 33 agreed to.
Clauses 34 to 35, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 36:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.23 standing in my name. Amendment 6.23 invites defeat of existing clause 36.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 36 negatived.
New clause 36:
Mrs LAMBLEY: I move amendment 6.24 standing in my name. Amendment 6.24 contains the new clause 36 to be inserted.
The amendment to clause 36 is a consequential amendment flowing from the change in clause 31 to reduce the time frame for a decision of the tribunal from seven days to 96 hours. New clause 36 now provides that if the tribunal does not make an order within 96 hours, the tribunal is deemed to have made an order for the person’s release. This is concise and clear in the time frame, and manages any ambiguity about the decision and circumstances to release a person from assessment.
Amendment agreed to.
New clause 36 agreed to.
Clauses 37 to 41, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 42:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendments 6.25 standing in my name. Amendment 6.25 invites defeat of existing clause 42.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 42 negatived.
New clause 42:
Mrs LAMBLEY: I move amendment 6.26 standing in my name. Amendment 6.26 contains the new clause 42 to be inserted following defeat of the old clause.
Clause 42, which sits in Subdivision 3, applies to persons who have been detained and reassessed in an assessment facility as a result of a breach of an existing mandatory community treatment order - refer to process under new section 128(b) of the Police Administration Act. They are on existing community treatment orders.
The new clause 42 is a consequential amendment flowing from the change in clause 31 to reduce the time frame for a decision of the tribunal from seven days to 96 hours. New clause 42 provides that if the tribunal does not make a mandatory residential treatment order within 96 hours, the tribunal is deemed to have made an order for the person’s release.
The person’s existing mandatory community treatment order would continue on their release.
Amendment agreed to.
New clause 42 agreed to.
Clauses 43 to 53, by leave, taken together:
Ms WALKER: Madam Deputy Chair, I have a question around clause 51, which relates to appeals to local court.
Minister, the provision for appeal under clause 51, when read together with clause 113, is a little concerning. We anticipate most people appearing before the tribunal will not be represented by a lawyer, although sometimes they may have a departmental advocate. Given appeals are restricted to questions of law, the opportunity for a person subject to mandatory treatment orders to get legal advice about their position or to appeal a decision is severely restricted. A lay advocate cannot give legal advice, let alone legal advice on whether there is a point of law. It is also unlikely a lay advocate will have the capacity to raise a point of law at the tribunal hearing.
We are also concerned, through stakeholders that have contacted us, with the requirement that appeals refer to a question of law only. It is unclear whether this is intended to extend to questions and administrative review, including procedural fairness and reasonableness. This clause is much clearer than the equivalent provisions, for example, in the Mental Health Act.
In relation to that, I have some specific questions. What is the position in relation to the awarding of costs? What additional resources will be provided to legal services to ensure people have access to adequate legal representation? Will your agency be funding a duty lawyer service for the tribunal so people have access to legal representation?
Mrs LAMBLEY: To answer the last one first, we will not be providing a legal person to attend the tribunal hearings and represent the interests of people. We will be providing an advocate who may, as you have probably read, be someone with a legal background. However, they may be someone from a health background. This is not a judicial process as such; it is a civil tribunal so not technically a legal process. However, the implications from the decision could be considered legal.
In legal representation through an appeals process, people would be able to access a lawyer through the usual services of legal aid or a private solicitor. That might be out of the question for many people coming through this system.
No, we have not provided any additional costs to provide specific legal services in the case of representing people going before the tribunal or appealing. In costs associated with - are you saying if they were sued?
Ms WALKER: Where legal costs have been incurred such as if the person has been taken in for assessment?
Mrs LAMBLEY: No, we have not made provision for that either.
Ms WALKER: Minister, an advocate is not necessarily a legal person and there are duty lawyer services for some of the analogous tribunals; for mental health a duty lawyer service is provided. Under your bill, people in this system appear to be at a distinct disadvantage in access to legal representation.
Mrs LAMBLEY: In the case of people before the Mental Health Tribunal, the Department of Health does not provide funding or legal representation within that tribunal either.
Ms WALKER: They provide a duty lawyer?
Mrs LAMBLEY: No, not the Department of Health. The people requiring legal representation within the mental health system use legal aid or a private solicitor through a pro bono arrangement. This system is no different from the mental health system in that respect.
Mr GUNNER: Someone is paying the bill for that duty lawyer; it might be Justice. There is a payment for the provision of legal representation; it may not be your department meeting the costs. I understand what you are saying about this not being a criminal process, but the effect of it is that someone does go away for three months detention, so they are detained against their will.
It would seem that person would have the right to legal representation. The advice we have had from NAAJA and others is they cannot afford to do that. It would only be similar to what happens in the mental health situation where the bill is fronted for that duty lawyer. The question is, will that person have representation?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes, as I said, through the advocate we are funding. I know this puts pressure on legal aid services but, essentially, that will end up being the option available to people if they require legal representation going through this process.
Ms WALKER: Minister, we are talking about at least 800 people a year who may be going through that service. The legal services like NAAJA and CALAAS are simply not funded adequately to be able to provide legal representation to an additional 800 people who may be seeking it through this system. It seems to be inherently unfair.
Mrs LAMBLEY: It may, considering your perspective. This is a health service, a health program. Despite how people might like to couch it, it is not a punitive criminal process …
Ms WALKER: There is a big legal element to it.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Well …
Mr GUNNER: They are being held for three months against their will.
Mrs LAMBLEY: There is legislation that guides the treatment of these people, and it is mandatory; they will be held against their will …
Mr GUNNER: Yes, three months’ detention. There will be a few people who consider that punitive. While they are getting health treatment, a certain number of people will consider it punitive that they are being held for three months. I know exactly what you are saying about it being a health treatment, but they will be held against their will for three months.
At the point of that decision being made about whether they are held for three months or not, they should have some legal representation to ensure their rights are being respected.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Their rights will be respected in the fact that they are going before a tribunal of three people – legal, health and community representatives. They will have the option of using an advocate who will be there. Regardless of whether they are used or not, that person’s job will be to be available to each and every person going through the tribunal process.
It may not be satisfactory to some people in the community that they are not offered a solicitor at that point in time, but the whole process is about caring and ensuring these people are availed of mandatory treatment if they meet the eligibility ...
Ms WALKER: They may not quite see it as being taken into a caring environment, minister. I imagine many people would be quite alarmed and frightened. You have already said we are talking predominantly about Indigenous people. We have language and cultural barriers, and I imagine access to a legal aid service, should people require it, would be essential.
Mr GUNNER: It might be something you capture in your six month review, but it probably should be caught earlier. You may find if these people do not have access to legal representation issues will emerge from that. It is probably not a funding decision for your department, so it might be that you take on an advocacy role in Cabinet. People who go before this tribunal face a loss of liberty for three months. No matter how good the intentions and how much you consider it a health program, it is loss of liberty for three months. It should be considered that they get representation.
Mrs LAMBLEY: We are not denying them access to legal representation. They will have access to legal aid and, if resourcing of legal aid is an issue for legal aid, they need to take that up with ...
Mr GUNNER: Legal aid is resourced by you.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Not the Department of Health.
Mr GUNNER: The NT government.
Mrs LAMBLEY: They will have access to an advocate. It may not meet your satisfaction, but it is adequate. We are happy to start this initiative on that basis. If it turns out it is inadequate and there is a huge demand for legal aid services, we can address that problem further down the track.
Mr GUNNER: A question around the role of the advocate. One of the issues raised with us very early by NAAJA, and perhaps CAALAS as well, was one of the roles of the lawyer - this might be the role of the advocate and is why I am seeking clarification - would be not just at the first hearing, it would also be about visiting the facility and the client having ongoing care. Would the advocate be taking ongoing care beyond that first hearing of the tribunal?
Mrs LAMBLEY: The answer to that is no, the community visitor program would be doing that. I have spoken to staff from NAAJA about this issue and they have a very broad view of the role of a solicitor in this situation. In an ideal world where there are unlimited resources, having a solicitor not only represent you at a tribunal but follow you through that 12-week period would be fabulous. In reality, I do not believe many of these people will want or require it.
We have been told anecdotally through our consultation with the current residential alcohol rehab providers that the involuntary people they have in their facilities are coming through the corrections pathway and most of them, after a very short period of time, settle down and are quite happy to be there. They see it as a time to rest, contemplate and make the most of the health and welfare facilities available.
Let us see how it unfolds. If there is a significant demand for legal aid services then we will have to address that. We cannot deny people if there is a demand for legal services. They will have access to legal services; it just might not be on the scale some people expect.
Ms WALKER: Will the person in assessment or rehab have the right to have their legal representative visit them in assessment and rehab?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes, sure.
Clauses 43 to 53 agreed to.
Clause 54:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.27 standing in my name. Amendment 6.27 invites defeat of existing clause 54.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 54 negatived.
New clause 54:
Mrs LAMBLEY: I Move amendment 6.28 standing in my name. Amendment 6.28 contains new clause 54 to be inserted following the defeat of the old clause.
New clause 54 clarifies that not only must the senior treatment clinician admit and detain a person at a treatment centre, but specifies a person must remain at the treatment centre unless permitted to leave for a short period by agreement with the senior treatment clinician or through a change in their order status.
This new clause supports a changed offence provision in clause 72 which makes it an offence for a person to be absent from the centre by making it clear that being absent without authority, and intentionally, is an offence in that it clearly compels a person not to absent themselves. This provision was considered necessary as part of the drafting of the new clause 72 offence, which I will discuss in a moment.
Mr WOOD: Minister, would a person be allowed to leave a mandatory residential treatment centre under supervision to go hunting, crabbing or fishing?
Mrs LAMBLEY: I believe so, yes, if it was considered useful or appropriate.
Mr WOOD: I thought it might have been for a funeral or legal reasons, but there can be broad reasons for absence?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes. At Nhulunbuy, for example, the staff told me they take clients or patients to the oval. There is an oval down the road and they kick a footy around and other stuff. They go outside the centre for various reasons. Some are allowed to go shopping after a period of time.
Mr WOOD: I did not see the word ‘stuff’ in that section.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Sorry, I am getting tired. My language is deteriorating.
Amendment agreed to.
New clause 54 agreed to.
Clauses 55 to 67, by leave, taken together:
Mr GUNNER: Clause 62 says:
It is good news if you can be released early, but it notes they may then apply. Under what conditions might they not apply?
Mrs LAMBLEY: The information provided to the senior assessment clinician by the community treatment provider has to be tested. They need to assess whether to apply or not apply for a change to the treatment order. There is some discretion around the professional assessment made by the clinician.
Mr GUNNER: That is a check and balance on the community treatment provider?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes.
Mr GUNNER: Essentially, the grounds would be if the senior assessment clinician decides the person – they would be sober by that stage. How do you decide if someone is …
Mrs LAMBLEY: You go back to the original assessment criteria for the person being suitable for treatment, and if there has been some change in the person’s circumstances - health, status, or whatever - that might mean the senior assessment clinician might decide to apply for a revocation of the order.
Mr GUNNER: Essentially, the senior clinician would make a call on the person about whether they genuinely have met their target, criteria, or whatever it happens to be. In that instance it is not so much a judgment on the person but the provider about whether the provider has made the right call.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes, it could go either way. The person could be discharged sooner or …
Mr GUNNER: I read this as most likely being discharged sooner.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Right.
Mr GUNNER: Yes.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Or deemed no longer appropriate for treatment. There could be many scenarios. My guess is this would not happen frequently.
Ms WALKER: Madam Deputy Chair, I had a question in relation to clause 65, which is around the preparation of aftercare plans. Clause 65 states an aftercare plan must be prepared for a person who receives treatment under a mandatory treatment order and could be between three and six months. What aftercare services are currently available in urban centres and remote centres across the Territory?
Mrs LAMBLEY: There are some aftercare services available in most of the regional centres throughout the Territory – Darwin, Katherine, Tennant and Alice Springs. There is no doubt we will have to strengthen that part of the sector and put more resources into the existing aftercare services. Most of the existing residential rehab programs we are funding to provide our mandatory alcohol treatment services are currently providing aftercare services. Most of them have discharge planners - aftercare workers who work with other community services. They have a network which links up.
For example, in Tennant Creek they have different stages of rehabilitation. You go from a residential rehab program into a transitional housing situation, then into the community with community support.
We will be providing extra community-based Alcohol and Other Drug workers attached to remote health centres to support the clinical management and managing other health services. We will be enhancing additional skills development and support services through the AOD sector, for example, the CAAPS family program, BushMob bush skills, and FORWAARD, and we will be developing tailored individual plans.
Everyone who leaves will have to have an aftercare plan, which is like a discharge plan, and will be followed up by the AOD services in the community, both within the Department of Health and the non-government sector.
This is an area we have committed to strengthen in the coming years. Stage 1 is the very basic roll-out of this and where we are at now. Stage 2 will be the development of the specific purpose-built facilities which is what you expressed concern about before, member for Nelson, and the rolling out of more transitional care facilities.
Over the next three years, the whole landscape of rehabilitation and aftercare services will be much bigger and better than it is now. We are committed to that.
Ms WALKER: Given this new alcohol mandatory treatment starts on Monday, these aftercare services would need to be in place within a couple of months, I imagine. You said there are some aftercare services in regional area, but clearly in remote centres, perhaps other than where there is a public health clinic, there is very little there to support people with an aftercare plan.
Mrs LAMBLEY: That is correct at the moment. We have three months to augment many of these services because, obviously, the first lot of discharges from mandatory alcohol rehabilitation will not be until around October, so we have a little time. These services take some time to plan and establish.
Ms WALKER: They certainly do in these remote locations. I am trying to picture what it would look like. If you are contracting to an NGO to provide a service, obviously it is costly employing individuals, just in the great difficulties with housing you can offer them in the remote communities to employ people. Your chances of finding somebody on the community may be an option.
Clauses 55 to 67 agreed to.
Clause 68:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.29 and 6.30. These amendments to clauses 68(1) and 70 are consequential amendments that flow from the changes to clauses 11(1)(a) and 12(b) whereby mandatory treatment orders are now expressed in active language to require the person to ‘participate in’ treatment, rather than ‘receive’ treatment. This was a suggestion from the legal profession and has been debated already.
Amendments agreed to.
Clause 68, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 69:
Ms WALKER: I have a question around clause 69. Clause 69 is in relation to access to records. This clause enables certain persons to access the records of a treatment centre or a community treatment provider, and treatment providers may refuse on certain grounds.
My question is in relation to clause 69(2). Is it reasonable to refuse a person access to their entire record if only one part of that record relates to someone who may be adversely affected?
Mrs LAMBLEY: That is not the intent; it is access to information, not their entire medical record. People could have access to their record, withholding the part that might be sensitive or deemed potentially harmful to the person. This happens in all health areas. I worked in psychiatry years ago and there were some things considered not healthy for the person to read at times.
Ms WALKER: Are you saying, minister, there is provision for limited or restricted access to records?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes.
Ms WALKER: Thanks for clarifying that.
Clause 69 agreed to.
Clause 70:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.30 standing in my name.
Mr WOOD: Can I ask a question about that one, minister? Clause 70, charge for consumables - you have been quoting the legal people. Are the legal people still opposed to this clause?
Mrs LAMBLEY: The ones that lodged submissions were critical. When I first heard Vendale and CAAAPU charged $25 a day, I was a little surprised too. You do not expect these places to charge. However, when they explain, ‘This is what we do. People come in for treatment, voluntarily or involuntarily, and we provide a service. We think it is reasonable they pay a minimal amount of $25 a day.’ I think some of them charge $26 a day. That sounded reasonable, so that is how we came to this conclusion and decided to include it in the bill. I know some people will never accept it and felt it was draconian or – what was the word they used?
Mr GUNNER: Dickensian.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Dickensian, that is it.
Mr GUNNER: That is a good word. I know you do not like this bill being compared to anything in the corrections area, but if you are in prison you get access to free medical and dental care; it is only when you are working that you pay. Yet in this situation people are being made to pay. It seems illogical.
Mrs LAMBLEY: They will only be paying for board, not medical services. That could end up in the thousands and it is a medical service, so there is no expectation whatsoever that they pay for their medical treatment.
Mr GUNNER: The clause says ‘including medication’.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Most would be eligible for free medication. It is not an issue. I would think that all of them would be on some type of social security; but I will not assume that so let us say most.
The $25 a day is really food and perhaps basic toiletries or something. My view is reflected here. Why should they not contribute? That is, obviously, rather contentious.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 70, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 71 agreed to.
Clause 72:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.31 standing in my name. This is ‘offence to be absent from the treatment centres’. This amendment replaces the existing offence for absconding from a treatment centre with a new offence.
As I indicated publicly, the government is committed to ensuring the bill is fair and targeted at treating people with chronic drinking problems, rather than criminalising problem drinkers. I have taken on board concerns from community, human rights, and legal groups in relation to the offence in clause 72 which makes it an offence for a person to abscond from a treatment centre. I have now moved to amend this offence such that it is only an offence if a person has intentionally absconded three times from a treatment centre, other than in accordance with the act.
Mr GUNNER: You touched upon this earlier, minister. While we are on this clause, could you explain why it is not an offence to abscond from an assessment centre? Obviously we are not interested in criminalising the bill, but for consistency could you explain why it is an offence to abscond from a treatment centre but not an offence to abscond from an assessment centre?
Mrs LAMBLEY: When someone is in an assessment centre they have not been deemed suitable for mandatory alcohol treatment at that point so they are under no compulsion to be detained for 12 weeks of mandatory treatment.
However, if they are in a treatment centre they are, and they are required to stay for the 12 weeks. Absconding from an assessment centre will not be an offence; they will just be returned by the police. If they abscond from a treatment centre once they will be returned by the police, the second time they will be returned by the police and, on the third time it will become an offence.
Mr GUNNER: Why is it not an offence to fail to comply with a community mandatory treatment order?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Say it again. Why is it not an offence …
Mr GUNNER: This talks about the mandatory residential treatment order but not community treatment orders.
Mrs LAMBLEY: It is about security. The community treatment facilities will not be as secure. Their security is at a much lower level. Two different types of facilities will be providing similar services, or basically the same services, but one mandatory, one community.
Mr GUNNER: Essentially, if someone is sent to the community treatment centre, or receives a community mandatory treatment order, in making that decision you are deciding you trust that person to leave the premises. It is only when they go to a residential treatment centre that they have to be secured and, therefore, the penalty exists?
Mrs LAMBLEY: The community treatment centres will cater for the needs of people who are working, for example, who will come to the treatment centre at night or on the weekends. I guess people who go to the community treatment centres will be treated differently, with a lower level of security.
Mr GUNNER: The community treatment order obviously still has conditions. They are still meant to do certain things, but …
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes, if you do not turn up when you are …
Mr GUNNER: Then there is no penalty.
Mrs LAMBLEY: … required to be there, then you bring it back for review by the tribunal. Then they could be placed on a mandatory treatment order within a mandatory treatment facility.
Mr GUNNER: There is a power in the bill for the community treatment order to be revoked, and for the tribunal to then make it a residential treatment order?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes.
Mr WOOD: That answered another question. I was getting a bit worried what conditions would be in place there.
If a person is put in a mandatory residential facility - I thought the word ‘mandatory’ meant you would build a facility that is extremely difficult to leave. Will these facilities be secure? In other words, people will find it extremely difficult to leave?
Mrs LAMBLEY: All these facilities will have a level of security and people will be dissuaded from absconding. Will they be like a maximum security prison? No. Will they be like any type of prison? No. There will be no barbed wire or security to the level of a prison. People will be locked into the facility; there will be CCTV cameras and high fences. They will be informed, probably on a daily basis, of the consequences of absconding. It is in line with our philosophy that we are not criminalising drunks. We need to keep them there, but we are not going to lock them in as they would be in a prison.
The other thing we were told during the consultation process with the residential rehabilitation providers was if people want to get out, they can get out; they will do extraordinary things to jump the fence and get away. That is a reality of residential rehabilitation. There is involuntary rehabilitation in existence now and people escape and are brought back by the police. That is where we are at.
We will review that. If it means every other person who comes into mandatory rehab is absconding, then we have a big problem, and we will address that.
Mr WOOD: That is good. One of the reasons I said I would not vote is because I agree, you are trying not to have people go to prison for being drunk but, in a circuitous way, you are if the facility has poor security, you know someone wants to get out, and it is relatively easy to get out.
I have the plans for CAAAPU. They said they did not want a big, high fence, they wanted one like they have now. I believe even I could get over that one without too much help, so it does not give you the impression of security. You are saying you do not want rolls of barbed wire. You can have similar things occur at the secure care centres where it does not look too bad, but it is secure. My concern is if you do not make it secure enough, they will end up in prison.
I understand where you are coming from. I have to be convinced; I am a bit of a doubting Thomas. I might be convinced as you build them. My original problem was that I believe we should have built them and then put the legislation in. If I agree with you, I am to some extent approving some facilities which I do not believe are adequate. I am not saying they will be permanent but, at the present time, I do not believe they are adequate. My concern is if the facilities are not good enough, we will end up with people in prison. I will leave it at that. We could argue all night – oh, hang on, we are going all night.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, can we stick to the clauses and the amendments now? We are not even halfway through. I believe everyone is getting a little weary; so could we drive this a bit quicker?
Ms WALKER: Madam Deputy Chair, we have questions about clauses which are not necessarily in relation to amendments. This is what this process is about; it is the only opportunity we have. It is 1.45 am, but this is very important legislation and the opposition would like the opportunity to place on the record and raise concerns we have about various clauses of this bill, whether or not there is a committee stage amendment attached to it.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 72, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 73 to 78, by leave, taken together:
Ms WALKER: Madam Deputy Chair, I have some questions. Clause 74 is in relation to the administration of medication, and provides that a medical practitioner, or other qualified person acting on their direction can administer medication to a person in an assessment facility or treatment centre without their consent in the following circumstances: if it necessary to prevent a risk of imminent harm to the person or others, and it is the least restrictive intervention available to address that risk.
It also stipulates that the Chief Executive Officer may issue directions and guidelines about the administration of medication under this clause.
Given that today is Friday and this legislation will commence next Monday, what guidelines and directions have been prepared by the Chief Executive Officer in relation to the administration of medication? Is it possible to get a copy of these guidelines?
Mrs LAMBLEY: They have definitely been developed - not by the CEO, but they will be signed off by the CEO - in time for the assent of the bill.
Ms WALKER: Is it possible to obtain a copy of them, minister, when they are available?
Mrs LAMBLEY: When they are available, yes. There is no reason why you cannot have a copy.
Ms WALKER: Not just for us, but others would be interested in seeing them.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes, sure.
Ms WALKER: Does this section around administration of medication extend to the administration of chemical restraints - medications of a sedative nature?
Mrs LAMBLEY: No, the guideline does not allow for that.
Ms WALKER: I have another question in relation to clause 75. I have questions on clauses 75, 77 and 78.
Clause 75 is about the use of reasonable force. Again, it is around guidelines. What guidelines apply to the declaration of authorised persons by the CEO? Is it possible to get a copy of those guidelines as well?
Mrs LAMBLEY: The guidelines have been developed around what is already in use within the Department of Health around the use of force, and they can be provided also.
Ms WALKER: Thanks, minister. Why has this provision not been drafted to reflect the safeguards that exist in other legislations such as those contained in Part IIA of the Criminal Code Act?
Mrs LAMBLEY: I am not familiar with Part IIA of the Criminal Code Act. I have been advised that what we have here is consistent with the Part IIA of the Criminal Code Act regarding the authorised officers.
Ms WALKER: Thanks, minister. I have a question for you in relation to clause 77 which is in relation to power to search persons. This clause allows for a police officer, or authorised officer as appointed under clause 126, to search a person in an assessment facility or treatment centre.
While there is a requirement to keep a record of the exercise of the search power, there is no requirement to record the nature and quantity of any items which have been seized as a result of that search. Do you think it is good practice to allow searches to be conducted with potentially dangerous items, including drugs seized, but no requirement to record this?
Mrs LAMBLEY: There is a requirement to record what is seized in the operational guidelines. Given they had already been searched by the police before coming to an assessment facility or treatment centre, it is unlikely too much would be found. However, in the event things are seized they are recorded.
Ms WALKER: That is contained within the guidelines not the legislation itself?
Mrs LAMBLEY: That is correct.
Ms WALKER: Thank you.
I have one question around clause 78 dealing with search and seizure generally. The clause defines a frisk search and an ordinary search as defined in clause 69. It also requires that a search officer, in clause 70, be a person of the same sex and provides for how search officers can deal with seized items.
What advice has been provided by police on the development of these powers and what protocols or arrangements have been developed with police to ensure the safe custody of seized things?
Mrs LAMBLEY: These powers are consistent with other legislation including the …
Ms WALKER: There is then provision, even though it does not appear apparent …
Mrs LAMBLEY: Apparently, we have taken it from other acts so it is consistent.
Ms WALKER: And it is within guidelines, not within the act itself?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes.
Ms WALKER: Thank you, minister.
Clauses 73 to 78 agreed to.
Clause 79:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.32 standing in my name. This amendment is to fix a typographical error and place a full stop at the end of clause 79(3)(b) as clause 79(3)(c) is to be deleted in the next amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.33 to delete clause 79(3)(c) and remove the possibility for a person to be called upon to assist a police officer or authorised officer in the apprehension of a person under the act. This amendment is consistent with the government’s position that only police and authorised officers who hold certain qualifications and training should be able to apprehend people.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 79, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 80 to 89, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 90:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.34. This amendment removes a requirement for community visitors to visit assessment facilities and treatment centres at a reasonable time without notice, and allows them to now visit at any time.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 90, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 91 to 97, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 98:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.35 standing in my name. This amendment to clause 98(2)(a) is another example of a consequential amendment which flows from the changes to clauses 11(1)(a) and 12(b) whereby mandatory treatment orders are now expressed in active language to require the person to ‘participate in’ treatment rather than ‘receive’ treatment.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 98, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 99 to 119, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 120:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.36. This clause corrects a minor technical oversight in clause 120(1)(b) to ensure that not only is the secretary of the Department of Human Services given notice of both extensions of income management orders and reductions in their period of operation, it was always the intent that these orders should be reduced and extended based on the person’s individual circumstances.
It is noted that regardless of extensions, the maximum period for an income management order remains 12 months.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 120, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 121 to 122, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 123:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.37. Clause 123 currently creates two offences: to intentionally publish or broadcast the name of an affected person in a proceeding, or to intentionally publish or broadcast anything that may identify the affected person. The offences are punishable by up to 12 months imprisonment or 200 penalty units.
The amendment inserts new clause 123(4) which makes it clear that an affected person can give consent to a publication or broadcast and not be committing an offence by doing so.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 123, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 124 to 132, by leave, taken together:
Mr GUNNER: I have questions to 126, 127, 128, 129 and 130, but they all boil down to essentially the same question. Can I have a copy of the guidelines, the criteria, or the forms? I thought it might be easy if I made a bulk request for the guidelines, criteria, and forms in those clauses.
Mr WOOD: I was also going to ask a question on clause 127, the assessment facilities. Have you seen those assessment guidelines already?
Mrs LAMBLEY: No, I have not seen them.
Mr WOOD: This is the area that really concerns me. When a person goes into an assessment, they are in withdrawal. It is the first seven to 10 days that is the danger time, I gather, from talking to a doctor. I imagine there is a fair bit of risk if you are holding a person in this facility at that stage. They will need to be checked all the time. This is one of the facilities which has to be purpose built so people will not harm themselves because they are going through this withdrawal stage. Do you know if, in the guidelines, there are some rules that highlight how this facility must be built?
Mrs LAMBLEY: The clinicians have to be satisfied that the risks within a facility are minimal or, preferably, non-existent. You would not specify that within the building requirements. It is up to the clinicians to be directive in that way, I am advised.
Mr WOOD: I gather cells in watch houses are now designed in such a way as to reduce the chance of a death in custody?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes.
Mr WOOD: You are holding a person in custody who is withdrawing from an addiction. Will this facility be built with similar guidelines as if you held someone in a watch house cell? In other words, is it designed to reduce, as much as possible, the chances of a death in custody?
Mrs LAMBLEY: The purpose-built facilities will be completely designed and built to minimise harm. The department has gone through the medi-hotel and minimised any risk to people. For example, all of the rooms had two manholes in them. They no longer exist.
That is our priority; we do not want these people to hurt themselves. We want them to be safe, get through the detoxification period and start reaping the benefits of this opportunity.
I can reassure you, member for Nelson, we are on the same page. The new purpose-built facilities will be just right for this purpose.
Mr WOOD: I understand that, but my concern was they are not there now. We will be taking people into facilities which, if not built correctly, could put them at risk. Having spoken to a doctor who gave me some papers on this and explained that period of seven to 10 weeks is the dangerous period, I hope those facilities, even now, do not have that risk.
Mrs LAMBLEY: I have been assured of that, because that is our priority too. It has been an issue raised with us by many people. Of course, the Department of Health is extremely committed to safety within all their facilities, and these will be no different.
The Nhulunbuy facility – you described dongas being unsuitable or not desirable …
Mr Wood: Which one?
Mrs LAMBLEY: The CAAAPU dongas; that they are not particularly good. The Nhulunbuy facility is essentially a group of dongas and it has been quite serviceable and …
Ms WALKER: They are not dongas.
Mrs LAMBLEY: They are demountables, aren’t they? Demountables - some of them are.
Mr WOOD: This is mandatory, not voluntary; that is the reason I am concerned.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Maybe I imagined that. Anyway, the message is we are minimising harm at every point.
Clauses 124 to 132 agreed to.
Clause 133:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.38. This amendment removes the ability of senior treatment clinicians to delegate their powers. There might be a person who acts as a senior treatment clinician in their absence; they are not able to delegate their powers to others while operating in their role.
This amendment comes from concerns raised by the legal sector about the importance of ensuring serious statutory powers held by senior treatment clinicians do not become delegated and that the powers and responsibilities of a senior treatment clinician not be devolved. This is consistent with the structure of the provisions relating to senior assessment clinicians. We believe this is a sensible amendment consistent with the expectations of the position.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 133, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 134 agreed to.
Clause 135:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.39. This amendment replaces clause 135(3) with a new provision that has come about as a result of consultation with the legal sector and other groups. The legal sector suggested that in order to improve probity in the appointment of authorised officers, the Chief Executive requirements of authorised officers be published. I also sought that the CE be required to publish other information he considered appropriate for the performance of authorised officers’ functions.
Amendment agreed to.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.40. As mentioned, this amendment inserts a new clause 135(5). This new clause 135(5) will require the Chief Executive Officer to issue directions and specify the qualifications, training, and other appropriate performance requirements for authorised officers in the exercise of their functions.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 135, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 136 to 149, by leave, taken together, and agreed to.
New clauses 149A and 149B:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.41. This amendment inserts a new Division 1A with clauses 149A and 149B in Part 9 of the act which deals with consequential amendments.
The new clauses 149A and 149B amend the Coroners Act. They amend the definition of a person held in care in section 12(1) under the Coroners Act to include a person being assessed or treated under a residential treatment order under this act.
The effect of this is to make the death of such a person an automatic reportable death to the Coroner under the definition of a reportable death, paragraph (a)(vii), in section 12(1).
This amendment means that deaths that occur in a mandatory assessment or a secure residential treatment centre are reported to the Coroner in the same way as patients in custody under the Mental Health and Related Services Act
Mr GUNNER: My understanding of this amendment – and, obviously, we all hope this does not happen, but just for clarification - is it means it is a reportable death to the Coroner but it will not be considered a death in custody. It moves out of the death in custody category but still is reportable to the Coroner and dealt with.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes.
Amendment agreed to.
New clauses 149A and 149B agreed to.
Clauses 150 to 164, by leave, taken together:
Mr GUNNER: I have some comments to clause 157. Clause 157 removes the SMART Court order and the BAT orders but keeps in place the ID and scanning systems. It means the power still exists in this act for there to be an ID system at the point of sale.
Mrs LAMBLEY: You are right, member for Fannie Bay. The draft bill includes provisions for repeal of the SMART Court and the Alcohol Reform (Prevention of Alcohol-Related Crime and Substance Misuse) Act as follows.
The Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Bill repeals the requirement in sections 31A(2)(a) and (ab) of the Liquor Act and for the minister to establish an identification system to check whether a person is subject to a SMART Court order or notice or order under the Alcohol Reform (Prevention of Alcohol-Related Crime and Substance Misuse) Act. This formally repeals the identification system knows as the Banned Drinker Register.
Mr GUNNER: That is where we might disagree. If most people were asked to define the Banned Drinker Register, they would say at the point of sale …
Mrs LAMBLEY: No, hold on …
Mr GUNNER: … you have to show ID. My understanding is while you are repealing the SMART Court orders and the BAT orders, you are still leaving in place the ID system.
Mrs LAMBLEY: I will continue. The bill leaves in place the other provisions of section 31A of the Liquor Act which gives a minister the discretion to establish an identification system for other purposes, including to check if a person is prohibited from purchasing alcohol as a part of their sentence, bail, parole or other orders. This allows some flexibility into the future for the government to re-establish the identification system for other purposes.
In permit towns such as Nhulunbuy, identification systems have been developed as an administrative tool used for identity confirmation and permit management. They have been established through the alcohol management plan process, and existed before the creation of the Banned Drinker Register. Nothing in the bill changes the ability for these arrangements to be used as part of identity checking or permit management. Licensees can also be required, through licence conditions, to establish appropriate identification systems.
We wanted to leave this in place. It was an initiative that came about prior to the Banned Drinker Register and we see it as a continuing tool we want to keep in our tool bag for other circumstances that will evolve through the development of alcohol management plans and the continuing implementation of alcohol management plans.
Mr GUNNER: We welcome the retention of the ID system, and that it remains a viable option in the bill. On our side, we guess it is only a matter of time before the APOs become tied to the ID system. This is a question of politics and a name game but, essentially, the Banned Drinker Register will come back under a different name.
People’s understanding of the Banned Drinker Register is that at the point of sale you show ID to purchase alcohol, and the bill leaves those powers in place. We welcome retention of the ID system in the bill.
Ms WALKER: Madam Deputy Chair, I add to what my colleague, the member for Fannie Bay has said in that regard. Let us not call it a BDR; let us find another name for it but recognise it as an incredibly effective tool.
During my contribution to debate I spoke about recognising 70% of all alcohol sales in the Northern Territory are through takeaway liquor outlets. They are uncontrolled in that people can buy two or three cartons, or bottles and bottles to consume. Compared with licensed premises where people are drinking in a controlled environment, that is somewhat different. I welcome the fact this most effective tool - the most effective tool in the tool box, according to police in dealing with alcohol-related issues - remains. It is a positive.
Clauses 150 to 164 agreed to.
Clause 165:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendments 6.42 and 6.43. This is to insert new section 128A into the Police Administration Act. The amendments circulated replace section 128A(1)(d) in the Police Administration Act. The amendments make the protective custody trigger absolutely clear. Consultation with NT Police raised questions as to whether the clause, as originally drafted in the bill, was sufficiently clear and non-ambiguous in relation to the number of protective custody incidents required to form the trigger.
I have taken on board the comments of NT Police. The clause has been redrafted to remove any confusion that it is three protective custody incidents which leads to the trigger for entry. In doing so, the officer of Parliamentary Counsel found a way to incorporate the definition of the prescribed period within which the trigger must be met. That has led to the consequential change to section 128A(8).
Mr WOOD: My question is not so much about that, although I do not particularly support the clause. We were discussing earlier what would happen if a police officer was picking up people at the beginning of this process, but there was no facility for that to happen. Am I right in saying, under proposed new section 128A - which is clause 165 of the bill – if I read section 128A(7) correctly it says:
Proposed new section 128A(7)(b) says:
The part I cannot quite understand is where it says:
Somewhere it explains that proposed new section 128A(7)(b) means you cannot hold the person. Is it the Division of the Police Administration Act? Can you tell us what, in the Police Administration Act, lines it up with proposed section 128A(7)(b)?
Mrs LAMBLEY: The Police Administration Act describes how a protective custody order would finish in the usual way it finishes, which is the person is detained until such time they are deemed as in a state they are no longer a threat to themselves or anyone else.
Mr WOOD: At that point they would let them go?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Correct.
Mr WOOD: Okay, that is fine. That is the part I did not understand.
Amendments agreed to.
Clause 165, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I take this opportunity to thank the committee for their indulgence in incorporating these amendments to the bill. I have undertaken wide consultation with various stakeholders, both before and after its introduction, through written submissions and face-to-face discussions with a range of organisations across the Territory.
I understand this is significant legislation for the parliament. Our government has a mandate from the Northern Territory people to take decisive action to treat those who are in most need of treatment impact on their abuse of alcohol.
In this government’s view, this legislation is necessary if we are serious about putting in place a circuit breaker for those people who are chronic and public abusers of alcohol.
Bill to be reported with amendments.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the report be adopted.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 14 Noes 7
Ms Anderson Ms Fyles
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Conlan Ms Lawrie
Mr Elferink Mr McCarthy
Ms Finocchiaro Ms Manison
Mr Giles Mr Vatskalis
Mr Kurrupuwu Ms Walker
Mrs Lambley
Ms Lee
Mr Mills
Mrs Price
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Alcohol Rehabilitation): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
PENALTIES AMENDMENT (MISCELLANEOUS) BILL
(Serial 32)
Continued from 15 May 2013.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, members will be very pleased to hear that we will be in and out of this one very quickly. The Penalties Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2013 is legislation that continues the reforms to penalty arrangements that were started by the previous Labor government.
The main purpose of the bill is to convert the remaining dollar-based penalties to penalty units. This is, of course, common sense, and recognises the inefficiency involved with continually amending legislation to increase dollar values to deal with inflation. Essentially, these changes will bring our system in line with best practice, making our approach consistent with the arrangements in many other jurisdictions. These changes will impact across the statute book and comprehensively amend penalties as listed in the bill. The bill also makes allowance for penalty increases.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, the opposition supports this bill.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice) (by leave): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time
Continued from 16 May 2013.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, unlike the previous bill, the Sentencing Amendment Bill was something of a debacle. The Attorney-General bungled his original sentencing legislation and has had to come back into parliament today to fix his mistakes.
The legal profession, including judges and magistrates, told the Attorney-General his legislation was faulty, but he ignored them. They were right, he was wrong. In his second reading speech he said:
The bungled legislation passed in February this year. In January, the Attorney-General was trying to silence the Chief Magistrate, saying she should not be commenting on policy. This quote from the Attorney-General was published in a national newspaper:
Perhaps he should have focused less on silencing her and more on listening to her and her colleagues. This issue highlights a point everyone in the legal profession has been making: this government does not listen. The amendment we have before us this evening proves not listening means you get it wrong and have to fix your errors.
However, the government has not learnt, as we have seen with the alcohol bill that has just passed through this House where the critics were dismissed as whingers. There was no consultation with the legal community before the alcohol bill was introduced into parliament. The result was 43 amendments, with the legal community saying it is still flawed. The government has ignored them yet again.
I am tipping that the Minister for Alcohol Rehabilitation will face the same humiliation as the Attorney-General and have to run back into parliament in the coming months with a, ‘we got it wrong amendment bill’ such as the one before us right now.
The essence of the Attorney-General’s bungling is he got it wrong on previous convictions in relation to mandatory sentences. The Attorney-General’s second reading speech outlined his bungling. The amendments change the act so the court must take into account previous convictions no matter whether they occurred before or after the commencement of this legislation.
The opposition does not support the original bill. We stated our reasons during that debate in February. Our position has not changed, hence, we will not be supporting amendments to a bill we do not support.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the legal community for pointing out to the Attorney-General that he got it wrong. While the approach to the alcohol bill proves the government has not learnt from its mistakes, I encourage the legal community to continue to scrutinise the legislation this government passes, even though it continues to refuse to listen to them. I am sure our legal community will continue to do so. As much as the Attorney-General may plead for them to stay quiet, they will not be silenced.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, too cute by half. The quote she is attributing to the magistrate had nothing to do with this legislation, if memory serves me. She keeps saying I am trying to silence the Chief Magistrate - I cannot and could not if I wanted to - in the same way I am accused of trying to gag the Auditor-General. I cannot; it cannot be done because of the way the structures work. This is fanciful stuff.
What the lower court highlighted for this government was a possibility to interpret the language in a certain way. This bill does nothing more than tighten up the language. They raised that possibility as a result of McMillan v Pryce, Northern Territory Supreme Court Reports 1997 at 83. They made reference to a decision which was a 2:1 majority, the majority being Justices Martin and Mildren, with Angel in dissent in that case. It dealt with how you read down this type of legislation. It is a matter of refined legal argument.
I note that with all the advice the opposition received in relation to this they did not mention this issue once during debate. If I got it wrong, equally they got it wrong in the same fashion. However, we understand the politics ...
Ms Walker: No, you are the Attorney-General, it is your responsibility.
Mr ELFERINK: You are the one getting all the legal advice from people. The legal advice you are getting is, by the way, often wrong.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, as far as we, on this side of the House, are concerned, this is dealing with a remote issue. We are more than happy to make these adjustments so we can make the mandatory sentencing of offenders who commit serious assaults a matter of course in the Northern Territory.
Before I sit down, if the opposition objected to this legislation why did they not vote against it? Because you did not want to be seen as weak in the public domain. As usual, the each-way bet.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice) (by leave): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 13 Noes 7
Ms Anderson Ms Fyles
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Conlan Ms Lawrie
Mr Elferink Ms McCarthy
Ms Finocchiaro Ms Manison
Mr Giles Mr Vatskalis
Mr Kurrupuwu Ms Walker
Mrs Lambley
Ms Lee
Mr Mills
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
Motion agreed to.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Retirement of Clerk - Mr Ian McNeill
Retirement of Clerk - Mr Ian McNeill
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I bring to your attention that this session is the last session for Mr Ian McNeill, Clerk of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. We will say other appropriate words at the dinner tomorrow evening. Members will talk with Mr Clerk at a later stage to wish him all the best in what he does in the future.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: On his last day we expect everyone to be exceptionally well behaved.
__________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Mrs Kit McNeill, Ian’s wife, and his sister and brother-in-law, Jan and John Roker. Welcome to Parliament House to this last session of your dearly beloved husband, brother, and friend.
__________________
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I offer my compliments to Mr Clerk and wish him the very best for the rest of the day in here at least. I am sure we will have more to say tomorrow night.
MOTION
Reorder of Routine of Business
Reorder of Routine of Business
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the routine of business for today, Thursday 27 June 2013 be as follows:
1. Prayers
2. Messages
3. Notices
4. Petitions
5. Papers
6. Government Business
7. Orders of the Day
8. Adjournment.
Motion agreed to.
MESSAGE FROM ADMINISTRATOR
Message No 9
Message No 9
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received Message No 9 from Her Honour the Administrator notifying assent to bills passed at the May sitting. The message is dated 24 June 2013.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Member for Daly
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that leave of absence for today be granted to the member for Daly on account of his conducting business on behalf of the parliament.
Leave granted.
PETITIONS
Alice Springs Police Call Centre
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 2367 petitioners praying that the police call centre be returned to Alice Springs. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders.
Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- The honourable Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory, we the undersigned respectfully showeth that we the people of Alice Springs want our local police call centre returned to Alice Springs. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray the police call centre be returned to Alice Springs.
Seniors’ Representation
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 296 petitioners praying that the Minister for Senior Territorians represents all seniors in all matters relevant to seniors. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders.
Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- The honourable Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory, we the undersigned respectfully showeth that senior Northern Territorians are important to all Territorians and deserve recognition of the issues they raise. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that a solution to the agreed difficulties of shared portfolios for seniors be found immediately, One suggested is that the Minister for Seniors represents all seniors in all matters relevant to seniors. This will alleviate the problem of seniors having to go to separate minister. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
Reinstatement of Seniors’ Bus Concessions
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 327 petitioners praying that the seniors’ bus concession be reinstated. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders.
Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- To the honourable Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory, we the undersigned respectfully showeth that senior Northern Territorians are important to all Territorians and deserve recognition of the issues they raise. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that you immediately reinstate the seniors’ bus concession. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
Increase to Seniors’ Concessions
and Rebates
and Rebates
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 381 petitioners praying there be an annual percentage increase on all seniors concession and rebates, rather than the current fixed amount. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirement of standing orders.
Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- To the honourable Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory, we the undersigned respectfully showeth that senior Northern Territorians are important to all Territorians and deserve recognition of the issues they raise. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that you provide an annual percentage increase on all senior concessions and rebates rather than the current fixed amount. Your current system does not keep pace with the rises in costs of living. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
Interstate and Overseas Travel Concessions
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 332 petitioners praying that the proposed changes to interstate and overseas travel concessions be reversed. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders.
Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- To the honourable Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory, we the undersigned respectfully showeth that senior Northern Territorians are important to all Territorians and deserve recognition of the issues they raise. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that you reverse the proposed changes to interstate and overseas travel concession. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
RESPONSES TO PETITIONS
Petition Nos 10 and 14
Petition Nos 10 and 14
The CLERK: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform honourable members that responses to petitions nos 10 and 14 have been received and circulated to honourable members. The text of the responses will be placed on the Legislative Assembly website. A copy of the responses will be provided to the member who tabled the petition for distribution to petitioners.
- Petition No 10
New Workers Village on Rural Blocks
Date Presented: 13 February 2013
Presented by: Mr Wood
Referred to: Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment
Date response due: 20 August 2013
Date response received: 22 May 2013
Date response presented: 27 June 2013
Response:
- The petition relates to a development proposal seeking an Exceptional Development Permit for a prohibited form of development. The development proposes 60 x two-bedroom cabins (fully self-contained with one carport), 32 modular cabins with four bedrooms (each room contains bathroom but no kitchen), caretaker’s residence, commercial kitchen, four communal laundries, ablution block, administration building, a range of recreational facilities, and 90 car parking spaces. It is intended to accommodate up to 248 persons. The application was subject to public exhibition as required by the Planning Act and a number of submissions were received from the community in addition to the petition referred to.
In making my decision, I have considered reports from both the Reporting Body (Litchfield Development Consent Authority) and the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment. Accordingly, I have determined to refuse the application pursuant to section 40(2)(d) of the Planning Act for the reasons outlined in the attached ‘Reasons for Decision’.
Northern Territory of Australia
Planning Act - section 41
REASONS FOR DECISION IN RELATION TO PROPOSED EXCEPTIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
The decision to refuse to grant an Exceptional Development Permit for Lot 000AA (45) Stow Road and Section 4049 (55) Stow Road, Hundred of Bagot for the purpose of a Temporary Workers Accommodation Village was made pursuant to section 40(2)(d) of the Planning Act for the following reasons:
1. It is considered that the scale and intensity of the proposed development is such that there would be an adverse impact on the character and amenity of the locality.
3. The development, other than being a prohibited land use in the zone, fails to demonstrate that additional workers accommodation is appropriate in this particular locality.
Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment
15 May 2013
Petition No 14
Second inquest into death of Dwayne Berto
Date Presented: 28 March 2013
Presented by: Mr Higgins
Referred to: Attorney-General and Minister for Justice
Date response due: 9 October 2013
Date response received: 7 June 2013
Date response presented: 27 June 2013
Response:
My response to the petition is as fellows:
1. The death of Mr Dwayne Joseph Berto (the deceased) was a reportable death to the Coroner as it was unexpected and not of natural causes (section 12 of the Coroners Act refers).
2. The Northern Territory Coroner, Mr Greg Cavanagh SM, found the deceased was not a person held in the care or custody of police immediately prior to his death pursuant to section 15(1) of the Coroners Act, and the holding of an inquest was not mandatory.
8. The Northern Territory Coroner carefully considered all the evidence and handed down detailed written findings regarding the deceased's death on 15 March 2011. The Coroner found the deceased had committed suicide by hanging and found no evidence the deceased had been murdered. No recommendations were made.
10. The parliament of the Northern Territory has included provisions for the review and re-opening of inquests at sections 44 and 44A of the Coroners Act. Section 44(3) of the act states the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory may order an inquest be re-opened if it finds certain facts or circumstances exist. It is incumbent upon the applicant to put forward any evidence in support. The deceased's family have not availed themselves of their legal rights under section 44.
11. Section 44A(2) of the Coroners Act states the Coroner may re-open an inquest if he or she is satisfied that new facts or evidence exists that make it necessary or desirable to re-open the matter. The deceased's family have not provided any new facts or evidence to the Coroner that would necessitate the re-opening of the inquest pursuant to section 44A.
TABLED PAPER
Interstate Travel Reports – Members for Arnhem, Casuarina, Drysdale, Blain and Stuart
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, the gun went off a little too quickly there, member for Drysdale, in regard to papers being presented.
I table interstate travel reports from the members for Arnhem, Casuarina, Drysdale, Blain and Stuart pursuant to clause 4.12 of Remuneration Tribunal Determination No 1 of 2012
APPROPRIATION (2013-2014) BILL
(Serial 26)
(Serial 26)
Continued from 15 May 2013.
In committee:
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: I call on the Chair of the Estimates Committee.
Ms FINOCCHIARO: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table the reports of the Estimates Committee and the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee on their consideration of the estimates and proposed expenditure contained in the schedule of the Appropriation Bill 2013-14. These are the final reports of the 2013-14 Estimates Committee and Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee.
Each report outlines the key areas of interest or concern reflected in the lines of questioning that became evident as the hearings progressed.
The questions taken on notice will be tabled with the Speaker on 12 July. Answers to questions on notice must be with the committee secretariat by 11 July. I note these deadlines are those set by the Assembly.
I understand government agencies are working to a tighter deadline, and answers will go on the Assembly’s website as they are received.
I now turn to the process of the Estimates Committee public hearings for 2013-14. This year saw a number of changes to the estimates process. The Leader of Government Business proposed a number of changes which were largely accepted by the Public Accounts Committee. All changes were predicated on improving the system by lessening the burden on public servants to prepare material not required by the committee; by increasing the time available for members to questions ministers; by removing the arbitrary allocation of time to portfolio areas and output areas to allow the committee to focus on those areas of higher priority to it, the committee was able to schedule the time ministers were to be available; by ensuring that sufficient time was available to exhaust the questions posed by the committee members; by allowing all members to questions ministers with the shadow spokesman having the priority; by protecting public servants from political attack and avoiding circumstances where public servants were compromised by questions of a political nature; and ministers were the focus of the questions.
The government acceded to the requests of the Public Accounts Committee with one exception, which was that the committee had sought to allow additional members and opposition members to outnumber the government members. In all other matters, the government and the Public Accounts Committee were in accord.
In order to facilitate and expedite the gathering of data of interest to the committee, the government sought to have questions provided in advance. Sixty-nine questions were received from the opposition and none from the Independent member. In the main, the 69 questions merely identified swathes of data from when the opposition indicated questions would be sourced. They were not questions in the normally accepted definition of the word. These data sets were variously extremely large and beyond the requirements of the committee; difficult to retrieve and wasteful of government resources; and not related to the budget. They described data not available to the present government but, nevertheless, the government provided a significant body of data in response.
The number of hours of the hearings was not limited by the Assembly. The number of participating members was reduced from seven to six. Also, ministers chose to limit the number of officials to support them in giving evidence with a view to answering more questions themselves, which was the case.
I will briefly reflect on how each of these changes operated and will highlight issues for future consideration. In establishing the committee, as I previously stated, the Assembly allowed for written notice to be provided for questions which were to be answered during the hearings. Questions received, totalling 69, can be broken down into 38 whole-of-government questions and a further 31 questions relating to specific ministerial portfolio areas.
This process did not limit the questions that could be asked without notice, but enabled targeted preparation of answers.
There was a view in the committee, as espoused from the outset by the opposition and Independent members, that it was important these questions be answered orally during the hearings and, at most hearings, the minister read their answers. While this increased the level of scrutiny on the issues raised in those questions and allowed quite broad questioning, it did so at significant cost to the committee’s time.
For future committees, further consideration will need to be given on how best to manage the answering of written questions to maximise the improved scrutiny they provide in a more efficient manner.
In recent years, the estimates hearings were limited to a total of 60 hours, with the Treasurer and Chief Minister limited to eight hours, and other ministers limited to seven hours. This year, the Assembly did not set any time limits. The Estimates Committee sat for 70 hours, and the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee sat for three-and-a-half hours. The Treasurer was questioned for a total of 17 hours and the Chief Minister for a total of 20 hours.
While the hours were not limited, there were only six days set for the hearings. It was left to the opposition and Independent members to manage their questions so they had ample opportunity to question any area of the budget they wished to examine. Unfortunately, time management skills were in short supply and the hearings went past 1 am on the first Wednesday morning, and 2 am on the first Thursday morning, by which time only the Chief Minister and government committee members remained to continue questioning. This was clearly intolerable so, on 20 June, the committee agreed to set a closing time of 11 pm for the remaining evening hearings. That was in line with the closing time of previous years.
Some of the instances of time management failure were when the opposition and the Independent member, despite cautions from the Chair, frequently interrupted the ministers, asked extensive questions not relevant to the budget, gave long-winded statements as preludes to questions, some of which did not pose questions at the end, and sought to debate matters.
The assumption that not limiting the opposition in the time they had to ask questions would assist them proved wrong. The scheduling of hearings is, therefore, another issue that will require further consideration before the next estimates hearing.
The reduction of participating members from seven to six had small, but notable, positive and negative impacts. On the positive side, it meant that members at the table had more room to keep their papers over the many hours of sitting, and to eat more lollies. On the negative side, the reduced number of opposition members meant the government and the Independent member frequently bore the burden of maintaining a quorum.
Given that estimates provides the opposition with the opportunity to ask government questions, I note there was a significant gesture of goodwill from government members and the Independent to maintain a quorum during the five days of the estimates hearing when there were no opposition members of the committee attending. That was no more highlighted than this morning ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms FINOCCHIARO: Unfortunately, when one government member could not attend the government owned corporation hearing due to health reasons, the Power and Water hearings had to be suspended until the opposition could find an opposition member of the committee to attend the hearing. This reduced the time available to question Power and Water. Much was said ...
Ms Walker: No ministers at the hearing.
Mr Elferink: He said last week he would turn up, all we had to do was ask him.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Port Darwin!
Ms FINOCCHIARO: The member for Nhulunbuy’s interjection, which I pick up on, demonstrates how little attention the opposition paid to the change in rules of the Estimates Committee. That flew in the face of operating a transparent process where they should have focused their energy and time to interrogating ministers on the budget. We have seen the display of lack of discipline, and it is noted.
Much was said before the hearings about reduced access to officials that was alleged to occur. I note that, where possible, all officials requested by the opposition attended the hearings. I also note that even though there were far fewer officials attending hearings to support ministers, and more time to ask questions, there were fewer questions taken on notice than in recent years. That is an excellent outcome.
There were 119 questions taken on notice this year, which is a decrease of 23 questions on last year. Today, at the close of hearings, 20% of those questions had already been answered.
With another first for this year, people were able to follow the progress of the 2013 estimates hearings on Twitter. With the flexible schedule the committee followed, the Twitter service enabled people to see where their committee was up to at any time. I thank the committee staff for getting in the Twitter groove on that one.
Even though the number of hours is not limited by the Assembly, the committee did not examine the following agencies and portfolios due to waste of time: Land Resource Management, Territory Wildlife Park, Arts and Museums, and the Alice Springs Transformation Plan.
I might add that it was quite unfortunate that my colleague, the member for Katherine, only had one hour and 10 minutes to be questioned due to the opposition’s time wasting and the need to impose the 11 pm time limit, which is truly shameful. The minister has portfolios of significant interest to Territorians and we are doing huge work in these areas. They did not get the level of scrutiny they deserved.
This is the Legislative Assembly’s 12th year of Estimates Committee hearings. The Assembly continues to learn from its experience and, over the years, has improved its estimates process greatly. We are still refining the process. Overall, hearings worked very efficiently and provided the opposition and Independent member with ample opportunity to question any areas of the government they chose.
With the Scrutiny Committee, in contrast to the previous years, neither the shareholding minister nor the Essential Services Minister accompanied the Deputy Chairman and Managing Director to the hearing today. The Treasurer offered to be present at that time; all that was needed was he be asked ...
Ms Lawrie: Ruled out by your Leader of Government Business.
Ms FINOCCHIARO: … and he was not asked …
Ms Lawrie: John Elferink ruled it out.
Ms FINOCCHIARO: Wrong, incorrect, Opposition Leader, on so many levels.
Mr Elferink: You are so badly organised. Gosh, you are embarrassing!
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Port Darwin.
Ms FINOCCHIARO: However, this did not impact on the robust …
Ms Lawrie interjecting.
Ms FINOCCHIARO: … and productive questioning and answering.
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am trying to listen to the member, please.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Port Darwin!
Ms FINOCCHIARO: I take this opportunity to thank all members who participated in the 2013 estimates process, particularly my colleague, the member for Arnhem, who was an exceptional deputy chair. I thank her very much for her support and strength in that role.
I thank the members for Stuart and Arafura who have been steadfast, and also the former Chief Minister for his support of our committee.
I particularly thank the ministers, whose cooperation throughout the process was extremely good. In the main, we did not even have to go line by line through output areas because the conversation was so flowing, and the ministers were so open to answering questions at any point, going back on output areas. It was exceptional and I must thank my colleagues for facilitating a very transparent and open process.
Special mention should go to the Chief Minister who not only outlasted the opposition members and the Independent who walked out because they could not get it together and do the right thing for Territorians, but made himself available for questions throughout the night and came back the next morning to ensure his portfolio areas were completely accountable. That unscheduled return the next morning was not mandatory; he did that in the best interests of Territorians, as did the Treasurer. They are both commended for that effort.
I also thank the core membership of the Estimates Committee for the manner in which these hearings have been conducted.
Thank you also to the staff of the Legislative Assembly, without whom we could not do any of this. You were first-class operators and you make the whole process so much more pleasant. It would be nothing without you.
A special mention must be made to Hansard, which must have had one heck of a time recording the tireless, endless, and pointless interjections of the opposition and Independent members.
Thanks to Building and Property Management Services, who attended to our numerous air-conditioning issues, it was very much appreciated. Thanks to Chamber support services and committee staff, as always.
Madam Speaker, I place on the record my sincere appreciation to the staff of all agencies involved in the estimate process over the six days. We have first-class public servants in the Northern Territory, and they are working exceptionally well with our new government. We thank you for following our lead and taking this journey with us. The process could not happen without their hard work and dedication.
I commend the reports of the 2013 Estimates Committee and Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee to the House.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Honourable members, pursuant to the resolution of the Assembly dated 16 May 2013 the committee has before it consideration of the Appropriation (2013-14) Bill, (Serial 26), and reports of the Estimates Committee and the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee.
The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to and that the resolutions or expressions of opinion as agreed to by the committees in relation to the proposed expenditure or outputs under the Appropriation (2013-14) Bill (Serial 26) and the transactions of the public sector entities included in the budget papers, and that applicable community service obligations paid and dividends received from the Power and Water Corporation be noted.
I remind members that speech time limits for this debate are as follows: ministers, Leader of the Opposition and shadow minister, 20 minutes; any other member, 10 minutes; the maximum period for consideration and conduct of this debate is five hours.
As the time is now 2.30 pm, if the debate is not concluded by 7.30 pm I will put the question. Honourable members, when consideration of the bill and reports has been concluded and the question put, the following question will then be put forthwith without debate: that the remainder of the bill be agreed to. The bill will then be reported to the Assembly following this report. The Speaker will then call upon the Treasurer to move the third reading of the bill.
Ms LAWRIE: Thank you for giving me the call as Leader of the Opposition. What an absolute shambles of an estimates process. It was so bad that even government ministers were complaining about what they had been set up with by the Leader of Government Business. Clearly, there is no degree of communication amongst the government members. Clearly, it was left in the hands of the Leader of Government Business to set the running on the rework of the estimates process for this year because, as each part came to pass - as each folly of the Leader of Government Business came to pass - there was a quick backflip by the Chief Minister.
First, the Leader of Government Business decided that the estimates, which had been refined over a decade, did not suit him or the new government, so he would change it - change the times and make them unlimited. He then set a global limit on when we needed to be back in this House, which made sure that only ministers would appear. That, of course, quickly changed once it started to dawn on ministers that they would not have their public servants there. So, a backflip on the unlimited time and only ministers would appear started to occur.
Before the estimates process proper, through the Public Accounts Committee and through exchanges of letters between the Opposition Whip and the Leader of Government Business, we entered negotiations to try to make the estimates process, announced by the Leader of Government Business, – which was completely unworkable – into something that could work.
As each stage went through, it was proven to be an absolute shambles. You, member for Port Darwin, are responsible. I do not hold the other members of government responsible for that shambles; I directly hold you responsible. I genuinely believe - maybe I am wrong - that people trusted you with a change to the estimates process. I genuinely believe the members went into this in good faith thinking your advice that you were going to improve the estimates process would be right when it was wrong. On occasion after occasion, the Chief Minister had to publically overrule you - backflip after backflip.
What were you thinking when you decided to have an unlimited time process globally? When the estimates process was introduced, the first Chief Minister dealing with an estimates process with an unlimited period, the then member for Fannie Bay, Clare Martin, sat through two-and-a-half days.
There was genuine understanding then, and a review of the estimates process which led us to say we needed to set time limits across ministers, and to set them in recognition of their relative portfolio loads, which is where, after refining year in, year out, we got to a point where the Chief Minister and the Treasurer, for example, had full-day sessions.
But, no, John Elferink, the member for Port Darwin, knew better, didn’t he? Now they complain the Treasurer had to do 17 hours and the Chief Minister had to 20 hours. It would not have been the case at all if you had stuck to the estimates process that had been refined over a decade. But, you refused to. It was your own way or the highway, so everyone had to deal with the unworkable.
The other major change at the outset was the Leader of Government Business decided there could only be written questions on notice. The estimates process this parliament was used to through the last decade, where you asked questions without sending written questions on notice, would no longer be the case. Under the new world order of the member for Port Darwin, in keeping with the new world order where only ministers would appear and there would only be written questions on notice, that would be the case.
Presented with this presumable fait accompli, we wrote a series of very broad questions so it would cover our ability to genuinely scrutinise with questions at the estimates hearings. They were the written questions on notice that each minister had at the outset, including the Chief Minister, written deliberately to give opposition the opportunity to scrutinise across the various facets of the appropriation and policy. Yet, they then turned around and complained about it - a system they insisted on, they then complained about.
Then, we had a real variety of responses by different ministers and the Chief Minister on how to deal with the written questions on notice. You could tell which people were not confident because they used it to time waste - to literally sit there and read them. You could tell those who thought, ‘No, I will just deal with whatever questions will come my way’, so they were more happy to table.
A classic example was during the Government Owned Corporation Committee today. They just tabled it. They did not insist on reading answer after answer. Each minister, from the Chief Minister to the Treasurer and down, had the opportunity to just simply table it, with one exception. Madam Speaker was up first and was happy to just table it. The Independent member for Nelson said, ‘No, I want to hear the answers; could you read the answers on the record?’ Madam Speaker then read the answers on the record.
In discussions with the member for Nelson, I pointed out that would chew up important time through the estimates process, and we should, in future, be encouraging ministers just to table the answers where appropriate. Through various different sections, we both said, ‘Would you table it?’ That was met with a variety of responses from the government. I will speak about the sessions I was participating in actively with the Treasurer and the Chief Minister in a moment.
I hope a lesson learnt by government out of the shambles is not to just, by rote, take the advice of the Leader of Government Business. Question it. Question it with people on your staff who have experience. You have a former Leader of the Opposition on your staff in the former member for Araluen. She might have a view that might be somewhat different from the member for Port Darwin’s. Most of the changes the member for Port Darwin pursued, as Leader of Government Business, ended up being overruled by the Chief Minister because they were simply unworkable. Those few it was too late to overrule ended up making the system a shambles.
Then, to add insult today, we saw the government in hiding from the scrutiny of Power and Water. This is the same government which said, ‘We will step out there as ministers and will be the ones answering the questions’. Yet, when it came to Power and Water, they went into hiding. Then we have this farce occurring today where they are pretending that, of course they were happy to be there. Of course they were available to be there.
I draw your attention to the Hansard record of this parliament of 16 May where the member for Port Darwin, in debate, categorically ruled out the ministers appearing before the Government Owned Corporation Committee at estimates and said, ‘That is determined’.
I call on the government to table the Public Accounts Committee correspondence from the Leader of Government Business of 9 May 2013. Stop pretending! Do you not understand that is exactly what our community is sick of? They are fed up to the teeth with being told one thing when you are doing exactly another thing. They are fed up to the teeth with this pretence about what you are about as a government, what you promised to do as a government when you do the exact opposite.
You said you will be open and accountable. You said you will cut the cost of living. You said Territorians’ jobs are safe. We have just had an estimates process that clearly, categorically, in information tabled, proved the opposite has occurred in the Northern Territory.
You pretend you did not know the true state of the finances of the Northern Territory in the run-up to the August election, which is why you made all these commitments you are now busy breaking. Yet, in fact, in the Treasurer’s session, he accepted that the pre-election fiscal outlook was accurate. He accepted that the figures in the pre-election fiscal outlook were available. He accepted that the CLP in opposition had them. He also accepted that all of the election commitments contained in the bush contracts signed by the then Leader of the Opposition, the member for Blain - who went on to be the first Chief Minister for the CLP - were election commitments. However, he also accepted and acknowledged that they were not contained in the election commitment costings submitted to Treasury in the election campaign.
When we were trying to achieve a consolidated list of election commitments to be tabled, to be put on the public record, the Treasurer wanted nothing to do with it. He said, ‘No, no, that is sitting in the Cabinet Office, ask the Chief Minister’. What a disgrace! What self-respecting Treasurer of any government would not have the consolidated list of election commitments their own party made? What self-respecting Treasurer of any government would not be watching very carefully and completely across the status of the implementation and have costings against election commitments?
It became patently evident in the, ‘Oh no, it is not my responsibility’, attitude of the Treasurer in the estimates session questioning of the election commitments and, specifically, around the community contracts - the bush election commitments - signed and promised by the CLP. There were two sets of lists. One list was put on the record submitted to Treasury; another list, that is consolidated, is somewhere in the Cabinet Office.
The Chief Minister, in his questioning, said he would get the community contracts and put them on the public record. That was a week ago and we are still waiting. I look forward to him meeting that commitment he made in the estimates hearing, because it has been a week and there are still no contracts on the public record.
When asked whether any costings were against those community contracts there was hiding and abuse came my way; he did not want to answer or respond. When you get to the nub of what is causing the government’s fiscal pressures, which is their own unfunded election commitments still covered up and hidden somewhere in the Cabinet Office, not on the public record, they turn to personal abuse and being offensive. It was pathetic and disgraceful.
We will continue to pursue the election commitments made by the CLP, particularly those written and signed contracts with our remote communities. If you cannot hold yourself to delivering what you have promised people who voted for you because of the promises - who genuinely aspire to seeing those things delivered - what can you hold yourselves to?
You dance through this farce of, ‘We did not know the state of the finances’, then, in the very first estimates your Treasurer admitted you did. Your Treasurer admitted the pre-election fiscal outlook laid it out and the figures had not changed. The figures between the pre-election fiscal outlook - the budget figures identified not by the Treasurer but by the Under Treasurer, the public servant sacked then re-employed - are the same as the figures in your Renewal Management Board progress report. The board you paid $1m to trawl over the books published the same figures as published in the pre-election fiscal outlook.
They identified what they described as ‘legacy items’. We pursued a couple of legacy items during the estimates. One was the legacy item of repairs and maintenance across police facilities, but there is no funding for the $48m legacy item of repairs and maintenance across police facilities in this budget or identified across the forward estimates. So important was that legacy item you are not funding it. What nonsense!
Anyone who knows budgets knows you handle priorities and fund to the priorities. Everyone who knows budgets knows every agency has demand pressures or things they would like to fix, and you handle them according to priorities. No, your dodgy $1m RMB describes them as ‘legacy’.
Then, when we asked for the final report of the $1m mates Renewal Management Board it was not forthcoming. No, that is in Cabinet and Cabinet documents are secret. When we produced a media release from the former Chief Minister, the member for Blain, committing to publically releasing the final Renewal Management Board report in March of this year, we were told off by the acting Chair of the committee, the member for Arnhem, for being offensive. How is describing the former Chief Minister as the former Chief Minister offensive? That is how far this descended into a farce.
It is not our fault the member for Blain is the former Chief Minister; it is the actions of the current Chief Minister that are to blame. He went after the numbers and knifed the member for Blain when he was overseas. Perhaps the member for Arnhem meant that the actions were offensive. Everyone found knifing the member for Blain while he was overseas on a trade mission trying to secure jobs at the major Ichthys project offensive. Yes, those actions were offensive. However, to describe the member for Blain as the former Chief Minister is not offensive. Did we dissent against her ruling? No, we did not. If we had dissented against the rulings of the member for Arnhem throughout the last fortnight, Madam Speaker would have been presiding over many dissents. No, we chose to get on with the job. However, there were many occasions where it descended into farce because of the paucity of the chairing.
I have witnessed many Estimates Committees. Many of the government chairs have been fair, and, indeed, reports and debates in this Chamber have reflected that. The member for Fannie Bay has been described by the CLP as having been a fair chair. That cannot be said this time. We saw deliberate blocking tactics by the member for Drysdale. We saw the member for Arnhem unreasonably throw out the member for Nelson – incredible. Whenever the member for Drysdale arced up it was usually in response to some incoming pressure from God knows where. She was given a heads-up by the advisors so she arced up and started blocking.
There was no independence in the chairing. There was a real attempt by the member for Drysdale to protect her ministers. There were pathetic attempts by the member for Arnhem to do it, because she often did not understand the process or where it was at. There were extraordinary occasions where government members interrupted the estimates process with interjections before starting their own statement. Never in an estimates hearing have I witnessed that. Did the chair pull them up on that process? No, they could do whatever they liked. Opposition members and the Independent would be pulled up, but government members could do whatever they wished. It was a shambles!
We are still waiting for answers, of course. We are still waiting for answers from the Speaker on why the member for Arnhem has managed to burn through $14 000 in taxpayer-funded fuel, which is double the amount other bush members have gone through. I look forward to those answers.
We are still waiting for an answer from the Chief Minister on whether the final report of the Renewal Management Board will be made public, as promised in a media release by the former Chief Minister, the member for Blain.
We are still waiting for the costings of all of the election commitments. We are still waiting for the community contract election commitments to be tabled.
What I found extraordinary about the Chief Minister was his refusal to go to anything around the cost of living impacts on Territorians because of the decisions his government has made. As we know, they have increased the cost of living despite their core election commitment to reduce it. In one bizarre period the Chief Minister tried to pretend they had done something about the cost of living because they are tackling housing. Yet housing has gone up 8% and the cost of living has more than doubled from 2.1% to 3.9%. Somehow, that is a decrease in the cost of living? It is not. It is fact it has increased. Yet, he tried to pretend they had done something to improve it.
Can I have an extension of time, please?
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Chair! This is a limited time debate and, no, you do not have an extension of time.
Ms LAWRIE: Okay.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Deputy Chair, I will not be on my feet too long. I heard the Leader of the Opposition’s vitriol in relation to the Estimates Committee. I will tell you what the approach of the government was in relation to the committee. It was quite simple. You could have as much time as you liked within the six days to ask what questions you liked of whomsoever you liked for as long as you needed to. That is part of the promise of open, honest, and accountable government ...
Ms Walker: It did not work as it was changed after two days.
Ms Finocchiaro: It did not work because of you.
Mr Westra van Holthe: Because you guys mucked it up. You were undisciplined.
Ms Walker: You were hopeless. You dummy spat, you argued, and you avoided questions.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Nhulunbuy!
Ms Walker: Sorry.
Mr ELFERINK: It is captured in the opening statement by the Leader of the Opposition and what the member for Nhulunbuy has just said, ‘How could you do that to us? How could you give us all of that time? How dare you, as a government, give us all of that time? And you took it; you took 70 hours. You had 17 hours for the Treasurer - the longest time a Treasurer has ever sat in the chair in any form of committee process in a bill in the Territory’s history.
The Chief Minister sat in the chair for 20 hours and answered questions until 2 am, and you call us irresponsible? We offered you the car keys, but you are so used to the idea that government runs the committee process that when you were handed the car keys you still believed government runs the committee process. Wrong!
This is a government which is answerable to the parliament and the people of the Northern Territory. What we said to the committee was, ‘Here are the keys. Take the car for a drive to wherever you like, for as long as you like, and you can explore anything in government you want.’ You take the keys, drive down the street, wrap the car around a telephone pole, and it is our fault because we gave you the car keys. If you cannot organise yourselves in a committee, how on earth do you expect to run a government?
I refer any member to the Hansard. The reason the committee ran over time, as they complained of, was because of questions primarily from the opposition. The vast majority of the time in the committee process was taken up by the opposition, which is proper as that is what the scrutiny process is all about.
Prior to the committee process, we offered you the rope with which you could hang us and, unfortunately, while you were tying the slip knot the only people who were hung were yourselves.
We cannot be held responsible for your lack of discipline. I pointed out to the member for Nhulunbuy in the committee that with a liberty - which is precisely what we gave the members of the committee, particularly the Labor members - comes a responsibility to use that liberty in an effective and appropriate means. Part of the reason the Treasurer was able to sit at the crease for 17 hours and the Chief Minister for 20 hours and not be effectively challenged by the opposition was lack of preparation on the part of the opposition.
We did not, as a government, believe it was good expenditure of taxpayers’ money to spend $2.4m preparing a bunch of files which would contain a bunch of answers to questions that would probably not be asked. We also, as a government, decided we were going to expose our ministers to real questioning, which meant ministers had to be across their portfolios.
I recall a former minister, Matthew Bonson, being asked his opinion in an Estimates Committee on one occasion, and referring that question directly to the chief of the department. ‘What is your opinion?’ was the question to this minister. ‘I do not know; this guy over here will answer it.’ That is not how you run a government. That is what they expect; they expect to be fettered. The argument from the Leader of the Opposition today was simply this: ‘We expect you to fetter us’.
I have been accused on numerous occasions of gagging public servants. I have heard all that nonsense. On this occasion we did not apply a gag at all. We said, ‘Grab the minister, go your hardest as long as you like. Take him for five days if you like.’ What happened? You did not have the discipline to contain yourselves and put your own restraints in place. That is why you went over time; that is why you were sitting there at 2 am and why Labor members and the Independent were walking out. The Chief Minister was still answering questions; he was keen. However, they were walking out because they were too tired. The discipline was yours.
You are right. There was a strategy in play on the part of government which was: we were going to give you the car keys, give you the rope to demonstrate you could not control either. And you demonstrated it magnificently …
Mr Westra van Holthe: Did a beautiful job.
Mr ELFERINK: Wonderful job! You did exactly what we, on this side of the House, expected you to do. In the process we did something this House has not seen for a long time. We became a government that said, ‘The parliament has the supremacy over the government, therefore, the parliament can demand of the ministers what it will’. The parliament went about that process with the Labor Party pretty firmly in charge, yet the lack of discipline and the disorganisation was apparent for all to see.
Case in point was this morning. I am sorry to hear about the diagnosis and I hope you recover or get that under control very quickly, member for Drysdale. She did a sterling job in the chair, despite the vitriol from the Leader of the Opposition. She was unable to be here because she was very unwell. However, that left us, as a government, with two committee members. Unfortunately, the member for Nelson, the Independent, was also unwell because he had an onset toothache which had to be attended to, which meant they could still form a quorum in the committee because it only required four committee members. One government member was away for good reason, one Independent was away for good reason, and the two other CLP members were there. There is only one question: where were the Labor members of the committee? Not to be seen!
Everybody knew what the start time was this morning, so where were the Labor members of the committee? Could not turn up, could not be found, committee could not sit …
Mr McCarthy: We started. I was there, mate, bang on time.
Mr ELFERINK: If you were on time, why did it not sit?
Mr McCarthy: You were not there. I did not see you in the joint.
Mr ELFERINK: Committee members! You are not a committee member, nor was the Leader of the Opposition. Your committee members ...
Mr McCarthy: All committee members started this morning, and one had to leave, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: If you look at the committee members on the back of your Notice Paper, you will find you are not a member of the committee.
So there we were, waiting for the Labor members of the committee to turn up …
Mr McCarthy: That is incorrect. I was there and the committee started this morning.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Barkly, cease interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Are you a member of the Estimates Committee? No, you are not. This is the problem. You seem to think that membership is interchangeable. Give you guys some liberty and you do not know how to use it. This is where you are saying that government should fetter you all the time; you need to be controlled. That is the Leader of the Opposition’s argument. ‘It is outrageous you gave us all this time. It is outrageous you gave us this liberty; we need to be fettered.’ All we did was give you an opportunity to examine the budget. It was your lack of preparation and I …
Mr McCarthy: You are wrong. When did Mr Wood leave?
Mr ELFERINK: Would you shut up for a second, please! Just do me a favour and shut up!
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Barkly!
Mr ELFERINK: I apologise to the House, Madam Deputy Chair. He will get his opportunity to have his bite of the cherry in a second. Clearly, he is all tizzed up and excited about this but, from his interjections, he does not understand how the system works. That is the reason why this failed, because there is this lack of understanding by members opposite how this system works. It was given to you – everything, the whole shebang. You had control. If it was a shambles it is because you guys ran it that way. That is what went wrong; we gave you control.
The parliament has ascendency over the executive arm of government; that is all that happened. It is the Labor members who are directly to blame.
The other thing I point out is we received a letter from the leader of opposition business demanding that a whole list of statutory officers turn up. They were all available through one mechanism or another. I had one under the auspices of Attorney-General sitting there waiting to answer questions, because there had been a demand placed on this side of the House and on the government that this person be made available. There were six others who were not recipients of any questions from the members opposite despite the fact they demanded they be there.
One of the reasons we entered into this tte-a-tte with the opposition over this was because they were accusing us of gagging people. When we asked for questions up front and you did not provide questions for the statutory office holders we said, ‘Do not bother turning up, they have no questions for you’.
It turns out, as a response, somebody had gone through a list and grabbed a bunch of statutory office holders - many of them were there because they were also public servants - but many of them were asked no questions in relation to their statutory office holding positions. People who could have either been at home or at work doing their jobs were sitting there waiting to receive a question and were not asked a single question.
The lack of preparation from members opposite was astonishing. The list of questions we received was so general and so broad-ranging they forced broad responses. They only provided those questions late because we were calling on them as we thought it was not an unreasonable supposition that if you gave us some questions up front you might be able to save some time in the committee.
When Madam Speaker walked in with her list of pre-prepared answers to the written questions prior to the process proceeding, rather than saving time there was an insistence by the Independent that the answers be read. At that time, the government members on the committee, including the Leader of the Opposition, could easily have said, ‘No, do not read them out; just table them’. There was no response from the Leader of the Opposition to that effect, or from any of the opposition members. The answers where read onto the record, which entirely defeated the purpose.
All of a sudden it is our fault the committee went down that path. Once again, it is up to the committee, particularly the Labor members on the committee, to demonstrate some discipline and restraint. It was not until I was sitting in front of the committee saying, ‘I have answers here. I know the committee wants them to be read out, but do you want to take this opportunity to change that decision?’, that the Labor members said, ‘Just table them; that will be fine’. The Independent member was saying, ‘No, read them out’. It became a resolution of the committee that these things be tabled.
Once again, it was for the committee to make these decisions, particularly the Labor members on the committee, because the Labor Party is supposed to use that opportunity as the opposition to investigate what government does. They sat silent for such a long time whilst this situation was allowed to unfold. It is not our fault, as a government, that Labor members of the committee were so poorly organised.
There was a time when Labor, as an opposition before they had government for 11 years, proudly announced prior to a particular estimates process that they had 2000 questions to ask. They had written out 2000 questions and asked each and every one of them inside this parliament. I remember that time. That was an organised opposition. What we saw this time was a loose congregation of generalised questions, some requesting outrageous information such as which CLP members had won contracts. That demonstrates the Labor Party was poorly organised, did not have the questions ready by the deadline, and had to rush at the last moment to prepare questions which were ill-considered and easily batted away.
The Labor Party has nobody to blame but themselves for the way estimates went. We brought ourselves, as a government, before that estimates process. We laid ourselves bare and answered every question for as long as you had questions to ask. Because we did that, we are in some way culpable for the shortcomings of the Labor members of the committee. That is nonsense. Frankly, as estimates go, the probing from the opposition was at a new nadir.
Mr GUNNER: Madam Deputy Chair, I believe the debacle of estimates can be best summed up by what happened this morning at the Government Owned Corporation Scrutiny Committee.
Our shadow portfolio minister and our shadow shareholder minister were there. The opposition had two chairs at the Estimates Committee, normally you would have three. This year we told the government we wanted three chairs at that table. This is what normally happens. We had two committee members and the shadow minister present but, obviously, for Power and Water you have two shadow ministers: the shadow portfolio minister and the shadow shareholding minister. Our two shadows were present this morning and, unfortunately, the government denied us that third chair at the Estimates Committee, which we asked for and were told ‘no’. We had our two shadow ministers present as they should be for the Government Owned Corporation Scrutiny Committee. You can only have two members present at the committee at one time. Were the CLP ministers there? No. Did we ask for the CLP ministers? Yes.
Last month when we put together the terms of reference for this committee, the member for Nelson asked for the ministers, and the Leader of Government Business said, ‘No, the determination has been made that they will not be present’. As a committee, we wrote to the government saying we wanted those ministers present. The government wrote back and said, ‘No, those ministers will not be present’.
We set the standard two years ago. For the last two estimates of our term in government we had the ministers present for the Government Owned Corporation Scrutiny Committee, which was at the request of the opposition. What did the opposition now government do at the very first meeting of their Estimates Committee? They did not have the ministers present, despite being asked by the committee for them to be there.
Madam Deputy Chair, I seek leave to table the correspondence from the Leader of Government Business who wrote to the committee and said they would not be present.
Leave granted.
Mr GUNNER: The Leader of Government Business wrote to the committee and said those ministers would not be present during the Government Owned Corporation Scrutiny Committee which, for anyone listening, is when we get to ask Power and Water questions about their Statement of Corporate Intent, which is their version of their budget.
Therefore, we had the situation this morning where, at times, we were told after asking a question that the people present could not answer and it needed to be directed to the government and to ministers who were not there. We did not have any opportunity to ask them. The government, in effect, used public servants as a shield to any questions they might have had to answer. That was extremely disappointing. From the opposition’s point of view, considering we made the shareholder minister and the portfolio minister available to answer questions in the last two years of our government, this morning’s farce where the government did not do that was incredibly disappointing.
In regard to written questions – and I have had this conversation with the member for Port Darwin many times over the last five years - I have always been a believer that the Estimates Committee process should be about the asking and answering of questions publicly; it is a public committee process. A written questions process already exists in parliament. During my term as chair, the opposition had the opportunity to put forward their generic written questions and we handled it through the written question process of the parliament. It did not work too well at first, but for the last three years it was better. Members received their answers before the committee met.
What did we have this year? Ministers reading out their answers during the committee process. For example, during the Education minister’s session he was still reading out answers four hours into the session. In previous years, answers to written questions were provided before the committee met, because we have an existing written question process through the parliament. Without doubt, this process was not handled well; it was a debacle in many ways.
The worst example of that was this morning’s session where we wanted those ministers present, and they were not. We asked for an extra chair and were not allowed to have it. Our two shadow ministers were present, ready to ask questions of the Power and Water acting board and their acting CEO, but the ministers were not present to answer any questions. That was an incredibly disappointing outcome from estimates, and it has resulted from the changes the government has made to the estimates process. The way written questions were handled, which was completely different to previous estimates, and the complete absence of ministers from the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee were two massive examples of how this Estimates Committee process, and the reforms the government made to it, did not work.
We have just finished six days of estimates, after a mini-budget, a budget, 10 months of CLP government, two Chief Ministers, three Deputy Chief Ministers, three Treasurers, three Education Ministers, two Police ministers, two Business Ministers, two licensing ministers, and more. We have learnt the CLP still does not understand the damage their broken promises have caused.
We explored a range of broken promises. In many ways, the most outstanding one for me through the Estimates Committee process was the discussion about the 126 teachers from senior and middle schools who will be gone as a result of this budget. There are children in Year 11 looking forward to the challenges of Year 12 who will now have fewer subjects to choose from and crowded classrooms to sit in because this budget means we will have 126 fewer teachers in our senior and middle schools.
The CLP promised jobs would be safe. They promised frontline workers they would be safe. They stood outside workplaces and personally handed out fliers that said jobs would be safe. They broke that promise. There are close to 500 people who gave service to the public who now no longer have jobs. The passing of this budget at the end of this estimates, at the end of this day, will be sad because it will see 126 teachers join close to 500 people who have already lost their jobs serving the public.
The teachers who remain will find it harder to provide support to their students, and they will be asked to work longer hours. Teachers do a considerable amount of work outside hours, and that will now grow. I have sat down with senior secondary teachers and they have taken me through what they do now, and what it will be like when they have fewer teachers in their school. The workload they have outside and after hours is already incredible. We ask much of our teachers, and they do an incredibly valuable job.
Students will be moving into middle and senior schools with fewer subject choices, and they will be sharing more crowded classrooms. Principals, teachers and school councils, as they look to the new school year, believe the most vulnerable classes are the smaller ones. Some classes are small because they are constrained for safety reasons, equipment reasons in the case of science classes, or because of interest or capacity such as specialist maths classes. Our schools are running some great classes that keep some of our unengaged students at school and learning. These small classes are the ones at risk. Just because a class is small does not mean it is unimportant. These classes are at risk as schools work through how they will manage with fewer teachers. There is no doubt that the consequence of fewer teachers will be fewer subjects and crowded classrooms.
We do not yet know all of the pain. The minister advised that the CLP has made cuts of $39m in Education, but he provided no breakdown of what those cuts will be. Through questioning, we know $6.6m of that is the savings they make in sacking 126 teachers from our senior and middle schools. If $6m of that $39m in cuts within Education is due to the loss of teachers, there is more pain and cuts to programs hidden in the remaining $33m. There will be fewer support services or programs around our students. These cuts mean it will be harder for teachers to do their jobs and, most importantly of all, and why we have schools, for students to get the education they need to emerge from our schools ready to take advantage of the opportunities we have in the Northern Territory to build their lives based on lessons they have learnt through their schooling years.
The university we most like Territory students to go to has also had its operating grant and its Vocational Education and Training grants cut by the CLP. We have a rather bleak picture for students going through our senior and middle schools as they look to learn, educate themselves, get good grades, move through that process and become adults, and move into the university system. We are making cuts and, unfortunately, that will hurt our students.
Estimates over the last six days has confirmed the CLP has broken many promises, and those broken promises will be enshrined in legislation thanks to this budget passing today. They have broken promises to cut the cost of living, to cut debt, that frontline workers are safe, and to immediately tackle antisocial behaviour and remove problem drunks from our streets. They have broken many promises, but these are the ones that stood front and centre of their election campaign.
In 10 months, after two Chief Ministers, three Deputy Leaders, three Treasurers, three Education ministers, two Police minister, two Business ministers, and two licensing ministers, election promises have been blatantly and brazenly broken - basic promises, easily understood which should have been easily kept.
We went through six days of estimates last year, and everyone who has been through the estimates process would understand it is a long, sometimes gruelling process, but there is no doubt you learn a great deal and a lot of information is confirmed.
After last year’s estimates, the then opposition, now government, was in no doubt about the Territory’s financial position and budget. After that Estimates Committee process, they made promises such as cutting the cost of living. Knowing exactly what the Territory’s budget was, they made the promise to cut the cost of living, yet, when they came into government, they did the exact opposite. The cost of living pressures in the Northern Territory went from 2.1% to 3.9%; they nearly doubled the cost of living pressures in the Northern Territory.
The bulk of that is from their decision to significantly increase the cost of power, water and sewerage to Territorians. They made that decision - that blatant broken promise to Territorians - to cut the cost of living, despite always knowing what was in the Territory’s budget and the financial position of the Northern Territory. They said one thing before the election knowing they were going to do something different afterwards. That has hurt Territorians the most, that act of saying one thing and doing another.
Words do not mean much when actions speak so loudly. They made that decision. This is a broken promise that has affected people’s living conditions. People are struggling to meet these costs, yet are these people suffering and struggling so the CLP can cut debt? The CLP borrowed $1.1bn. It did not cut debt, it borrowed. By its own actions, the CLP has shown that all its rhetoric is just political grandstanding. It is borrowing because it knows debt is manageable and essential to building the Northern Territory’s future. All the rhetoric around debt is empty because this is a government which borrows. Its decision to significantly increase power and water prices has placed business in the Territory in a difficult position.
At the moment we have a competitive advantage in the Territory. The highlights of Budget 2013-14, spruik the competitive tax environment we enjoy in the Northern Territory. We currently have the lowest taxing jurisdiction for small- and medium-sized enterprises, which is something the current government has inherited. It is something they are talking up, yet in the same budget they flagged that by 2016 they want the NT to be on par with other states taxation-wise. They want to remove our competitive advantage around tax and make the position for businesses in the Northern Territory harder. That does not make much sense to members on our side. This government is not listening to businesses which are struggling with costs, especially after the massive power and water price hikes.
When asked about the consultation work the Business department is meant to have done around the revenue-raising measures in this budget, the minister answered that the businesses affected by the revenue measures may not have realised they were being consulted about the revenue measures. That is a rather extraordinary example of how this government works with business. The businesses which were consulted on the revenue measures might not have realised they were being consulted. Bizarre is the only way we can describe that. It is a remarkable situation and businesses are hurting. This has been made clear by businesses.
Julie Ross from the Chamber of Commerce has said small businesses will not be able to absorb the increase to power and water prices. There will be a double whammy with consumers not spending as much because they need to pay their power bills and rising costs. Businesses will have rising costs and may not be able to pass them on because the consumers they are trying to sell to have the same rising costs and their disposable income is being affected.
Businesses have been put into an extremely difficult position, and the minister’s said that power and water have a small input into business costs. That is not what the business community is saying. Business is saying massive price rises to power, water, and sewerage are hurting them and they are a big impost. Business is saying this is hurting and you only gave six weeks’ notice of the charges coming in. Even if a business had the capacity to reform their practices or change their equipment to reduce power, water, and sewerage costs, six weeks is not nearly enough time to adjust.
The government’s defence has been partly built around the excellent ecoBiz program which they inherited from the previous government. However, ecoBiz in no way relieves the pressure on every small, micro and medium business in the Northern Territory. On questioning, the Business minister explained there are 14 500 registered businesses in the Territory, of which eight have received a grant from ecoBiz since September last year at a value of $93 000. While ecoBiz is a great program, it is in no way the vehicle to protect or help business trying to deal with the pain of the CLP’s power and water price rises. Business is hurting. This government has flagged it will raise taxes and continue to raise taxes. It has raised power, water, and sewerage prices and those prices will go up again.
Unemployment is at 5.1%. There are now 4100 Territorians out of work under this government. This government is hurting those businesses which should be trying to grow and take advantage of the opportunities in our economy. Businesses in the Northern Territory are in a very difficult spot at the moment. That difficulty has been created by the policies of this government.
While we debate with this government about what they are doing, the Business minister has taken a trip to China on a private jet, flown there Queen class, and we are still waiting for the breakdown of the expenses of that trip. The minister took that question on notice and we will be keeping an eye out for the expenses and the outcomes of that trip.
Within the Business department 36 jobs have already gone, only nine of which are at the executive level, and there are still more savings to come. The minister said, ‘We intend to make savings in employee costs of $2.59m. They are yet to be achieved. These are the areas the department is focusing on.’ In other words, there are still more job losses to come within the Business department. When asked how many, the minister replied, ‘How long is a piece of string?’
We, on this side, take jobs more seriously. We feel people’s jobs should be taken more seriously. There is low morale and stress within the public service because people still do not know if their jobs are safe. We know, within the Business department alone, there are still more job losses to come. We know within Education there are 126 teachers in the senior and middle schools whose jobs are under threat.
I notice the clock winding down. I had much more to say through the Police portfolio, the Alcohol Rehabilitation portfolio and the Education portfolio. There was much work done by opposition during the Estimates Committee process and I will find other ways of putting on the record my comments to those portfolios.
Madam Deputy Chair, I thank the public servants who attended. I welcome the fact the Leader of Government Business changed his position on only ministers speaking and public servants were allowed to speak. We value our public servants. We appreciate the work they do and the answers they gave us during the Estimates Committee process. There are many more issues covered in other portfolios I have.
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Deputy Chair, I will respond to my experience of the first Estimates Committee program of the CLP as a new government. I will define it as the estimates of whispering, because it was very interesting to see how it unfolded.
The Leader of Government Business was intent on gagging everybody. His philosophy was that the holier-than-thou minister who was completely across their portfolio would be the only person in the room and would be able to answer every question across those portfolios. However, it was unrealistic; that was an ego at play and it was insane. However, I commend the Chief Minister, who had to work methodically through this ridiculous program devised by the Leader of Government Business and work it out so the story was told accountably to Territorians.
We had to go through a lot of pain to do that. I hope the Leader of Government Business has learned a lesson and looks at it appropriately and properly. The Leader of Government Business talked about discipline but from a one-sided argument basis. He did not talk about the discipline of the government; he completely ignored the behaviour of ministers and the part they played in deflecting, wasting time, being rude and abusive and using personal insults as a way to avoid answering questions. The Leader of Government Business does not want to talk about the whole truth and nothing but the truth; he is only interested in his take on what happened.
It was a pity this process was the estimates of whispering, because the real experts are the public sector officials we have the privilege of working with. It is wonderful when they are in the room and are able to present the facts and figures to Territorians. But the Leader of Government Business and this government are hell-bent on shutting that down, which begs the question: what do they have to hide?
However, it slowly started to work. Some ministers were better at it than others, and we started to hear from public officials. I caution the Leader of Government Business on the estimates of whispering which represented a biohazard. I watched a group of adults in the committee room swap cross-infection droplets because everybody whispered to each other. Nobody was prepared to let dialogue flow or speak openly and answer questions from the opposition or Independent member. It was ridiculous. Looking at it from a school teacher’s perspective, I thought, ‘You would not do this in any class where you try to prevent cross-contamination’. The whispering, sharing of droplets and the whole respiratory episode was created by a government with something to hide. It was immature and I can only hope they learn from the experience.
Despite the chaos we were able to conduct an estimates process. However, it was a moving feast; the rules changed as we went along. First, we were asked to supply written questions with a view to being efficient, but those written questions were used against us when some ministers chose to purposely waste time by reading them out and refusing to table them.
The first appearance at estimates was Madam Speaker, which went very smoothly and very methodically; it was a good exercise. However, it deteriorated quickly as the real strategy of lack of discipline from the government unfolded, which raised serious questions about its honesty and integrity.
There were some interesting moments. It was a pleasure to be on time this morning and be part of the start of the estimates process for the Power and Water Corporation. However, it was announced by the clerk of that Estimates Committee that one member representing the quorum in the committee would have to leave and we would need a replacement. It was announced to me approximately 15 minutes into the hearing, after which I arranged a Labor member to attend. We supported a member who was absent on sick leave, and a member who had to leave on sick leave. The member for Port Darwin, once again, twisted it into this backstreet bush lawyer rhetoric to try to point score in this House. He takes off like a scared rabbit if he ever has to face the real truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, sir.
It was a very important hearing this morning, and I valued those officers being able to tell the story of the Power and Water Corporation and to be able to talk directly with the experts and ask politely, with respect, for the opportunity for further briefings so I can give information to those experts about my perspectives of the bush and the latest technologies in the delivery of essential services of water and power, and the opportunities for Indigenous jobs in the bush - those very special opportunities where Indigenous people, as essential services officers, will get to work with state-of-the-art equipment, the best in the world, delivering alternative power, renewable energies, and improving water quality in their communities. I really enjoyed that session this morning.
I found it quite objectionable for the member for Port Darwin to try to use it as a political football when he got it wrong from the start then tried to howl down any possible opposition.
It is important that one issue be included in the review: a little matter of Transport officials, who attended to support their minister, being held in a back room, which is completely contradictory to what the member for Port Darwin just said. They would have been required around 5 am to 6 am after being held there all night. That was ridiculous. It defied common sense, and the Estimates Committee will need to take that on board in future planning. I commend the Chief Minister for calling it off, with common sense and dignity, and coming back the next day to allow questioning - all 45 minutes of it. I also commend and thank the Chief Minister for saying I may submit the questions I did not get to ask in written form, which I will be doing.
It was an interesting Transport story, though: no money for the bush. The Transport story was about luxury private jets to China and WiFi for Darwin buses. All I am saying, as a bush member, is that is good and fine, but what is good enough for town is good enough for the bush.
Because there is no money for barge landings at Ramingining, Gapuwiyak and Galiwinku, or to support those very important bush bus services, the member for Arnhem needs to get back to the cake as she missed out and did not get a slice for our constituents. You really need to make that change, because you are missing out on the process. You need to make sure you are there when that cake is cut, because we have been seriously disadvantaged. The mantra to go in there with is, ‘What is good enough for town is good enough for the bush’. We are talking about all Territorians.
I will submit those Transport questions and I hope I get my answers back accordingly.
There was a wonderful moment in the Lands, Planning and the Environment area. I am not a vindictive person and I do not like to pay back, but after listening for four years to the abuse of the CLP in opposition about land release, I asked one simple question, ‘Can you give me the lot number of the first block of Crown land that has been sold under your government after 10 months?’ The answer was, ‘I will take that question on notice’. When I said, ‘Just give me the geographic location of that one block of land’, the answer was, ‘Oh, I will talk about Kilgariff’. After I told the minister I had been rattling around Kilgariff a couple of weeks before and all I saw was a traffic barrier - there were certainly no blocks of land - he turned proper nasty. That was an interesting double take.
The minister needs to remember he is in charge; he is in government. Rise to the occasion, minister. You are a minister of the Crown. You have left that four years of abuse behind you. I could not help but ask that for the first question.
Good luck on the way forward with delivering land because you are embarking on some new Territory. This is your first budget, which will be passed, then we will see the results of your economic management and your political policy.
In land release, the other part of that abusive cycle over four years was affordability, affordability, affordability. I questioned the minister on the cost of serviced lots. The minister’s new design is to let the private sector do more of it. The minister’s design is to pull back from government investment in enabling infrastructure and headwork services, and let the private sector deal with it. Good luck on the way forward because we will be watching this very closely to see what you can deliver with this new model in affordable lots of land.
The new master plan suburb, the second stage of Zuccoli, received the appropriation of $20m, but will actually receive $12.4m on the way forward to deliver service lots. It will be phenomenal. Minister, you will be very proud of that. I will be looking forward to that red dust on your boots as you watch the process unfold, as I did in the previous government. It is a very exciting environment.
The minister told us about affordable land with a project called Nightcliff Island, which almost sounds like a reality television show. I am looking forward to seeing the price of lots on Nightcliff Island. I am really looking forward to being able to tell my family, my sons, ‘If you want to invest in the Territory, get up there because there will be some affordable lots on Nightcliff Island’. It looks and sounds pretty exotic. Already, the Territory is buzzing with that conversation.
That will be an excellent education into lands planning processes. You will experience that incredibly exciting journey of travelling with the public as you deliver Nightcliff Island which has been already registered as significant project status. You are in a great seat there; you will enjoy the ride.
I am very concerned, though, about your announcement of an inquiry into residential building insurance. Your Chief Minister started this journey. I got my first speeding infringement in 30 years in the Northern Territory travelling to a meeting where there were 12 families in Alice Springs who had lost their savings and their houses. It was a Saturday morning. I will never forget it; the papers will not let me forget it, and your Chief Minister will not let me forget it. He was in the kitchen of the house I visited, and we started that journey to ensure that does not happen to another Territory family. It was good to hear that already, in the residential building insurance that commenced on 1 January 2013, there have been 400 certificates issued to registered builders to a value of $164.492m. That is a great start and that is important information to take to your inquiry.
Be careful about being swayed by lobby groups that have hidden agendas and about trying to appease what will present as very select members of the community when we are working for all Territory families in what will be the biggest investment of their lives. That package is not just about the fidelity fund, minister. Remember it is about consumer guarantees, mandating progress payments, a dispute resolution process, and a package of safe initiatives around Territory families embarking on the purchase of their first home.
The Minister for Central Australia was one of the more nasty ones. It was, obviously, late at night or his blood pressure was running wild. He turned proper savage, as he usually does, when asked questions. He chose to read out these long-winded answers, was particularly vindictive towards opposition shadow members and, therefore, wasted all the time. I was unable to question the minister about Central Australia. I wanted to have a conversation about Central Australia but was denied that opportunity by a vindictive member who was determined to let ego and personality get in front of our true and accountable story for Territorians.
We did not get to talk about Central Australia and Arts and Museums. I apologise to the public officials from the Department of Arts and Museums because I was sorry they had to wait all day and night and did not get to appear. While the member for Port Darwin tries to blame me, Hansard will reflect I was there, present and accounted for, but the government minister was not very intent on being equitable and accountable and allowing the Arts and Museums’ story to be told.
I had questions such as: why has the Northern Territory government joined New South Wales and Queensland in not signing the federal government funding agreement for a major performing arts excellence pool to fund new works? Why would he not face the question: what is the Northern Territory’s position and scope of works and what is happening around the national culture policy? Why would he not face the question: how will the government support the Museums and Art Galleries of the Northern Territory moving forward as a statutory body? Or: what is the Northern Territory government doing about attracting a very important increase in the philanthropic sector to the arts community where we have seen the pull back in corporate sponsorship quite dramatically?
Let us face it, the minister shares a portfolio of Tourism as well. We know the whole world wants to come to the Northern Territory to learn about our culture and Indigenous culture.
They were very good questions and I was looking forward to talking to those experts in the department. Unfortunately, I did not get the chance. I will try further attempts.
In regard to the Minister for Central Australia, we heard about the Alice Springs Golf Club. Thank you, minister, for that important development.
It is important to say the member for Port Darwin has this holier-than-thou minister approach. ‘We do not need anyone in there. We are not going to prepare any information. The ministers will be across their portfolios, and the ministers will answer the questions.’ Then he slagged off episodes in the past.
I have been a new minister and know how important it is to work with departments. I know how important it is to share information and get that story out accountably.
I believe, member for Port Darwin, your theory is particularly important when you examine the estimates appearance by the Minister for Regional Development, who was obviously across all her portfolios. At one stage in the limited time we had, I listened very attentively to a story about new members appointed as parliamentary secretaries. I knew the political story and thought we were hearing a new story. I thought there was a reappointment but, unfortunately, it was totally incorrect and had to be corrected. We heard about the appointment of community engagement officers to support the new members. In all that process, when the minister was so across her portfolio, it was time wasted which could have been used to examine the portfolio areas more critically.
Member for Port Darwin, the Minister for Regional Development used the public servants who support her and it started to flow better. That is a perfect example of why your theory is wrong and the theory of working with the public sector is the way to go.
The Minister for Infrastructure must be commended because he was the only minister who referred to the signed contracts for Borroloola and Wadeye. Every other minister in this estimates process avoided those signed contracts. The Minister for Infrastructure outlined some of those commitments, but he missed the commitments to the road to Wadeye, the school boarding facilities for Borroloola, and the air conditioner for the Chinese Timorese Association at Marrara. He put on the public record those commitments.
I know those contracts were framed copies on the previous Chief Minister’s desk. I know the new Chief Minister has those on his desk because he knows what it means to promise and deliver.
The Minister for Infrastructure shared important information in a very good estimates process allowing those experts to provide their important information. He tabled important information for us to work with and I commend him.
Madam Deputy Chair, there are many improvements to be made and I hope the Estimates Committee and the PAC work on that.
Ms FYLES: Madam Deputy Chair, the estimates process we have just gone through was not only confusing, but the government did not manage the process well and at times it descended into chaos.
I note my colleagues opposite raised the point that fewer questions were taken on notice and fewer public servants were in attendance, although it must be noted there was a back room full of staff providing support and information, so I do not agree with those comments.
If it had not been for the hard work of the public service, the Legislative Assembly committee staff and the media, it would have been a complete waste of time. I place on record my appreciation of the work of the public service and all staff who attended or provided information. They worked hard through much change and confusion, and continued to provide frank and truthful advice.
I was disappointed with the flow of the hearings at times because, as the information was being scrutinised and provided, the flow would be stopped. We were shut down and continually told our questions were out of order. The most memorable example of that was when we were told we were talking about something that was for beyond 1 July 2013, therefore, we were unable to speak about it, even though the whole process is about the Territory budget for beyond 1 July.
I comment on the difference between the quality of the questions from the opposition and the Independent member compared with the answers from the new government. However, I was pleased to be able to use the estimates process to ask questions on behalf of Territorians, particularly about the state of child protection in the Northern Territory.
During the estimates process it was revealed that 171 jobs have been cut from the Office of Children and Families since the Country Liberal Party came to office. Figures were released in estimates that showed at the end of August there were 799 staff and by the end of March 2013 there were only 628. The figure today we are unsure of, but we know the Country Liberal Party has cut staff.
The impact of these Country Liberal Party staffing cuts is clear. The number of child protection notifications that have had investigations finalised has plummeted from 67% in December to 40% in May. Reports of abuse and neglect are up, while finalised investigations are down. The clear result of taking those 171 staff out of child protection is placing more Territory children at risk of abuse and neglect. We are seeing this with increased caseloads on staff. During estimates questioning, it was revealed that some staff are looking after 58 cases - one person for 58 cases. That those figures have risen is unacceptable. A year ago the average caseload in an urban centre was around 18, which is half of what it was a year before. Yet, these figures have doubled again.
The minister tried to claim that 43 of the jobs had been transferred due to Youth Justice being transferred out of Children and Families, although Youth Justice has never been in Children and Families. Yes, some service functions have been outsourced but the department has never held Youth Justice within it; it has always been in the Department of Justice.
Whether 171 or 128 jobs have gone, the impact is clear: the County Liberal Party is not providing proper protection for vulnerable children. The Alice Springs office has a third of its vacancies unfilled.
Attempts by minster Anderson to blame the non-government sector for child protection failures were outrageous. Minister Anderson said NGOs were simply ticking the boxes. That is an outrageous slur on the people in our community who do so much to protect children. They do not tick boxes; they protect and look after children. Her comments were unnecessary and unfounded. She indicated that the NGO sector accepted money and government grants but did nothing, which is wrong.
Her comments directed to me regarding domestic violence were appalling and not becoming of a minister of the Crown.
The minister was unable to provide details of her plans and policies for child protection. Apart from pulling back the board of inquiry recommendations she had no detail, no framework. Many times she mentioned the word ‘magic’, but there was nothing there. The minister kept telling me it would be okay but there was no detail. I again remind her to step up because she is the minister for the Territory’s children. She needs to get on with the job instead of talking about magic.
It was noticeable that she refused to take questions on forced adoptions. It is clear that the tensions between minister Anderson and the Chief Minister are as strong as ever on that issue.
By contrast, I have to put on record my regret and disappointment that shambolic management of the estimates process meant I was denied the opportunity to ask any questions on a series of matters. For example, I had no opportunity to ask questions related to our natural resources in minister Westra van Holthe’s Land Resource Management output.
This included questions about the impact of administrative changes on our biodiversity conservation across the Territory; the status of programs; a budget to support our hard-working and largely volunteer bush firefighters; support for the control of weeds which increase bushfires, reducing land productivity and threatening our natural ecosystem. This is such an important area, but I could not ask any questions.
The Estimates Committee also did not have the opportunity to scrutinise this government’s approach to land clearing and the potential impacts of broad-scale land clearing in the Top End, particularly in erosion, weed invasion, soil movement, and impact on adjacent river systems.
The Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries is proving to be the master of ducking and weaving around the Mataranka water issue: the allocation of water rights to a CLP mate outside a transparent water allocation planning system. There are still many unanswered questions about this freebie for mates, as well as the government’s distaste for a strategic water reserve to help support regional Indigenous economic development, doing something to help replace the welfare economy we hear so much about from the other side. They cannot even stick to this simple matter of strategic water reserve developments. They cannot talk the talk.
Similarly, we had no real opportunity to ask questions about the state of the Parks and Wildlife Commission and the impact of cost-cutting measures in that area.
Having never had the opportunity to sit in hearings and ask questions, I was unsure of the process, but it is a deep process and often one question would lead to another. The Leader of Government Business, to suit his own needs, decided to change the process of estimates - even though it is a well-thought-out and developed process – and decided that ministers of government owned corporations would not be present today. It was he who put this in writing.
It was helpful that the government changed its mind, or the Chief Minister stepped up to the plate and overruled the Leader of Government Business around statutory officers being present and allowed to answer questions during the estimates process.
I thank Dr Bill Freeland, the EPA Commissioner, for his comprehensive and thoughtful answers to my questions around the work of the Environment Protection Authority, and I look forward to following up on environmental protection issues over time.
Estimates is an important part of keeping the government accountable between elections. An example we know a little more about is the development proposal for Nightcliff Island. I thank the Planning Commissioner for flying from down south to be present and explain to us that this project has been given special status. Yet, no one in my community has heard about it. I am sure that is something I, my community, and the media will be following up.
It was extremely disappointing to hear from the Chief Minister and minister for Police that the CLP has broken its promise to spend $1m on upgrading the Nightcliff Police Station and making it 24/7 as they had promised. However, they have decided to make the Alice Springs Police Station 24/7. The logic they applied to breaking the Nightcliff election promise can be applied to the Alice Springs Police Station: it is better to have a police officer on patrol than behind a desk. It is interesting that the only difference between the Nightcliff Police Station and the Alice Springs Police Station is the Nightcliff Police Station is in a Labor electorate, yet the Alice Springs Police Station is in a CLP electorate. This is a government that makes very personal funding decisions and is happy to break promises.
The Nightcliff Sports Club has been chasing its funding commitment from the government for some time. It was my colleague, the shadow minister for Sport, who raised this with the minister for Sport. I am on the Parliamentary Record questioning the previous Chief Minister about this. I have also had correspondence from the minister for Sport’s office, although he seems to forget this. I am hoping, with only a few days to the end of the financial year, the club will see the dollars, after much dithering by the minister for Sport.
During the estimates process, it was important to debate and have the Health minister acknowledge that the paediatric ward at Royal Darwin Hospital needs an upgrade, and she will be writing to the federal minister on this issue, which is something many Territory families are anxiously awaiting ...
Mrs Lambley: Stop reading. Go on, be brave.
Ms FYLES: It is also an important opportunity to remind the government, particularly this increasingly arrogant government – I note the interjections opposite – that the money to spend is not theirs. The Deputy Chief Minister travelling on the Queen’s former private jet is not about responsible government. You are increasing the cost of living for Territorians, slugging them with increased power, water, and sewerage, yet you travelling on a private jet. It is not acceptable. Treasury funds are being spent on behalf of taxpayers and Territorians more generally. We need a robust, honest, and open process for the government to explain their priorities and decisions …
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Chair! I am wondering if the member might table the document she is reading from. We will happily have it incorporated into Hansard and we can get on with things.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: There is no point of order.
Ms FYLES: I am happy for you to table your travel agenda from your recent private jet trip.
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Chair! The answer to that question on notice has been provided. Maybe she should look at it.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: There is no point of order.
Ms FYLES: What was it like on that private jet, Dave? Territorians are asking …
Mr Tollner: Very nice.
Ms FYLES: I do not know; I have never been on a private jet.
Treasury funds are being spent on behalf of taxpayers and Territorians more generally. We need a robust, honest, and open process for the government to explain their priorities and decisions as well as to demonstrate value for money in the way they spend government funds. For the Chief Minister to suddenly make documents ‘Cabinet’ documents so Territorians could not ask questions or sight them seemed arrogant.
Madam Deputy Chair, once again, I thank our public service, the staff of the Legislative Assembly, our statutory officers, the media, and my colleagues for ensuring this year’s estimates process was rescued from chaos and we had some value for Territory voters.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I will make a few comments on the Estimates Committee. I have found Estimate Committees I have been on have generally to be bipartisan. Of course they have had their blues and their upsets. I was a little disappointed in what I call the Collingwood version of the Estimates Committee from the chair. I understand that many people on the – sorry, Clerk, I did not say Essendon, I said Collingwood.
I do not want to be negative about the Estimates Committee, because it is, believe it or not, an essential part of the parliamentary process. All the government members were in estimates for the very first time. There were two members of the opposition who knew about estimates but had never been on that side of the debate. I felt the comments by the chair today were about the ‘evil empire’ on one side and the ‘good angel’ on the other side. We do not need that division. Yes, we might have our disagreements. I had the odd disagreement with the chair. However, we need to pull back. At the Parliamentary Accounts Committee in Sydney, which the chair and I attended, it was said that when you get to the committee stage there should be much less of the politics and more an approach of working together.
We are all here for the benefit of the people of the Northern Territory. The Estimates Committee is a process which allows public scrutiny of the budget. No one on either side would object to that happening; they would see that as an essential part of the democratic process.
I was not going to comment too much on what had happened from a governance point of view of the estimates, but there have been a few issues raised on which I need to comment. The Attorney-General threw some blame on me about written questions. The process of estimates is public scrutiny; that is, there is a public question and a public answer. The mistake made this time was that the written questions came back into the Estimates Committee when they probably should have been delivered two days before the Estimates Committee started. Then, whoever asked for those answers could have taken the responses from those written questions and used them, if they liked, as part of the debate during the formal estimates process.
I am not sure where the Attorney-General was criticising me and saying I am to blame for the Chief Minister reading out the questions. If you get away from the process where we ask questions and table the entire batch on answers, where is the public and the media involved? If they get hold of Hansard a couple of days later, or other members of the Estimates Committee wait for Hansard to show what has been tabled, there will be no opportunity to scrutinise the minister because the minister will have finished his or her time and that scrutiny will not have occurred. There is a very important principle here. If government wishes to turn estimates into written questions, I will not be not part of it - not where the answers are tabled. It goes against the principle of why we are here - the public scrutiny of the government’s budget. If you want to water that down, then do it, but I will not be part of it.
The issue about being absent was raised and has somehow been blown out of all proportion. The absenteeism today was in relation to me having to go to the dentist. I informed the chair yesterday that there would be a requirement for a quorum today. It was the chair’s responsibility to ensure there would be a quorum this morning by asking each side to ensure we had the numbers. I understand and fully sympathise with the chair that she was sick, but that information should have been given to the deputy chair, and the deputy chair should have ensured someone was there to replace me. The Estimates Committee includes only one Independent. I cannot get someone else to replace me and that has to be worked out by the chair with the government or the opposition. Comments about that need to be put into perspective.
In relation to me walking out when I was falling asleep, when the Chief Minister kept asking me if I was awake - he asked me that from 5 pm onwards – it was not perfect, but we should not be holding public servants up at that hour of night. We can go over that ground, but can we fix it? We came back in the second half of estimates and it was improved. It was a learning curve because we had this new idea from the Attorney-General that we should go to exhaustion. I believe he meant exhaustion of questions, not literally fall over from exhaustion on the floor. The idea of being able to ask ministers questions until you have run out of questions is a good idea but it requires some discipline. I accept that, but believe we will do a better job next year. That issue needs to be looked at.
On the other side, I make some positive comments. The Chief Minister spoke for a long time and, even though I did not agree with everything he said, I quite enjoyed some of the things he was talking about. He had some good ideas. They may not come to fruition, but at least I heard a Chief Minister with some new ideas.
I was very appreciative of the Chief Minister saying he will be looking at a possible review of the Electoral Act. That came up because of issues the opposition raised in relation to behaviour they allege occurred at Wadeye. I have had issues at polling booths and am not a fan of the masses of people with how-to-vote cards you have to pass to vote. I appreciate that the minister has looked at that and is willing to at least review the area of the Electoral Act covering that.
The Treasurer and Minister for Business was there for an exceptionally long time. I agree, minister, you should not have been there for 17 hours. You said one of the problems was I said I wanted all the written questions read out. They should have been read because that is the process in place. Do not have that process in place if you do not intend to use it properly. Have your answers back two days before estimates start, then we can pick out those questions we want to ask you directly.
It is all well and good to block questions - and the former government also did that well regarding floor space - but sometimes questions do not relate to the department, which was the problem with having a broad spectrum of questions. One of them was about water at Mataranka; that is not the sort of thing the Speaker or the minister responsible for children’s affairs will talk about. The questions should have been tighter as well because that took up time.
Madam Deputy Chair, I thank everybody - all the people on the Estimates Committee. You worked hard, there were some mistakes, there was a little agro from time to time, but we are here to work on behalf of the people to scrutinise the government’s budget and we should work together and not turn this into a ‘them and us’ situation.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Deputy Chair, it was a very interesting experience for me because for the past 12 years I had been sitting on the other side taking questions from the members of the opposition. It was interesting to see the dynamics from the other side, and compare it to when we were in the hot seat.
Yes, there were problems. It was one of John Elferink’s master plans that did not work the way it should have. However, knowing Mr Elferink, I wonder if there was any ulterior motive behind the whole process.
It is impossible for any minister to know all the answers about his or her department, and that is why ministers have to rely on public servants. Even the CEOs are unlikely to have intimate knowledge of the department’s finances so they will also need to have the Chief Financial Officer available for estimates. I was very surprised when I received the letter that said only the ministers would appear at the estimates and no public servants. I thought that was very interesting because either the ministers are very well versed and know their department’s very well, which I doubt, or Mr Elferink wants to embarrass every one of them. Why? Because they did not vote for him to be Chief Minister, or is he planning for the future?
Somebody in Mr Elferink’s office realised it was not a good idea – it was actually dumb - and decided every minister should be assisted by the CEOs. Thankfully, the CEOs realised it was not a good idea and they needed to be supported by other bureaucrats. Then we saw ministers before us with their CEOs and the Chief Financial Officers who could respond to questions.
Many of my counterparts had to ask the CEO to answer questions because they were operational questions; they had no idea about them. The CEOs are paid two or three times more than a minister to run the department. It is not expected that the minister would know how to run a department such as Health, or Tourism. The role of the minister is to devise policy, not tell the department CEO how to run his department.
The time could have been managed much better. I expected the member for Port Darwin to blame the opposition for that. He said it was the opposition’s fault that it did not use the time efficiently. I remind the member for Port Darwin of the first estimates in 2002. I was not questioned as a minister because the opposition ran out of time. They took their time questioning other ministers; I was the last in line and even though I turned up, I was not questioned.
I recall the second and third estimates and the frustration of the member for Greatorex, who wanted to ask me a question about multicultural affairs. He was given time for just one question and he gave his colleagues some deadly looks because he was running out of time. It is not only the individual, it is a combination of factors. Yes, some ministers have to be questioned more than others. Some ministers found an easy way out. If they read the written questions for four hours, that took four hours out of their time - wise for the minister, but not clever as a government.
People want answers. These questions could be tabled either before the Estimates Committee is convened, so people know about it, or they can read them into Hansard as the time goes by. You might think it is a clever way out; it is not. People can see through that, and they will complain and comment about it. People want to know answers about the budget, the efficiency of the departments, and the ideas of the ministers.
We again had the argument from the member for Port Darwin who would not allow a police officer to answer a question because it was a policy question. Today ministers did not turn up, leaving public servants to be questioned on policy issues. Of course, they would not be able to do that because that is not the role of public servants.
I turn specifically to areas of my portfolios. I asked questions on Asian Engagement and Trade. The Treasurer travelling to China using a private charter was one of the key questions for the simple reason I found it excessive and unnecessary. I have no problem with the Treasurer or any other minister travelling to Southeast Asia, as this is what every minister who wants to promote the Territory has to do.
I have no problem with the Minister for Tourism travelling; his role is to promote the Territory. I did that as a Minister for Tourism. The problem is the way you go, where you go, how you go, and how much it costs. The travel by the Treasurer to China, as the Minister for Business, was excessive and expensive …
Mr Tollner: It was a commercial flight.
Mr VATSKALIS: Minister, you can try to argue as much as you like …
Mr Tollner: It was treated as a commercial flight. I read out a comparison in estimates.
Mr VATSKALIS: The cost per person …
Mr Tollner: It would cost $90 000 for you to take the same trip. Goodness me! Wake up to yourself.
Mr VATSKALIS: I did, minister.
Minister, I strongly suggest that next time you get a better travel agent who will save you money. It might have cost you $15 000 per person; I could have done the same thing at one-fifth of the price. You can try to justify it as much as you like, the reality is you flew the Queen of Jordan’s …
Mr Tollner: You absolute grub!
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Treasurer, cease interjecting!
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Chair! I ask the Treasurer to withdraw the language he is using in reference to the …
Mr Tollner: He is being a grub. He knows exactly what he is saying. He knows exactly …
Ms WALKER: I ask him to withdraw the language. That is the point of order before you. He does not even have the call and he is on his feet.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Are you offended by these comments, member for Casuarina?
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes, I am offended, Madam Deputy Chair.
Mr Tollner: Offended by what?
Mr VATSKALIS: By your language, member for Fong Lim.
Mr Tollner: I am offended by yours! How about you withdraw that?
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Treasurer, please withdraw!
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw.
Mr VATSKALIS: It must be a sore point, Madam Deputy Chair.
As I said before, I do not care if the minister travels; I encourage that. Territorians and I are concerned about the cost of travelling. Looking at the websites of the airlines you can fly from here to Beijing, through Singapore, business class and it will cost you $4000. I never had to wait 36 hours in any lounge in China because we arranged our trips so we could catch the flights from one airport to the other. I am not going to question the effectiveness of his trip, although I still have doubts. Good on him if he went to China to promote the Territory. I voice my concern about the cost and mode of his travel.
The only time I flew a private jet was when I picked up a ride from Western Australia to come here for a conference. It cost nothing because the Cultural minister of Western Australia was kind enough to ask me if I wanted to fly with him rather than on a commercial flight.
I want to comment on the Health portfolio. The minister asked for assistance from her CEO, and I have no problem with that. Some of the questions we asked were operational and the CEO and other officers were required to answer.
I was concerned about the announcement of the hospital car parking, and we questioned that. We thought it was unwise because people who go to Royal Darwin Hospital do not have an option to go to another hospital or to choose how long they will stay there. Some of them might go to a clinic but, because of the way things are done, instead of being there for an hour they can be four, five, or six hours. The minister chose the easy way out. It is an unfortunate announcement. Obviously the minister has been making all the difficult announcements for this government, and she might, in time, have to pay for it.
I also questioned the minister about the super clinic. She said on radio - I heard it with my own ears - saying the super clinic can provide assistance to the hospital by removing the workload for the emergency department. When she praised the Palmerston Super Clinic there was no mention of the northern suburbs super clinic. In the end, she committed to write to the federal minister for Health. I asked her to forward a letter to my office so I can write in support of her request for funding from the federal government for a super clinic. I am still waiting for that letter.
We found out the real story of this government around the Palmerston hospital. This government has refused to proceed with the Palmerston hospital and to provide a new facility for the people of Palmerston and the rural area for political reasons. They told us they would spend $5m on a report on the Palmerston hospital. The minister went to great lengths to highlight some of the shortcomings where, unfortunately, three or four reports had already been done. Every issue the minister raised had already been addressed by those reports.
One issue she raised was the traffic. I pointed out that in page 14 of the latest report there was a total analysis of the traffic situation in Palmerston. It was highlighted that no problem had been found. I am still committed to providing the minister with these reports if the department has not shown them to her because the $5m can be spent better somewhere else than on writing another report to justify their delay in providing a hospital in Palmerston.
I questioned the Primary Industry and Fisheries minister for only an hour-and-a-half because the questioning for Health took longer than I expected. There were many issues in health. Health is one of the most important issues in the Territory. We have some of the sickest people in Australia, and we have to address the health issues. One of the big issues in health was taking away the medi-hotel, which was vital for people coming from the bush to receive treatment in the Territory, and would have provided a safe environment for them to stay in. It was taken away for the ill-conceived alcohol plan they have, which will come later and we will discuss it then.
I was totally unsatisfied by the excuses of the minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries, and Resources about the taxes he and this government imposed on the mining sector. The minister told us the mining sector was consulted, knew everything about it and said, ‘What do you expect? Of course, they will argue about it because they do not like it.’ Unfortunately, not only did I have verbal information from the Minerals Council of Australia, Northern Territory Branch, but I also had it in writing, because there were two media releases issued. One of them was against the imposition of a levy for the shortcomings of the previous governments with regard to legacy mines, and the other was the tax they put on the resources sector with regard to their office accommodation and, of course, the transfer of goods between companies.
These two media releases from the Minerals Council of Australia, Northern Territory Branch, clearly stated that the industry was not approached or consulted at all. I will speak more about the levy on the mining sector with regard to legacy mines later when the amendments to the Mine Management Act are debated. I highlight that this is one of the very big issues that will affect the Territory and be a disincentive for companies to invest in the Territory.
Last, I will talk about the Ord River. The minister has been praising the stage 3 development. Yes, it is a good idea to have another agricultural development in the Northern Territory as long as the minister takes time and gives all Territorians a clear picture. I have been advised by very reliable sources that not everything is as good as the minister describes.
The minister has never told us there is a strong reaction by the traditional owners to the development of a significant area of the Ord because that development will affect some of their traditional land which is held in very high respect and is holy to those people. Many traditional owners, while they accept development in other areas, strongly object to it in that area of the Keep River. Fifteen members of the traditional owners group visited the minister in Darwin and expressed their strong opposition to development of that area.
Have we heard anything from this government? No. Have we heard anything from this minister? No. Do we hear anything about an analysis by the department, or anybody, about the opportunity the Ord presents? No. What we hear is the golden future for the Territory if the Ord is developed. The minister has never said how jobs would be created in the west of the Northern Territory area if Ord Stage 3 is developed because there will not be many.
The Ord is to be developed as a sugar production area. Not many people are employed in the planting or cropping of sugar. The sugar mill will be near Kununurra, Western Australia. All the material will be transported there for processing and the final product will be exported by the port of Wyndham, which is in Western Australia, not the Northern Territory.
In addition, even today there are strong concerns about the suitability of the Ord for the production of food and sugar. We have seen vast areas of the Ord taken for the production of trees. The member for Nelson has highlighted that some of the trees produced should not be there; there should be more productive crops planted on the Ord.
However, expansion of the Ord to our side still has problems and it would be very wise for the minister to tell Territorians the truth about the difficulties facing the development of the Ord scheme. How much will it cost Territorians to develop this area? Who will bear that cost? Will it be private companies or Northern Territory taxpayers? Those questions need to be answered, not in the never-never but now, before we proceed to any serious decisions about the Ord.
My biggest concern is the watering down of the environmental bonds for mining development and establishment of mines. The previous Labor government ensured every company wanting to develop a mine had to pay a 100% environmental bond to cover potential damage to the environment should the mining company go bust or stop production. We never want to see a repeat of the Mt Todd situation and other legacy mines that were left behind with very significant environmental costs for us to pick up and fix because the damage to the environment was significant.
Madam Deputy Chair, some of these questions were put to the minister. Others, because of shortness of time, were not. However, it was an exercise that can provide lessons for all of us. Quite a few of the members opposite realise what was presented to them was not the best model for an estimates process. I am sure there will be a robust debate within their Caucus for next year’s estimates. I doubt the member for Port Darwin will be allowed to develop the model he thought was the best one because it was not.
Ms WALKER: Madam Deputy Chair, my fifth budget estimates and my first sitting on the other side of the table as a member of the opposition is an experience I will remember for some time. It is memorable for a number of reasons: the ridiculous and almost unworkable revision and set-up of the estimates process; the quality of the chairing of the committee; the churlish performance of some of the ministers of the Crown; and the number of clear answers to questions I did not receive in my areas of shadow responsibility, as well as a couple of local member questions I managed to slip in.
I believe next year we will see a better and more workable estimates process set up because, I daresay, just about the entirety of the Country Liberal Party wing will have turned on the member for Port Darwin for insisting on a committee process which ended up hurting just about everybody but him. His fond attachment to the CLP days of old and the ‘this is how we used to do things back in the good old days; make them stay up all night to ask questions’, clearly did not work. The questioning-to-exhaustion approach folded after two very late nights in a row, with the Chief Minister doing a bit of a dummy spit and members of the committee recognising it was simply not humanly possible to function effectively after such long hours.
We had the bravado of the member for Fong Lim, the Treasurer, who said he would stay for five days if he had to, versus the Chief Minister who said he would not be there until all hours and would not be coming back the next day. Well, he crumbled and came back the next day.
Overlooked in the equation was the demand on the staff of the Legislative Assembly and the public servants. I thank those people for their patience and fortitude in working such ridiculous hours on the insistence of the Leader of Government Business.
Having been the deputy chair of estimates for four years, I have insights into how demanding this role can be and how important it is for the chair to facilitate debate in a manner which is fair and equitable to all parties with a neutral disposition. I am sure the member for Drysdale is pleased that the fortnight is over, and I am very sorry to hear she is unwell today. If I were to offer advice to the chair for next year’s estimates it would be to allow a little more latitude and recognise that the question and answer process is, by nature, often very conversational, and questions will be preceded by a statement or a preamble which will lead to the question.
Standing orders are an important guide and compass in facilitating debate but, all too often, they were used to protect ministers and shut down a line of questioning which might have been too uncomfortable for a minister. This was frequently followed by a threat of a warning or a possible ejection.
The Leader of Government Business each year sang the praises of the member for Fannie Bay’s chairing capabilities, and the member for Drysdale would do well to take lessons from him.
What can I say about the member for Arnhem as the deputy chair? Her desire to learn on the job is admirable, but she was unleashed on the committee and, at times, was almost embarrassing and cringe-worthy. I would be willing to cut her some slack as a new member in the role for the first time, but her insistence on standing orders associated with offensive words was simply wrong and silly. For heaven sake, ‘cow cocky’ and ‘former Chief Minister’ were phrases that were ruled offensive and members who uttered these words were lectured by the member for Arnhem. It was ridiculous, and obviously many of the ABC Country Hour listeners thought so too, given the online comments they posted. Also, her desire to interject, offer commentary and ask local members questions when it was not her turn was simply bizarre.
I thank the Attorney-General for answering questions and entering into discussions about crime statistics and the merits or otherwise of alcohol supply measures such as the Banned Drinker Register. Essentially, he conceded nothing, even though crime statistics from his agency show crime has risen since the Banned Drinker Register was axed. By the same token, he was unable to explain exactly how they will reduce crime by 10% and the methodology by which this will be measured. He continues to ignore the evidence about the effectiveness of the BDR and is on the record as being confident there will be no legal challenges to the Alcohol Management Treatment Bill due for passage later today. I would not be as confident as him, especially with dozens of amendments already brought forward to this bill.
In relation to the costs associated with an anticipated increase in the number of people locked up as a result of new laws, including minimum mandatory sentencing, the answer from the Attorney-General was $162.351m. I look forward to next year’s estimates to see how accurate that figure is and whether locking more people up will, somehow, be a deterrent and reduce the recidivism rate as well as reduce crime by 10%.
The Attorney-General responded to questions about the abolition of the SMART Court, advising that 230 defendants were referred and 146 accepted into the SMART Court program, with 52 graduating. I consider that to be a reasonable result; however, the Attorney-General dismissed it as, ‘disappointing in effectiveness and bang for buck for millions of expenditure’. Given this, I look forward to hearing next year’s estimates about how many graduations we will see from the alcohol management treatment programs and whether there is a bang for the taxpayer buck from the $45m about to be spent there.
As for the Corrections portfolio, we heard much about how the CLP continues to build on Labor’s new era of Corrections, some of which is under the rebadged program Sentenced to a Job. The minister, disappointingly, was unable to quantify how many people have dropped out of the program other than to say ‘too many’.
I welcomed the opportunity to spend time in estimates with the Minister for Regional Development around my other shadow responsibilities. I remain unconvinced the minister is adequately across her Homelands Extra Allowance, given she had to take as a question on notice what I would have thought was one of the most basic and obvious questions: how many applications had been received; how many approved; how many declined; and how many were pending?
The reality is the application forms have only very recently - in the last one to two weeks - appeared on the department’s website, and I do not recall seeing any advertising to let homelands and outstation residents know they are available. I, therefore, suspect the answer to my question on notice will be that no applications have been approved because none have been received, and that is because the forms have not been out there.
It does confirm that when the minister announced at GanGan on 2 May that, ‘This money is available from today’, that statement was plainly untrue. I also note that the application form for the Homelands Extra Allowance has a deadline of 31 August on it. It states on the form that it must be lodged by 31 August. This is a real problem for homelands and outstation residents which will seriously limit the number of residents who will apply. Given that it is the Dry Season and we are now into school holidays, many homeland residents will be travelling and by the time they get back from school holidays they will have little more than a month to complete and lodge their application form through their homeland or outstation resource agency.
The demands of the form for those with low literacy levels will be challenging, and the task of providing help lies with service providers, not with the agency. How service providers will meet the administration cost of providing this assistance and any administration of the scheme remains unclear. But I know the minister will be held to account around her commitment that the whole of the $5200 will go to eligible households and nothing will be deducted for administration costs.
What was also unclear during the Estimates Committee was the judging of eligibility criteria, especially in relation to the means testing. Nowhere on the website or the form does it state that the means testing will see a householder earning more than $44 752 eligible. That was the figure given to me during the estimates questioning yesterday. That is a fairly key figure which should be on the form and the website, so when people fill out this paperwork they know where that cross-off is in eligibility with income.
Could the result be that people may find ways to reduce their income to meet eligibility? Maybe, but what a terrible shame that would be, given the scheme is about trying to incentivise people to work. However, it goes to the heart of the scheme, which is inherently unfair in its eligibility when it goes to means testing.
We, on both sides of this House, know homelands and outstation housing is in need of funding for repairs. Labor was committed to funding homeland housing repairs in a very similar program, but there was no means testing under Labor’s policy.
If we know dwellings are permanently occupied, are in need of repair, that kids will go to school, and adults are in a job, training, CDEP, or voluntary work, then we should be spending money to fix that house, not delaying the process and making it difficult for residents by linking it to their income through a means testing process. It is a system that is set up to be unnecessarily difficult and will not see as many homeland dwellings receive much-needed funding as would have been the case under Labor.
Another fascinating revelation was to learn from the Minister for Regional Development that the Bush Subcommittee of Cabinet tasked with visiting bush communities to investigate expenditure and waste had managed to make just one trip to Lajamanu before that committee was disbanded.
The minister then advised that those bush members had been made parliamentary secretaries and were assisting ministers with their duties while learning the ropes of how to be a good member of parliament. It was perhaps 10 minutes or so after this that the minister received advice that was then delivered: ‘I have been informed that we do not have parliamentary secretaries, we have Community Engagement Officers to assist the bush members.’ So we no longer have parliamentary secretaries to support them to do their jobs and learn the ropes, but we have three Community Liaison Officers who have been employed to support these bush MLAs and help them do their jobs.
Unfortunately, no details were available about these roles, given they are not through the minister’s agency but, rather, through DCM. It is a far cry from a Bush Subcommittee of Cabinet to suddenly have three new public servants employed exclusively to assist bush members in doing their jobs.
I also spoke with the minister about the unfairness of power price increases in remote Indigenous communities, especially when residents use prepaid power tokens, as well as the atrocious communication program - or lack of - to inform bush residents reliant upon prepaid power tokens that these power increases were coming.
I thank the minister for the discussion she had with me on this important subject. She summarised when she replied:
- I completely agree with you. We did undertake that slow process of informing communities very quickly and there was that gap. We needed a marketing campaign and should have gone to the communities earlier and advised them of the changes quickly. I take that on board, member for Nhulunbuy.
With this recognition of failure to people in the bush, I hope the member for Katherine takes this on board, as the responsible Minister for Essential Services and issues me with an apology for accusing me of lying and scaremongering when I first raised this as a very real issue in January.
I thank the member for Namatjira, as Minister for Local Government, for answering questions in that section. Clearly the focus was the current reform process, the review of local government, the work of the Regional Governance Working Group and the very costly round of consultations over the last few months. The minister has made a commitment to put the question on notice to provide costs of taxpayer dollars associated with these consultations.
Anecdotally, I am hearing people are very confused about these consultations; they thought they were working with the CLP government which will get rid of the shires. Getting rid of the shires is not an option in the options paper. Some people are dismayed by this and they are wondering what the point of these consultations is; they had not been told. I have heard that at some of the consultations they were told the only change will be a rebadging from local government councils to regional councils. Taxpayers will want to see what the return on the investment is for this massive and very costly consultation period. I look forward to seeing the report that will come out in the coming weeks about that process.
I look forward to next year’s estimates. Indeed, I look forward to the next sittings and Question Time: another opportunity where not only I, but my colleagues, have the opportunity to ask questions around our shadow portfolios. We will continue to hold this very untrustworthy government to account on their promises and election commitments and why it is they say one thing and do another.
I also look forward to receiving, I hope, a positive response from the Treasurer. I wrote to him last week with an invitation, a request on behalf of the people of Nhulunbuy, for him to attend a function whereby stakeholders who are interested - and there are many from business people to community members and people involved in local sporting organisations and what have you - to know more about the Territory budget. The budget road show was axed this year. The Treasurer said in estimates last week that was because he had been told there probably would not be the numbers to warrant going to Tennant Creek, Katherine, and Nhulunbuy. I have written to the Treasurer and assured him that I consider a turnout of 30 to 40 people at one of these functions in Nhulunbuy - which has been the case over the last few years - to be very worthwhile. I have offered to host the function. I have offered to provide a modest morning or afternoon tea for people who wish to attend. I hope he takes me up on that offer.
Madam Deputy Chair, I am sure with his good connections in the aviation industry and the access he has to Queen class travel that, one way or another, the Treasurer will get there. We will certainly welcome him. People have many questions they wish to ask him.
Ms MANISON: Madam Deputy Chair, it has certainly been an interesting few weeks for me as a local member going into the estimates process for the first time. It is an important opportunity to be able to sit down with the government and the Independent to ask some important questions about how they are going with the budget and whether they are delivering their commitments, to get some baseline data, and to see what is really going on under the CLP’s watch.
In regard to the Housing portfolio, for which I am shadow, I gained much interesting information about what is going on. The first thing that came up for me was looking at the government’s plans around the construction of new public housing. It became very clear, when I looked at Budget Paper No 4 to see what was on the books in infrastructure under the Public Housing portfolio, that there were no plans for new public housing that was not revote. There was nothing new there that was not already under way under Labor.
It was a real shame to see, at a time when we know demand for housing is high - people need it; they are finding things pretty tough - we are not seeing public housing moving forward in any extra or new additional stock.
It was also my opportunity to ask a few questions regarding the plans of the government around the sale of 50 public housing properties at the moment. The minister has made it very clear that 50 properties are going under the auction hammer when they go up for sale. What I found to be a real shame was, of those properties, most of the money from those sales will go straight into repairing and upgrading homes, as opposed to the construction of new dwellings.
Today we heard an announcement about the Runge Street complex which has been vacant for some time now. That is 24 units people in Darwin cannot access. There is an expression of interest going out about that but, again, it is very vague on details. There is no real sense of urgency about getting stock back up and running in public housing, and no real details about what that final number will be in regard to those public housing dwellings.
We also saw in the budget papers that public housing numbers had gone down to about 5036. We are also seeing a reduction in the numbers through the sale and the unloading of stock.
The fact is, the demand for public housing is not diminishing; the wait list times are increasing. It was concerning to see the wait list times, at one point, disappear off the Internet altogether. I was very pleased when that was bought to the minister’s attention and they were promptly put back on for all to see where they would stand if they applied for public housing. We can keep track of how things are going in public housing, and how long those lists are.
It was a worry to see the wait periods for all public housing are increasing. For example, the waiting period for a one-bedroom dwelling for pensioners in Alice Springs has increased from 50 months to 64 months; in Darwin and Casuarina from 70 months to 83 months; and in Palmerston from 60 to 65 months. The waiting period for two-bedroom dwellings in Alice Springs has gone from 49 months to 63 months; in Casuarina and Darwin from 52 to 62 months; and in Palmerston 54 months to 67 months. The number of applicants for public housing is around the same as it was this time last year, yet the wait times have increased.
I also asked some questions about the vacancies because it is an interesting question to ask: how many public housing dwellings across the Territory are vacant at the moment? How many have nobody is in them at a time when we have such high demand? The answer to that was 299, so almost 300 dwellings are vacant. That is 111 more than at the same time last year; 111 properties with nobody in them at a time when the need is immense.
I also asked a few questions about the vacancy turnaround times, which is something that is included in the report on government services every year. It was something that formerly, under the Labor government, you would see in Budget Paper No 3: what is the average time to turnaround a vacant public housing dwelling? We do not want them unoccupied; we want to get people in them as quickly as possible. I was unable to get a figure on that. I also ask that the government reconsiders putting that back into Budget Paper No 3. It is disappointing to see that disappear off the books because it is about being accountable and transparent, and it is important for the agency to be able to monitor and track how it is performing when it comes to turning over vacant public housing stock as quickly as possible to get Territorians most in need into that housing.
Estimates was also an opportunity to ask a few questions about the recent rent price hikes for many public housing tenants. Many people have been slapped with a $200 a week increase in their rent. That is almost $12 000 extra a year people need to find to pay the rent when they are not earning much money in the first place.
I found it a bit off-putting that day to see a media release issued by the minister that stated:
- They are clearly happy to pay rent based on market rates for the area.
He was referring to the people who have just been slapped with an increase in rent of $200 a week. If I was slapped with an extra $200 on top of my mortgage or my rent I would be shocked. It is a huge amount of money to find every week to pay the rent, especially if you are not earning a high income. It concerns me that the minister appeared to show a complete lack of concern for those people.
I also asked whether anybody else was paying $400 a week to live in the Kurringal Flats. We have seen an example where one person is paying $400 a week. I asked if they knew of any more people who have been slapped with $400 a week rent to live in Kurringal. They were unable to provide me with an answer. Either way, it is concerning to know that, according to the minister, $400 a week to live at Kurringal Flats is acceptable.
The process around those rent increases has caused considerable shock and stress, and many people will reconsider how they go about their daily lives. What astounded me about this process was there are many people now asking themselves whether or not they should keep working. Because they have had such a huge rent increase they have looked at their options and discovered that if they cut their working hours they do not have to pay the extra rent. Some people are also considering quitting work. That is not what we want to see in the economy; we want to see people being productive members of the community and contributing, taking up those jobs we need filled. I found it quite concerning to hear the stories of people who are, in many cases, stopping work or rearranging their working schedule so they can avoid having to pay this extra rent. I asked for a figure on how much extra rent these Territorians would pay and I did not get an answer. One thing is for sure, it is a cash grab from some of our most vulnerable Territorians, which is heartless and concerning.
The other thing I found quite shocking through this estimates process was how the CLP government’s new home ownership program, HomeBuild Access, is performing compared to the old HOMESTART NT program. In the mini-budget, the CLP scrapped the HOMESTART NT scheme. It was a fantastic scheme that helped many young people, couples, and families buy a home who, otherwise, would have found it really difficult and may have missed out and still been renting.
I asked how many people had taken up the HOMESTART NT loans for the six months to December last year, before they scrapped it. The answer was 283. That is 283 homes across the Territory which have been purchased by people with the assistance of the government. Clearly, it was a scheme that worked, allowing 283 young people, couples or families to obtain home ownership in the Territory and get out of a life of renting.
When I asked how many Territorians had accessed the new scheme, HomeBuild Access, the answer was 25. That is 25 versus 283, which shows what a good scheme HOMESTART NT was and that HomeBuild Access is not kicking the goals we need. It is a real shame to see that and I will be keeping an eye on it.
During estimates I also asked about the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing, a very important program that has changed many people’s lives for the better through new or improved housing. We have heard the government is moving toward some new models of housing, including modular houses that will be built in some of the communities. I asked the question about whether or not these homes are being constructed on site in the communities so you can get local workforce benefits from employment and training opportunities. I was given a fairly vague answer that they are generally constructed off-site, and some are brought in. I did not really get to the bottom of that. It is something we will also be asking more questions about in the future.
The Public Employment portfolio has been an area of much debate to many people. Prior to the election the government made some very firm commitments to Territorians in the public service that their jobs were safe. They made some commitments that frontline services would not be compromised. Many members on the other side stood outside the front of workplaces handing out brochures saying, ‘Your job is safe’. On election day we saw big corflutes at the polling booths saying, ‘Your job is safe’, targeted at Territory public servants.
During the estimates process I was provided with information from the Minister for Public Employment. It was very clear in that document that between August 2012 and March 2013 there was a loss of 471 jobs in the public service. That is 471 people who were told before the election that they would have a job, only to find, under the new government, they no longer had employment. That is almost 500 families dealing with somebody without a job. That makes life very tough.
One of the departments with the biggest hit was the department where we have the greatest need in the Territory: the Department of Children and Families. Through the estimates questioning there was debate about the figure of 171 positions, of which 40-odd were transferred to other agencies. However, that still leaves about 130 fewer jobs in that agency. That is a real concern when we know the need is so great in that area.
We also heard through the estimates process that 126 teachers through the middle and senior years will be losing their jobs in Education, and that is alarming. Before the election, people were clearly told by the CLP that there would be no frontline service jobs lost. As soon as they got into government, what did we see? There are 126 teachers being taken out of the Territory education system. That is a disgrace. In the department there are 25 fewer staff in housing.
The department of Sport and Recreation, which is not a big agency, has nine fewer staff, going from 55 to 46. It makes a fairly big impact when that many people go.
Lands, Planning and the Environment has lost 21 positions and there are 34 less in the Department of Infrastructure. This is leading to higher workloads and more stress for those who are left behind. They are carrying a bigger, heavier load on their shoulders, and we are hearing that morale is at an all-time low in the public sector. People are still quite concerned about where their futures lie.
I also asked a few questions about the upcoming EBA, particularly about the new government asking public servants, as part of their normal working hours, to consider working on Saturday mornings at a single rate of pay. I asked the minister, ‘Who exactly are the public servants you would like to see working these hours?’ Unfortunately, I was unable to obtain an answer.
With regard to my electorate, I had answers, got more information, or heard a few statements from the government regarding other matters at estimates. One that raised concerns for me was that Casuarina Senior College and Dripstone Middle School will be affected by having fewer teachers in the system. I do not think it is much comfort for them to see that a maximum of only five teachers will leave a school per year. We know that education is critical to the future of the Territory, and teachers play a very important part in that, so it is very disappointing to see fewer teachers in our middle and senior years.
I was glad to hear the minister say he would like to build a new Henbury School. I am looking forward to seeing what happens in the future. I can assure you, minister, I will be keeping the pressure on, because it is critical that we have a new Henbury School. It is bursting at its seams. They are anticipating about 100 enrolments next year. It is too full, but there are no commitments in this budget going forward, not even for the planning of a new school. That is something we will be keeping an eye on.
One thing that was also quite clear going through this process is that for my constituents in Wanguri the cost of living is impacting them. It is still hitting them quite hard, particularly the power and water price increases, in the first instance, hitting the hip pocket. The flow-on effects are impacting on them, from childcare through to the ability to pay to play sport and that type of thing. Businesses are having to pass on those costs to their customers and increase prices for their services and products.
Overall, it was a very interesting process going through estimates. I thank the ministers I spoke to for providing some of that critical baseline data that we need going forward to measure the performance of this new CLP government and see how it is going.
Madam Deputy Chair, I also thank the public servants who put a lot of work into this process and made themselves available to answer questions. I noticed there were a fair few lights on in the buildings of certain agencies going home one evening, so I knew many people were still at work preparing information.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Chair, I will respond to some of the comments that have been made.
The opposition was given everything they asked for in this estimates hearing. Ministers made themselves available for as long as they were required. I was there for 17 hours and the Chief Minister was there for 20 hours. We did everything we could to be on hand for the Estimates Committee.
I have received some criticism about not being around when the Power and Water Corporation was questioned. Normally, one would expect that government owned corporation sits outside of government and, as such, they would answer questions put directly to them. However, I made the point during the time I was being questioned as the Treasurer, as the shareholding minister for Power and Water Corporation, that I would be more than happy to answer any questions there and then in relation to the Power and Water Corporation. I was more than happy to turn up, if the committee had asked me to, to the GOC output earlier today.
The opposition is quite hollow in saying we were hiding behind public servants. Absolute arrant nonsense! As I said, the fact is we have made ourselves available, listened to the opposition bang on for a few hours in relation to this appropriation, carrying on about price hikes in certain areas and the cost of parking at RDH.
I remind the opposition that it was they who left $5.5bn worth of debt which has to be cleaned up by this new government. As such, we are tightening the belt. It has not been a slash-and-burn budget; it is more about focusing on areas of waste and trying to find efficiencies in the system. As I said during the estimates period, we found more than $200m in savings without reducing services pretty well anywhere.
All in all, it has been a responsible budget. I am disappointed with the opposition; I thought they would have used their time more prudently, asked questions more prudently, and would have tried to delve for information. Unfortunately, it was seen as an opportunity to grandstand and get on their soapboxes. Listening to the Opposition Leader rant on, sometimes for 15 minutes, at the end of which there was no question, you wondered what the hell you were doing sitting there in an estimates process.
All in all, the process that was put in place is for the Estimates Committee or the Public Accounts Committee. It is a process that is there for the opposition to question government. The opposition was given every possible opportunity to question whomever they liked. To carry on now that they only saw the Mines minister for an hour shows how badly they managed their time during this estimates process.
Madam Deputy Chair, as I said, it is a responsible budget. There is more belt-tightening to come. Government will continue to make responsible decisions to drive the Territory’s economic growth.
Motion agreed to.
Remainder of bill agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
REVENUE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 28)
(Serial 28)
Continued from 15 May 2013.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I thank the Treasurer for his briefing. I will take note of learned colleagues in this House who commenced with, ‘I will not be on my feet for long contributing to this debate’, then went for 45 minutes with an extension. However, I will not be on my feet for long contributing to this debate. I thank the Chief Minister for his briefing. The opposition will support this bill.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague because he adjourned the debate while I was out of the Chamber in the first reading. Whilst we support this bill because the government anticipates it will raise $10m through these revenue measures, it is quite different to the mining amendment which will follow. One of the concerns we have consistently had, and have raised through the estimates process and previous debates, is that the resources sector is critical to the Territory economy. Irrespective of politics, we have both governed under a federal Labor government, but we both have an attitude of being ‘open for business’. Through estimates and the debate we had, the Treasurer indicated he was confident some mining companies did not view these measures in an onerous light. That is not the feedback that was received publicly from the Resources Council, which described the new levies as putting up a ‘closed for business’ sign.
I appreciate that every government looks at every opportunity in revenue-raising capability. I have been on the record supporting that, and I enter into the realm of the federal debate supporting the mining rental resource tax because, as I have said ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am little confused; the Leader of the Opposition is talking about mining revenue measures, which relate to item no 3 or 4 on the Notice Paper today. She is either doing so because she thinks we are on the topic or, alternatively, it is potentially a breach of Standing Order 68, which is anticipation of subject.
Ms LAWRIE: No, I did distinguish between the coming debate of the mining revenue measures and these levies, which are different and go to structural incentives; for example, if you relocate your head office to Darwin and the like. I am distinguishing between the two.
I am saying I am supportive of levies for an industry where the government believes they will enhance efficiency and productivity within the structures of the company, and the revenue section of Treasury can more efficiently work out the revenue amounts. These are productivity efficiency-style levies in a broad brush sense.
Whilst I appreciate what the Treasurer put on the record during the estimates debate regarding feedback he received from companies which was supportive of these levies, we know industry has a big problem with the bill we will debate later.
I am a fan of structural changes that deal with specific issues within a sector which bring in revenue if there is a result that also enhances productivity. The link I was making is to the amarity, for example. That then moved to taking additional revenue out of a sector and channelling it into a profit-based regime, which I am a fan of, more than ad valorem. I supported that because a nation building infrastructure fund was being established out of it. The analysis we did at the time, if it had passed as we intended, said it would produce a benefit to the tune of $300m over about five years. A $300m Commonwealth investment in infrastructure in the Territory, particularly in roads and ports, without having the usual arm-wrestle argument, is nothing to be sneezed at; it is, in fact, welcomed.
The point I am making is you will receive revenue from these levy changes. They are revenue measures; let us be clear about it. That being said, I know Treasury is never a fan of hypothecation, but this does present an opportunity for a greater emphasis and focus on infrastructure. I know that will run counter to the countercyclical view you have of the capital program. I note your Infrastructure minister, in the estimates debate last night, indicated that while they put additional into roads, it brought forward an additional $10m into roads R&M.
My contribution to this debate is pretty clear: whilst we support actions for a levy where you are trying to drive productivity and efficiencies, where that revenue is and, ultimately, grows to, presents opportunities to turn it into further productivity in that sector. If you go into levies that restructure the productivity and efficiencies within a sector, then you should have a very good look at the resources sector, which is such an important sector to the economic growth of the Territory, and at the opportunities around regional economic development. In the future, as it grows and there are opportunities, do we say we will put more and more emphasis into the infrastructure of growing the regions?
I know it is often the case that you want to sit back and say the federal government needs to step up, do this, and do that. I look forward to hearing what Tony Abbott will promise for infrastructure into the Northern Territory, because I have not heard anything yet other than the broader vision for northern Australia. However, there is not a cent attached to that broader vision. There is no rubber hitting the road in them saying, ‘We will kick in $50m to the port, or $150 into regional roads’. There is no rubber hitting the road with Tony Abbott’s grand plan.
Your Infrastructure minister last night complained about the reduction in Nation Building funding into Territory regional roads which was, obviously, announced by Albanese. There is a reduction because the Victoria Highway bridges and Tiger Brennan Drive are finished. However, put that aside and you still have about $110m of investment coming through into regional roads that would not normally occur out of the Commonwealth. It is additional to the normal Roads to Recovery programs.
Madam Speaker, in short, in imposing these productivity efficiency-led levies you see the opportunity for the revenue, but do not forget the opportunity of putting that investment into productivity, particularly into this resources sector and regional infrastructure.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, this is a situation where the Treasurer’s legislation affects the mining sector. I will be very brief with my comments.
It is not a levy, it is revenue raising. As the Leader of the Opposition said, we will support any measures to raise revenue for the Northern Territory. However, we urge the government to at least consult with the industry before putting new taxes on it. I was a minister for 12 years, seven of those as minister for Resources. Never in my experience as a minister have I seen such a reaction by the industry to a measure by government. Even when we raised the royalties from 18% to 20% the mining council, AMEC, did not issue a media release so critical of the government’s action - not critical of the fact that they tried to raise revenue, but that there was a total lack of consultation.
My information is that not even the CE of the Department of Mines and Energy knew about this measure. My information is that when the people from the mining sector were present at the lock-up for the budget and heard about these new measures, the internal commodity transaction intra-office expenditure taxes, they flipped. We then saw the flurry of media releases from AMEC and the Minerals Council of Australia; not because of the problem of raising revenue, but for the lack of consultation. This is a significant sector of the Northern Territory and has the potential to generate thousands of jobs and millions of dollars for the Northern Territory. Somebody should at least talk to them before something like that is presented to them. I am aware that the documentation about the new taxes was delivered a week after the budget was introduced to parliament. This is not consultation, this is dictatorship. Is this the way we will do it, like it or lump it?
Madam Speaker, I have no problem with introducing legislation to increase the revenue for the Northern Territory, but when it affects such an enormous industry, and when we have been telling people for years the Territory is open for business and then impose two new taxes on the mining sector without consultation - somebody sent the wrong message.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I have not had a great deal of time to go into this bill thoroughly, which is one reason I will not vote on it. I did not know we were going to debate all these bills at this sittings. I knew we were going to debate the mandatory rehabilitation bill. I was surprised when I was asked if I would like a briefing on amendments to the Motor Registry Act. I asked if there were any more bills and they said, ‘Yes, there are quite a few of them’. It seemed unusual that at the end of estimates we had these important bills …
Mr Elferink: It is to do with revenue.
Mr WOOD: It might be revenue, but it is very important legislation. I have been trying to do the best I can in investigating it. I am not necessarily against government raising money from mining, but I have not had enough chance to investigate the issues the Minerals Council of Australia, Northern Territory Branch, is concerned with. It wrote a letter, I presume to the government. It just says ‘Secretary’. It is a submission on the 2013-14 budget measures. It was written on 21 June, so it has only just been sent. The Minerals Council said:
- … the Minerals Council … would also like to voice its opposition to the poor process undertaken in the development and deployment of these measures. To have had no consultation or communication with the peak industry body on this issue (or any industry representative, for that matter) flies in the face of a strong and productive forward relationship between the sector and the NT government. The only outcome from such process is poor policy, illegitimate regimes, and a potential lack of trust in future dealings for quite some time. The Minerals Council of Australia request the government that this does not happen again as outcomes such as this listed can be avoided through simple, courteous consultation.
Further in the submission it said:
- It is with this in mind that we express our disappointment that the Territory budget included changes to the Mineral Royalty Act which have not undergone appropriate consultation. Nor have they been adequately justified on policy grounds.
When I receive something from the peak body that says they have not been consulted, I find it very difficult to say this is a great idea. The people who will be affected by this bill are saying they have not been consulted. This letter is only a few days old. It leaves me in a bind because I would like to talk to the Minerals Council. I certainly would like a briefing if I had time but, as you know, minister, it has been a hectic period over the last couple of weeks. Sometimes, you just cannot physically fit all these things in.
I think the member for Casuarina said the government talks about the three pillars of the economy. One is mining. It seems strange to me - I would have thought that is a good philosophy; we should be promoting mining in the Northern Territory. I believe the mining industry should give its fair share. When I hear the industry you want to tax say it was not consulted, I say I will not make a decision on this until I have all the facts and figures.
The Local Government Act has gone out for consultation; it has been out for a couple of months. People in the local government industry were asked what they think of changes that might happen. I presume that the government, after consultation, will put out some legislation for changes.
In this letter the Minerals Council says you will enact legislation about which you have not consulted. In fact, when you read the second reading - I went through it - there is not one mention of discussing this with the industry. For a government that has been pushing hard for the economy to grow, I thought that would have been a fundamental process for you to show you support the industry and are willing to talk through these issues because you really think the government is open for business.
My feeling from reading this and some of the media releases they have issued is there has been a complete - whether it is complete the minister might be able to tell me - lack of consultation with the peak body, which will be the body you would, obviously, expect the government to talk to about serious issues like the Mineral Royalty Act.
In some ways, without being an expert, I agree with what you are trying to do; I am not knocking the principle. However, I cannot say I support this bill when the industry is saying, ‘You have not had much time to talk to us’. You might say that is the government’s right, ‘If we think there should be more money raised from the mining industry, as the government we can do that’. You have every right to do that. However, the process of doing it seems to be in opposition to your promotion that mining is one of the key aspects of the growth of the economy in the Northern Territory, and that is a concern for me.
Madam Speaker, the industry should be treated better regardless of whether it agrees with you on increasing or introducing this bill. It should have been treated with more respect so it understood where you were coming from.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, in summing up I will make a few points. First, as I said in my budget speech, 80% of the Northern Territory’s budget revenue comes from the Commonwealth government. By far and away, the jurisdiction in Australia most reliant on Commonwealth funding is the Northern Territory.
For the illumination of some people in this Chamber, when the Commonwealth Grants Commission determines funding for jurisdictions, it looks at their revenue-raising capacity and efforts. It is fair to say that the Northern Territory is a very low-taxing jurisdiction, and long may it stay that way. However, the danger of being a very low-taxing jurisdiction is the Commonwealth Grants Commission takes a rather dim view of it. If we are not seen to be doing our fair share of the lifting in relation to raising revenue, the Commonwealth Grants Commission, probably rightly, says, ‘You can forgo some Commonwealth government revenue as well’.
Therefore, it is important, from time to time, to look at protecting our revenue base. That means looking at what we get from the Commonwealth, and what we can do better in the Northern Territory to raise our revenue. At this point in time, I give my particular thanks to the Northern Territory Taxation Office, the Taxation Commission, and a range of other people in Treasury who worked through and found this information in relation to these two revenue measures in this budget.
In summary, the bill makes amendments to the Mineral Royalty Act and the Payroll Tax Act to implement revenue measures. The key aims of the bill seek to protect the integrity of the mineral royalty regime by capping the amount of transfer pricing miners can claim and limiting the deductibility of certain costs only to those that are incurred within the Northern Territory. There is a number of minor administrative changes as well being made to the Mineral Royalty Act which clarify the operation of existing provisions and allow Territory employees to share information with the Commonwealth on uranium royalty matters. A minor part also is that the bill amends the formula contained in the Payroll Tax Act so the original intent of the outcomes is achieved.
I have heard a great deal about the opposition and the Independent being very concerned about consultation. Every speaker who commented on this bill has made note about the consultation. I can tell the Chamber that no public consultation was undertaken because these measures were announced as part of the 2013-14 budget. Public consultation prior to the introduction of these measures would clearly have compromised that process and released sensitive information that may have been used to inappropriately minimise royalty liabilities. For that reason there was no public consultation undertaken.
The member for Casuarina suggested that the Chief Executive of the Department of Mines and Energy was not aware. I can tell the member for Casuarina that is complete bunkum. The Chief Executive of the Mines department, being a key stakeholder in government, as is the Minister for Mines and Energy, was certainly involved in those discussions.
The Royalty Secretary is consulting with the Minerals Council and the mining community to ensure that proper implementation of these reforms occurs. Whilst we did not consult about the introduction of these two new measures because it would have been inappropriate to do so, the royalty sector, the Territory Revenue Office and others are consulting with the industry. The Minerals Council has been consulted in relation to the implementation of these two new measures. The Minerals Council considers the transfer pricing cap to be a positive reform and it is welcomed to avoid unnecessary administrative costs. As you would expect, the council does not support the initial royalty payable as a result of the changes and has requested more guidance be provided in relation to the practical application of the new measures. The Royalty Secretary will continue to work with industry on the implementation to ensure a smooth transition and provide further clarity on the guidelines.
As I said during the estimates process and in the second reading speech, both of these measures are designed to raise revenue and we estimate $10.6m will be raised. However, they are also very much about cutting red tape and reducing the administrative burden on industry. That fits very much within this government’s election commitment to cut red tape.
Additionally, reducing the ability to claim operational costs from interstate or overseas head offices is a good thing for the Northern Territory because it encourages businesses to locate their head offices in the Northern Territory. I am appalled that some businesses operate in the Northern Territory and claim costs interstate.
If I may be so bold, I am disappointed that INPEX has its head office in Perth. The only project they have in Australia is the massive new $35bn Ichthys gas plant project in the Northern Territory, which we all welcome. If we can do more to encourage these types of businesses to set up head offices in the Northern Territory that will be good.
I thank all those members opposite who contributed to this debate, particularly the member for Barkly who straight up said the opposition supports it. The Independent member supports it as well, whilst having some concerns about consultation and the like. I understand that, although I have outlined why there was no consultation in this case.
I was disappointed to hear that the Opposition Leader thought this was an appropriate place to get on her soapbox and complain about Tony Abbott. I was stunned that she referred to the Victoria Highway and Tiger Brennan Drive as being achievements of the Labor government. Of course, they were put in place by the previous Coalition government. They would never have been on the federal horizon had it not been for the leadership of the former Prime Minister, John Howard. It is a fantastic legacy from John Howard and his government that the Victoria Highway and Tiger Brennan Drive are now completed. Well done, Mr Howard and the previous government.
In relation to the farce that is going on in Canberra, it is time for the Independents to look at what is in Australia’s national interest and demand an election as soon as possible, because this farce, this circus in Canberra, must end. It is not good for Australia or the Northern Territory. The sooner the Australian people get to decide, the better in my view.
Having said that, Madam Speaker, I thank members opposite for their contributions. I hope this bill is supported by this Chamber.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MINING MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 30)
Continued from 16 May 2013.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, we will not oppose any measure of this government to address the issue of legacy mines. There are about 2000 legacy mines in the Northern Territory through a long history of mine development. Some of them date back to the days of the Commonwealth; some of them, unfortunately, date back to CLP government days. Any measure by this government, or any government, to address the issue of legacy mines will be welcomed by anybody in this Chamber - opposition or government.
The issue of legacy mines was in our mind when we were the first government to introduce the 100% rehabilitation bond. We did not want to see a repeat of a disaster like Mount Todd. We do not want to see a company raping the Territory’s mineral wealth and providing wealth to their shareholders, then for various reasons - either going bust or not being able to meet the requirements - packing up and leaving the Northern Territory to address an environmental disaster which will only get worse if left. It is not only Mount Todd, Rum Jungle is another environmental issue dating from the days of the Commonwealth government and, of course, Redbank goes back even further in the Commonwealth era.
With Rum Jungle we were fortunate, because the Commonwealth has recognised liability, and is contributing to the rectification. That does not mean it will continue to do so forever. It might decide one day to pull the plug, which means we will be left with the tab of a multimillion dollar disaster. Redbank is another example. If you have seen photographs of the area around Redbank, you will realise what the problem is.
My concern is the mechanism this government has chosen to utilise to get some money to rectify the legacy mines. My further concern is that not all of the money raised under the proposed legislation will go to the rectification or rehabilitation of those mines, but some will go to establishing an environmental unit and hiring people for that unit, which is clearly the responsibility of the government.
My other concerns relate to what I read in the minister’s second reading speech that, currently, there is a 100% rehabilitation bond imposed by the government, which is true. For your information, minister, it is not commercial-in-confidence; there is no legislation to say you cannot tell people how much the environmental bond is. It was always a practice to provide information to the people. It was part of the agreement we had and part of the amendments of the Mine Management Act that this advice be published through a website.
The minister said - and he is quite right - there is a 100% environmental bond. That means if a company goes bust, there will be enough money left in the till in security for the Territory to rectify the environmental issues. However, there is a 15% contingency fund on top of the environmental bond. If somebody wants to create a mine, if the board assesses that the environmental bill is $100m, the company has to provide $100m plus 15% of the environmental bond, which is $115m.
What worries me is - I read from the second reading speech:
- The government proposes to reduce the total amount of its security by 10% …
That means if the environmental liability is $100m, the government proposes to let the company provide only $90m and 15% of contingency. What happens if that company goes bust and the environmental liability is $100m? There will only be $90m to fix it. This is my first concern. It has not been thought through very well.
The second issue is that the minister said in his second reading speech there is $719m held for current mining operations in securities. Great! Fantastic! That is really good security for the Territory and the government, whatever government it is. However, the levy will be 1% of the securities held. That means a $7.19m levy should be raised under the proposal of the government. However, on page 2, paragraph 2, the minister said the fund he will establish for the levy will receive $2m in the first year. Hold on, minister, hold on a minute! You have $7.19m under your 1% levy, but you are only going to put a $2m bond in the unit you created. Where will the rest of the money go?
Yes, it will go to the Mining Environmental Compliance Division. It will receive the remainder of the funds to boost resources for its valuable work. Nobody doubts that establishing a unit to look after the abandoned legacy mines is a good idea. That is fantastic. However, we slug the mining industry with a levy which is also retrospective - not in the future, not for the new mines; everybody has to pay it. Instead of all the money going to rectify the mines, two-thirds of it will go to hire people in the new unit. It is the role of the government to hire public servants to ensure things like that never happen. That is a main concern to me and the industry.
The other issue that concerned me is this is about abandoned mines. These are the mines the mining industry in the past, and governments, stuffed up. We are hitting the mining industry now for mistakes of the past by governments and other mining companies. Why, then, are we going to hit the exploration companies? Exploration companies come to the Territory, they have a very small footprint, they drill a few holes, they get a few cores, they make an analysis, then they start to mine, or not. Why do we slug them with a levy when they have not left any legacy behind them? These people have a very small footprint and, at the same time, we ask them to cover all the expenses in case they do not rectify it? Are we really trying to drive the exploration sector out of the Territory? If we do not have the exploration sector, we will not have a mining sector. All the mines that exist today in the Northern Territory started from a small company that went exploring somewhere in the Territory, made the big hit, sold it to a big company, and a new mine started. That will be the story from now on.
We know - and the Speaker knows very well because of her previous position - big companies do not explore anymore. BHP will not spend money on exploration because it is a risky business and they do not want to risk their shareholders’ money in exploration. Other small companies such as Emmerson Resources will raise the $10m, do the exploration and, when they get the big hit, offload it to BHP which pays millions of dollars.
Your proposal does not discriminate between mining and exploration companies. The exploration companies’ peak body is furious about it, because it says they never create a legacy mine or an environmental disaster legacy in the Territory; however, they are now asked to contribute to this levy.
Your idea has merit, and I will tell you why: raising some money to fix the abandoned legacy mines in the Territory is a very good idea. However, it is not very well thought out. If you looked at the Western Australian legislation, which refers to exactly the same thing, you will see how well-constructed and well-thought-out it is. I downloaded it from the Western Australian government’s website and read it. That legislation is a thousand times better than what we have in front of us. It is very detailed, it engaged the industry, it has different levels of risk, it has a risk assessment, and companies are asked to contribute to the fund depending on their potential risk and liability. That is a good idea, because big companies and small companies have different risks.
I strongly suggest you look at the Western Australian legislation which, I have to say, was developed by a Liberal government minister, Norman Moore, who is a good friend of mine, even though we have totally different political views. The framework that was created by the Western Australian Mines department was a very good one and it is a mile ahead of yours.
Minister, I compliment you on your idea to fix the legacy mines. It is something we struggled with. We were the first ones who asked the department to create a list of the different mines and the risk they posed to the environment in the future. We compiled that. If you ask the department, you will be able to get all this information.
However, the way you go about fixing the legacy mines is wrong. Even if you raise $7.19m a year, you will need to raise much more money over time to fix all the abandoned mines in the Territory. One thing you will probably have to look at is who was responsible at the time. Was it us or was it the Commonwealth? If it was the Territory government, it is the Territory government’s responsibility to fix it. But if it is the Commonwealth we should put our foot down and ask for money - a contribution from the Commonwealth for rehabilitation - the same way we did with Rum Jungle. We were successful there.
Minister, it will also be a good idea, next time you have something that will impose on the mining sector, to talk to them beforehand. As the mining sector operates throughout Australia, if you had spoken to them before, they probably would have come up with some good ideas and, most likely, brought to your attention the Western Australian model, which is acknowledged to be one of the best in Australia. Minister, your idea to fix the legacy mines is good. It continues our idea to do exactly the same; we started the ball rolling. However, how can you talk about a three-hub economy, and then the first opportunity you have you slug the mining industry with an extra tax that you call a levy? It is retrospective and penalises companies that have done nothing wrong in the past, but are doing everything right now and will in the future.
At the same time I urge you not to touch the environment bond. It is a recipe for disaster. If you are going to place a levy on the industry, a different way of doing it is with a thorough assessment where you look at what has happened at that stage, and do not take the easy way out. Taking the easy way out will not solve your problem.
Madam Speaker, we will not support the legislation on the grounds that there has not been any consultation with the industry, and this is not well-thought-out legislation. That is the only grounds on which I refuse to support your legislation. If it was to rectify the legacy mines I would support it, but the way it has been put together and is penalising the industry makes me unable to bring myself to support it.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I believe the member for Nelson wanted to say something on this but he appears to have missed the jump.
I thank the member for Casuarina for his contribution. I also thank the Leader of Government Business, the member for Port Darwin, who delivered the second reading speech in this debate. As the House would know, I was overseas when this bill was introduced and I had to ask one of my colleagues to stand in for me. I also take the opportunity to express my thanks to the departmental staff who have worked so hard on this bill. This has been a tedious and long process. There are many complexities in this bill, much detailed work went into it, and I appreciate the amount of work that has been done by the staff in the department.
As I walked into the Chamber 20 minutes ago I circulated to the members for Casuarina and Nelson an updated explanatory statement. There was an explanatory statement originally tabled with the bill when it was introduced. There were a couple of small typos in that explanatory statement, and this new one is the updated version, which I table. There are about 20 to 30 copies so there is no need for further copies to be made.
I appreciate the comments of the member for Casuarina with respect to his support for any measure that addresses mining legacies across the Northern Territory. Clearly, we have a major problem in the Northern Territory with respect to legacy mining and have had to find solutions. When I came into government and was given the portfolio responsibility for Mines and Energy, one of the very early things I did was seek information about the scope and scale of legacy mines in the Northern Territory. I found that some estimates put it at $1bn worth of legacy issues we face.
We have a clear policy position on this side of the House about developing our three-hub economy. It was quite rightly pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition that mining is an important part of that. However, we also take our environmental responsibilities extremely seriously, and some may say we even go a little beyond what might be expected of a conservative government. It is my clear view that in order for us to progress the long-term prosperity in the mining sector the government needs to, can, and will establish strong environmental credentials as we do that. We believe there is a place for significant development and growth of our mining sector and all sectors that support the economy in the Northern Territory, but we will do it in a fashion that recognises the environmental responsibilities we have.
The member for Casuarina and others spoke this afternoon about the level of consultation, or lack thereof. The Treasurer spoke about the reasons why there was no consultation on changes to the mineral royalties scheme. Clearly it was because it was a budget decision, after deliberations, that brought those changes of legislation about. This was the case for the mining levy. This was a part of a budgetary process and, even though it had been in train for some time, it would breach budget confidentiality to go too far outside of that process.
The point was also made that even when there was some consultation, it was not enough. To be perfectly blunt, when you are introducing a new levy - I will call it a tax because the bill calls it a tax - it will be unpopular in the circles that will be affected by it. I do not believe any amount of consultation would take away that pain. Clearly, the representative organisations in the mining sector feel they have not been consulted enough. They probably could never be consulted enough on a matter that affects their members like this. This has been blown out of proportion a little by some of the rhetoric around the imposition of this levy.
I will now move on to the effects this levy will have and talk a little about the dollar mechanism and how it works.
In the Northern Territory, for some years we have charged 100% security on the assessed level of a disturbance on any mining activity, including exploration. On top of that 100%, we charge a 15% contingency. I heard that the member for Casuarina thought that 15% might go towards some administration costs around the 100% bond, but that is not the case. We hold - either in cash or an unconditional bank guarantee - 115% of the assessed amount of the bond required to remediate a disturbance on the ground as a result of mining activity. We have 115%; I want to get that clear.
As a part of the imposition of the 1% levy on legacy mining activity, we decided we would reduce by 10% the amount held by the department in trust for the security amount. Therefore, if you take the 115% we currently hold, reduce that by a factor of 10% - 11.5% - that leaves 103.5%. In effect, what we still hold in a security bond for mining is 100% plus a 3.5% contingency. Member for Casuarina, we do not hold 90% as you have said today and in the past. I am a bit surprised that, given you were the minister for a number of years, you did not understand this. We do not hold 90%. When this comes into effect we will hold 103.5%.
I am not sure how the member for Casuarina misinterpreted what was said. Perhaps he was cherry picking or taking some things out of context, as he does from time to time.
Nonetheless, that is the basis upon which this levy will be charged. A levy of 1% will be charged on the 103.5% as calculated. That is a fairly simple explanation; it is not difficult maths for people to understand. We wanted to keep this as simple as possible.
Indeed, the levy affects exploration companies, but it is important to point out that in reducing the security bond being paid by the many companies operating across the Territory, in most cases we are reducing a cash liability. Those companies that pay cash for their security bond will, effectively, receive a 10% refund on the amount of bond they have lodged with the department. They get that back, then they will be charged the 1%, so they will have to give us a little back to make up the mining levy. In the vast majority of cases, operating companies in the Territory will be better off under the arrangement.
We are diverting some of those funds into a levy that is being put aside for work on remedial action on legacy mine sites. About a third of that will be put into an account and left for the physical works. However, the remainder of it will be applied in a fashion that provides support for the work that needs to be done, and administration.
The member for Casuarina talked about money going into the department and paying for salaries, which he believes is the job of government. We also have to look at the best expenditure of public funds. The question needs to be asked whether the public should be made to pay for the legacy issues in the Northern Territory. This is not government money; it is, but it is money that belongs to the public. We are charged with spending and looking after that money which belongs to the public; it is public money. Should we be applying public money for remediation work of mine sites that were abandoned and in a state of disrepair over so many years? I do not pose that question as a criticism of the comments made by the member for Casuarina, but perhaps a different way of viewing things.
I will move to another point the member for Casuarina made about the Western Australian model. We looked at the Western Australian model in coming up with this. In fact, the department is working currently on the WA model and how it might be adapted to the Northern Territory.
More importantly, the Mining Board, which has existed in the past to various levels of activity, will be reinvigorated by this government. One of the major tasks the Mining Board will be given is reviewing the regime around security bonding for mining, including this mining levy. It will have a body of work where it will be able to provide some very high-level strategic advice to government on the future of mining securities across the Northern Territory. A big part of its considerations will be around risk assessments, looking at the various operations and the level of risk they pose. That level of risk will also be factored into the calculation of security bonds going forward.
The other question that pops into my mind about all this is if this was such a good idea, and the member for Casuarina has said it is, why was it not done before? Here we are, 10 months into a new term of government. The former government was in power for 11 years. Why was it not done before? I just do not get it. It is fairly simple; it is not that hard. At this point in time, member for Casuarina, you seem to have all the answers about whether it should be modelled on Western Australia and all the rest of it - such a good idea. I leave you with then: why was it not done before?
Maybe it was because yours was a government that did not have a great deal of courage on issues like the moratorium on seabed mining. Yes, you put a moratorium on it. Do you know what that is doing? Putting it in the too-hard basket.
This government had the courage to take some affirmative action on that. This is a government that is proving it has a great deal of political courage. We are prepared to do the right thing and take some hard decisions. We know we will not be popular in every quarter, because that is what happens in government; sometimes you have to make hard decisions and you upset people. This government is committed to doing the right thing. If we have to wear some pain out of that, then we will.
The other point I want to make is there has been much said around consultation with this bill and the previous bill. I pose a rhetorical question, because I will probably answer it myself. How much consultation was done with industry when the mining security provisions were introduced? The answer I have received thus far is none. How much consultation was done when the former government lifted royalties from 18% to 20%? The answer I have thus far is none.
It is a little hypocritical for both the member for Casuarina and the Leader of the Opposition to talk about the level of consultation, when I can easily find - it is not too hard to research this stuff - that no consultation was done around what they did in imposing new levies, increasing royalties, and what have you.
We are at a position now where we have done what we believe is the right thing. The issue around securities will be reviewed by the Mining Board when it is reinvigorated properly, and we will have a look at the whole of that.
Madam Speaker, I thank members for their contribution. There have been, as I said before, big contributions by the department; the work is appreciated. I look forward to continuing to work with the mining industry across the Territory, the representative bodies, and the mining companies. Even though this may be a little unpalatable in some quarters, it does provide certainty. At least everybody knows the lie of the land and where the goal posts are with respect to this.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Mines and Energy) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr VATSKALIS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I think the member has some amendments.
Mr Westra van Holthe: No, there were just some typos in the explanatory statement.
Mr VATSKALIS: No worries.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MOTOR VEHICLES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 27)
(Serial 27)
Continued from 15 May 2013.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his offering of a briefing and the transport officials for their briefing.
I come to this with life knowledge. I can remember the day my father sat me down and taught me the important lesson around not operating an unregistered motor vehicle. He made it very clear that you should always check, particularly if you are the owner, you are operating registered motor vehicles, and the serious consequences of not operating registered motor vehicles.
Subsequently, later in life, some friends of mine suffered consequences because they chose to operate unregistered motor vehicles. They paid the price. That information and knowledge that was shared by my father, I also share with my children and anyone else who is willing to listen.
This bill is very simple and was explained very succinctly by the transport officials. I raised a couple of points at that briefing. The first was about the change and how the change will be effected. The second was about making sure legislation is inclusive of all Territorians, wherever they live and whatever opportunities they have in their lives. I considered such things as their access to technology, socioeconomic status, geographic location, and all those other important elements that will support their engagement in society.
The changes to the Motor Vehicle Act will allow for the removal of registration stickers for light vehicles. The need for change to the act directly relates to the issue of a defect notice which must be affixed in an approved form on a conspicuous place on the vehicle. In the past, it was adjacent to the registration label. The simple and straightforward plan changes this on 1 July 2013 and amends the Motor Vehicle Act for the purpose of legally issuing a defect notice on a light vehicle.
There are a number of other changes I was briefed on, which I consequently briefed the Labor Caucus on, regarding traffic regulations. The changes relate to things such as light vehicle registration checks at five and 10 years; annual eyesight tests; the first application for a motor vehicle licence, then, at age 70, annually; new 10-year driver licences in addition to one, two and five-year options; and from August 2013, motor vehicle registration transactions over the counter available at Australia Post retail outlets for renewals that do not require roadworthy inspections, or driver licence renewals that do not require a photograph.
It is definitely business representing the new government’s objective to cut red tape, reduce waiting times at Motor Vehicle Registry offices throughout the Territory, and support legislation about defect notices.
I took to the table some concerns that had been raised with me. One concern comes from an e-mail from a constituent not in the Barkly electorate. This constituent dealt with me as the opposition spokesperson. They were dealing with an appeal because they were picked up in an unregistered vehicle but had not received the transaction electronically. They were one of the new age constituents who are operating in the digital age, but it had gone wrong and they were booked for operating an unregistered vehicle.
I then asked a range of other constituents about the issue. A young contractor who worked for a company that operated a fleet of vehicles told me he would not know if work vehicles were registered if they did not have the easy identification sticker on the windscreen. He told me stories about not being confident to approach the management because of pressures of work. I told this young fellow dad’s story. I reinforced that very clearly with this young contractor. I asked him about the changes and how they would impact on his position.
I also used the opportunity to talk to some station employees who operate station vehicles in the bush and registered vehicles across public roads. They had a similar concern. It was more a traditional concern where they like a hardcopy. They like evidence, and maybe it reflects not wanting to change. These people who were operating on pastoral properties were older, but they were a little resistant to this change. There was no major opposition, but it gave me examples of how this could go wrong.
I have put that to department officials, and they were good in their explanation of the fail safe measures, and how removal of registration stickers will not be a problem. I was quite enlightened with new applications that will be available: smartphone technology that will be able to identify a vehicle and tell the person making the inquiry whether that vehicle is registered or not.
I then provided my take on that. Being a techno dinosaur, I thought that was something I would not really manage, and there are many people like me in the Northern Territory. However, I was reassured that people without that access to technology, or people who live in areas where you cannot access that technology, would still have a hard copy of a registration certificate - a document that could be located in the vehicle which could be sourced to provide the check. It was good to see there was that backup.
I then moved the discussion to education and awareness about change and how people need to be aware of the change and of employing compensatory practices so they ensure they do not end up on the wrong side of the law. I was pleased to see the department has conducted a good campaign. They have some good resources going out.
I congratulate the minister on the link to DriveSafe NT, particularly in the remote areas and all the elements of that very successful program so far. It is a good innovative program for people who live in regional and remote areas, particularly Indigenous constituents. DriveSafe NT and DriveSafe NT Remote will reinforce these changes and important practices.
It was a good briefing. I compiled the information and took it back to the Labor Caucus. We discussed this legislation, and they shared my concerns that there will be quite a diverse element of the Territory community which will need to participate in an education and awareness process around these changes to ensure they are not disadvantaged by this.
It is interesting to note that the Northern Territory is one of the last jurisdictions in the country to be going down this road.
I will make brief comment on the other initiatives being introduced by the government around cutting red tape and making motor vehicle registration processes quicker and easier. I am sure those constituents who have difficulty adapting to change, for whatever reason, will be part of this change and change management.
I also took the opportunity to talk to the minister briefly in estimates in the Transport portfolio about motor vehicle registration officers in the bush. It was pleasing to hear that the minister is still keen to pursue that pathway and to look at alternatives. The Australia Post initiative will be a good move in that direction. However, there is nothing like an MVR office in which to conduct your transactions. There will be, of course, the move, over time, to online transactions and the further use of information communication technology. However, there are many people in the Territory who still rely on that face-to-face counter service. That is the way it is and will be for them. There are those alternatives which will provide that for them; that is, the Australia Post initiative.
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this to the House. I also thank him for his support and the debriefing of the departmental officials. I also thank you for the opportunity to speak on the bill.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, before I start, the minister’s decision to drop the speed limit on a section of the Arnhem Highway was a good one. I hope the minister might have had a chance, as he was out with the member for Goyder, to look at that intersection at Humpty Doo which has caused us some problems in recent times.
This is only a small bill, but it is a big second reading for a small bill. Sometimes, I get really excited when I see introduced a bill that is ‘delivering a commitment by this government to reducing red tape for motorists’, when it is about where you put a sticker on a car.
Be that as it may, it is good this bill is before us. I know we have a bit of latitude, but it is funny this bill is called the Motor Vehicles Amendment Bill. We have not had much of a chance to talk in this place about getting rid of car stickers; it has just been done. The government said that is what it will do.
I also went to the briefing. Believe it or not, there were two Gerrys at the briefing. The good thing about the briefing is we understand what this is about; it is a fairly simple change and it is common sense. It enabled us to talk about some of the issues. We have not had a chance on this side - I cannot speak for Gerry - about what the changes will do. I have been looking at some of the feedback of what happened in Western Australia. It is obvious that people sometimes have a fear of change: they will not get their car registered; it is impossible; ‘I will never be reminded’, and all those issues. It was good to hear from the department.
I do not know how you will get around a question we discussed. Theoretically, if you hop into a hire car you should ask the company if it is registered. I have hopped into hire cars, and I must admit that is the last question I have ever asked anyone. The reality is, if you hop into a hire car and it is not registered, you are the one who is responsible. Some of those issues might need to be promoted. Also, in Aboriginal communities you have to get them to understand that they do not need a sticker, so they do not all go, ‘Oh, gee’.
It is a good idea. As you said, that is what really starts to reduce the red tape. However, there are some issues which will need a bit more promotion and understanding. The hire car issue is one. I can imagine a couple of backpackers from Germany who get the old Wicked van down the road after hiring it for a few days to go to Kakadu. I am not knocking Wicked, because I have heard that Wicked always keeps their cars registered, but I am not sure those people will go to the counter and say, ‘Before we hire this, is this car registered?’ However, after having the briefing, that may be something people have to do and have in their mind before hiring a vehicle, because there will not be a sticker on to show it is registered.
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for presenting this small but important bill. I thank the department for giving us a briefing because it enabled us to look at some of the issues around this change you are bringing forward, which is related to having no registration stickers on cars. Thanks very much, and especially thank you to the department.
Mr GILES (Transport): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for Barkly and Nelson for their contributions. It is quite clear, particularly for the shadow minister, the member for Barkly. He understands a fair bit around the transport area and that I have a very large reform agenda we in Transport want to see delivered.
Some of those issues are around the improvements in ICT across a broad range of areas, not just WiFi for buses, but also encouraging more online vehicle registrations, licence renewals, cutting red tape, and reducing the amount of time-related impact that some government services have on people’s lives. It is about change and a new way of doing business. You will see a range of reforms in that area. I have been very open about some of things we are doing. Without going into commercial-in-confidence or Cabinet details, we have given clear indications about the reform my government is leading in the transport sector.
There is a range of approaches to undertake about making business transactions a whole lot easier: changing the licence period, and putting MVRs or MVR services into bush locations. It was a commitment of the previous government which was not delivered. I would like to do it yesterday but, as you know, we were lumbered with $5.5bn worth of debt, and we cannot do everything immediately. We have to schedule when we do things to get the frameworks and governance structures in place. When we identify the resources to roll out some of these initiatives, they will be undertaken.
Madam Speaker, I accept support for this bill. I thank the officials for coming here today and for their continued support. Everyone in Transport is run ragged at the moment because we are putting out that reform agenda in a range of areas. I continue to appreciate the support of the department, and look forward to this bill being enacted so we can get rid of registration stickers in the Northern Territory, albeit, taking on your concerns, but allowing one regulation to be carried out.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr GILES (Transport)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
ALCOHOL MANDATORY TREATMENT BILL
(Serial 33)
(Serial 33)
Continued from 15 May 2013.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, we have debated the nature of alcohol-fuelled violence in the Territory a significant number of times in this Chamber. In this House it is an issue on which we are both united and divided. We agree there is a significant issue in the Northern Territory with alcohol, alcohol-fuelled violence, and binge drinking, which occurs in our towns and communities.
We have, in many ways, a common cause as parliamentarians to try to tackle alcohol and alcohol-fuelled violence. As a government, we had a range of plans working together to try to tackle alcohol, because there is no one single solution. We agree there is a problem. However, from there we disagree, because we go on divergent paths on how to tackle that problem.
We do not believe mandatory detention for rehabilitation will work. If you do not want to give up alcohol, you will not. The CLP policy will cost a lot of money and will not work. The bill we have before us is an epic fail. It represents one of the greatest Australian policy failures since the introduction of cane toads, or since the last time we had a CLP government. It is condemned by experts and rejected by those who will be required to administer and police it. Yet the minister continues to praise its virtues, deaf to those complaints and blind to the obvious: that it will not work.
Before I turn to the details of the bill, let us explore the way in which this government has acted to keep our community safe and address the many issues we face as a result of problem drinking. The first thing this government did, with amazing haste, was to stop doing anything to address alcohol-related harm. Immediately on being elected, the government, swiftly and with great fanfare, decided to scrap the successful and applauded Banned Drinker Register and replace it with their own groundbreaking approach: doing nothing. They did nothing at all for 10 long months. Small businesses, families, schools and sporting groups all told the government about the rise in public drunkenness and the problems occurring in our communities. But they still did nothing – yet another broken promise.
Alcohol rehabilitation was first given to the member for Port Darwin - fail. It is almost difficult to remember because it was whipped from him so quickly. Then it was handed to the member for Fong Lim - fail. Finally - or perhaps I speak too soon - it was handballed to the current minister, the member for Araluen. This minister has continued the strong tradition of doing nothing but dismantle the things Labor did, simply for the reason that Labor did them, and then work out ways to bring them back.
As I previously outlined in this House, income management is a great example. Through the Northern Territory Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal we had the ability to income manage problem drunks. The CLP scrapped it and is now trying to find a way to bring it back.
Let us contrast this approach with the approach of the previous government. We had an integrated, comprehensive process to address the harm alcohol causes in our community. We had the Enough Is Enough reforms and a well-thought-out approach. We introduced a strong media campaign that promoted safe enjoyment of our Territory lifestyle, tackling the violence that had so many Territory mums and dads concerned for the safety of their sons or daughters on a night out. We had SMART Courts and alcohol tribunals where appropriately qualified people could make decisions about treatment, income management, and other strategies to help people get their lives back on track. We had the Banned Drinker Register through which problem drunks could be prevented from buying more alcohol. People knew who was on the Banned Drinker Register. It gave certainty to retailers who knew who was and was not prohibited from buying alcohol.
We looked at points of intervention where you could bring in rehabilitation, because we believe evidence-based interventions are important. We had voluntary and mandatory rehabilitation programs but we did not have mandatory detention. We understood, and still understand, there has to be a point where people make the commitment to change. If they do not, it will not work. You might use a point of intervention such as going before the courts and diversionary programs to get somebody into rehabilitation but, at some stage, they have to opt in or it will not work. If you do not want to give up alcohol, you will not - just like any addiction.
The CLP introduced alcohol protection orders that allow problem drunks to walk into any takeaway outlet and buy as much alcohol as they want, and no one will know. They have no protections in place such as an ID system for the responsible alcohol retailers who try each and every day to do the right thing and minimise alcohol harm. The only difference, essentially, between the Banned Drinker Register and the alcohol protection order will be that no one will know if you are under an alcohol protection order.
The previous government worked with the people who know firsthand the problems caused by alcohol in our community and who deal with this issue day after day and night after night.
In the days before the NT Police were gagged, they heralded these reforms. In October 2011, a senior member of the NT Police said of the Banned Drinker Register:
… what steps we have in process at the moment are really working and we’d like to see them continue. From a policing point of view, we see some tremendous results from these initiatives.
That same month there was a media report recognising there were 1500 who could not buy grog because they were on the Banned Drinker Register for violence, public drunkenness or drink-driving. What did the police say about the Banned Drinker Register?
… one of the most powerful tools, if not the most powerful tool available to police to actually deal with the source problem of the antisocial behaviour and the violence that was occurring in our community.
Despite the attempts of the member for Port Darwin and his colleagues to gag the police, what are they saying now? Let me read onto the record the words of Mr Vince Kelly, President of the NT Police Association, in a recent statement to his members. It is a long statement but, given the importance of the issues, I am sure you will appreciate the necessity of committing these comments to the Parliamentary Record:
- You, our members, deal with the social problems created by alcohol abuse every working day. Brawls, domestic disputes, robberies, car crashes so many of them have the same root cause alcohol. People have to deal with the hopelessness faced by so many disadvantaged in our community who have turned to alcohol.
Our Association welcomes attempts by government to manage the issue of alcohol abuse in the Northern Territory through the proposed Mandatory Rehabilitation legislation. However, it is apparent that the program will be limited to a relatively small number of people and it is generally accepted that mandatory rehabilitation will have limited effect on controlling alcohol abuse and related antisocial behaviour.
A period of detention or incarceration will remove some problem drinkers from the streets for a period of 12 weeks and that the proposed program will go some way in relation to Demand Reduction and Harm Reduction, however it does not address the critical third element of Supply.
The objection of the government to the BDR appears to have been based on two principles - that it had little effect on problem drinkers and placed an unreasonable requirement on responsible members of the community.
As the Alice Springs based Peoples Alcohol Action Coalition (PAAC) has publicly stated:
‘The BDR was designed in the full knowledge that some people would still be able to get some grog. It was about people obtaining less alcohol and getting less drunk less often because they could not buy takeaway alcohol anywhere, and secondary supply was banned. This is a very legitimate approach to dealing with alcohol dependent people’.
There was also a clear, considered pathway to treatment using an incentive/disincentive approach. The BDR would have helped drinkers on the road to recovery through the incentive to get off banning notices and through the AOD Tribunal if the CLP hadn’t decided to ditch that body once it won government.
These measures were not allowed time to kick in properly and the Government has stubbornly resisted an independent evaluation of the BDR.
These statements are based on experience, expert advice and academic research, that is, they are evidence-based observations. If there was one fault in the BDR it is that the treatment options were underfunded by the previous government and the law and order benefits were overstated.
It now appears there is also emerging evidence that hospital admissions for alcohol-related harm have climbed dramatically since the BDR was disbanded by your government. This supports the contention that the BDR was primarily a health initiative and should have been treated as one part of a harm minimisation program for individuals and the community.
In relation to the second issue of an unreasonable burden on the majority of responsible drinkers, it is arguable that the public generally had become accustomed to providing identification at the point of sale for takeaway alcohol just as the public, over time (except for the irresponsible minority) have become used to regulations relating to drink-driving, speeding, seat belts, and having their drivers licence with them when operating a motor vehicle.
Clearly, our society, while accepting the social cost of alcohol use, has insisted that the sale and such use has to be managed through regulation, particularly for those who are inclined to use it irresponsibly. As a result, there are a number of regulations in place to restrict the sale, use and supply of alcohol. The consumption of alcohol is not a right and the Territory community will accept, and has accepted, some restriction to their lifestyles to ensure a real social and community problem is effectively managed.
It is my hope that our Association may be able to reintroduce some common sense to this debate and to that end our Association has provided detailed correspondence to the Chief Minister on this important community issue. The time has come for the public political brawling to cease and that a more reasoned discussion should occur out of the glare of the political and public spotlight.
Let me once again outline our position on the proposed approach. The CLP’s alcohol mandatory treatment regime is incredibly expensive and will not work - $45m this year for a very small number of people. It amounts to $90 000 per person for the CLP to attempt to rehabilitate someone, and only attempt, as there is no evidence that such a scheme will work. In fact, the minister has suggested that only 10% of those who undergo treatment might actually stop drinking. That is $90 000 per person - an astounding amount. If the success rate is as low as the Chief Minister believes - at 5% as he said during the estimates program - that is the success measure he will have.
Not a single expert, nor police, doctors, the legal profession, or Indigenous organisations support this policy. The CLP’s mandatory treatment regime does not have the support of the very people who are supposed to be making it happen. Earlier this year, John Paterson, the head of Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance described the laws as a ‘very expensive white elephant’. AMSANT has pointed out that there is very little evidence it will work, and asked the reasonable question: what happens to people after their 12 weeks inside? John Paterson is also on the record saying they are not happy with the reference to mandatory rehabilitation, but believe the resources and funding commitment needs to be given a multipronged approach.
Many people have called for this legislation to be delayed. Is it a reasonable request that this legislation be delayed until they find somebody who supports it? Even their own members do not support it. Quoting from The Australian:
- Ms Lee said she was still deciding whether to vote for the scheme, but indicated that abstaining was a real possibility. ‘I’m between a rock and a hard place’, she said. ‘It’s very hard for me to pick between the government and my people’.
Well put! What a difficult decision for the member to make. What is the advice for the member for Arnhem? Should she be loyal to her people or to the government?
However, there is more. From ABC radio early this month, the Aboriginal Peak Organisations NT said the government is refusing to listen to expert opinion on its planned alcohol laws. The government has watered down some of its draft mandatory alcohol rehabilitation legislation after several groups raised concerns that the laws criminalised alcoholism. John Paterson from APONT said the entire policy is flawed and needs to be scrapped:
- Without us having that opportunity to sit around and work up solutions which we believe will work, which will have some evidence and research backing the initiatives we’re proposing, then … it’s a waste of $35m which could be better expended in other areas.
What about the views of the NT Australian of the Year, John Boffa, a man considered by many to be a role model, described by the Chief Minister as a whingeing lefty feeding off disadvantage? Dr Boffa and the People’s Alcohol Action Coalition consider that the Giles Country Liberal government has:
- … turned the clocks back with its recently proposed alcohol protection orders, and some of the most severely affected people addicted to alcohol are likely to end up in jail and not in treatment, despite the election promises.
He told a rally in Alice Springs:
- … unlike the previous government’s Banned Drinker Register, the APOs will not stop people buying grog but, instead, police will have to track them down if they commit an alcohol-related offence.
More recently, he commented:
- I think luckily for the Northern Territory, the doctors, the lawyers, the rank and file police, the Aboriginal leaders who all opposed the government’s alcohol policy are not just going to pack up their bags and go home because they’ve got a disagreement with the new government.
I mean the reality is that Adam hasn’t been in the Northern Territory that long and he doesn’t seem to have appreciated the fact that over the last decade the Northern Territory has seen the greatest transformation …
Mrs LAMBLEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Chief Minister should be referred to by his correct title.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Araluen. Member for Fannie Bay, if you could refer to the Chief Minister by his correct title, either member for Braitling or Chief Minister.
Mr GUNNER: The reality is that the Chief Minster has not been in the Northern Territory that long:
- … he doesn’t seem to have appreciated the fact that over the last decade the Northern Territory has seen the greatest transformation in Aboriginal health of any jurisdiction in Australia. We are now the only jurisdiction on track to close the gap in life expectancy by 2031 and there’s been a 30% decline in all causes of Aboriginal mortality in that time, partly driven by declining alcohol consumption, improved health systems, and a range of things.
- So, there’s a broad view out there that we are making progress in all sorts of areas in health, alcohol policy, in education and there’s a genuine concern from people who are trying to assist and make things better for the Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory that the clocks will be turned backwards.
- We’re particularly concerned that if we don’t take an evidence-based approach to policy going forward, we’re going to go nowhere. We are going to go backwards, we’re seeing cuts to education, cuts to health, we’re seeing a direction on alcohol policy which is completely unproven and this is why there’s opposition to the government.
We’re all opposed to criminalisation; it doesn’t add anything to the process … But what he’s not accepting is that what he’s got rid of was working. So, it’s a case of first do no harm, he’s removed the Banned Drinker Register which many of us think was having a big effect and he’s replaced it with something which we all think is not going to be effective. We’re not saying it’s not going to be effective at all. We’re saying it’s not as good as what we had in place and the evidence base to what he’s proposing is less, it’s going to be less effective and hugely more expensive.
Of course, he can get on and do it he’s going to …
It just shows you how effective, the Chief Minister’s a clever person, he knows what he’s doing, he’s managed to get the debate on to a discussion around the sort of people who are working in Aboriginal health which has got nothing to do with the policy issue that we’re talking about and certainly the people who have opposed the government’s alcohol policy are people who have been in the Territory 25-plus years or people who live and/or were born in the Territory ...
For now we’re going to have probably what will be a racist discussion around … Aboriginal health there are people in all parts of any sector, if you like, it’s not perfect, there’s going to be examples where some things aren’t good and some things are. But overall, as I said, we’ve made a dramatic difference in the last 10 years, there’s been a 30% decline in the causes of Aboriginal mortality up to when this government was elected. We should be praising and singing from the roof tops that success when in fact we’re trying to promote now an imagine that somehow there’s an industry there that people are benefiting from and that’s really unfortunate that he’s side-tracked the issue and it’s a deliberate attempt to try and divert attention from whether this is going to work and why on earth they got rid of the Banned Drinker Register which was effective and we’re now hearing how effective it was for multiple groups in the community.
We have covered health professionals. What are members of the legal profession saying? Priscilla Collins from NAAJA, on ABC radio only a few days ago, said:
- If you want to go in and put legislation in place to improve a situation, you need to have evidence to support this ...
- Under the new alcohol mandatory treatment legislation, there is no evidence to support it, and that’s our huge concern is that you’re going to be forcing people into a rehab, there’s no evidence to support it, and at the end of the day, these people haven’t committed a criminal offence.
For a Central Australian perspective from the President of the NT Criminal Lawyers Association, Mr Russell Goldflam, commented on the minister’s flawed committee stage amendments:
- I can’t say I’m happy with the outcome. There’s been some tinkering around the edges, some of the very worst things about the bill have been improved somewhat but it’s still a fundamentally flawed scheme. Well I’m opposed to a scheme which criminalises a health problem and that’s a fundamental problem with this scheme and although it’s less likely now that people will get charged with committing a criminal offence if they breach one of these mandatory treatment orders, it’s still there as a sanction against people and that’s unacceptable in this day and age but more importantly than whether it’s right or wrong, it’s not going to work.
My lengthy experience working in this area all my instinct and my experience tells me that it’s just not going to work, that people are not going to benefit from this, it’s going to cost an enormous amount of money and worst of all it’s going to end up with more people getting into the criminal justice system and all the misery that that involves.
There have been various suggestions that there may be aspects of this bill which are susceptible to legal challenge and having looked at it myself I’ve wondered that too.
There is a new twist. The Aboriginal Peak Organisations NT points out its concerns that the bill discriminates against Aboriginal people, echoing the member for Arnhem‘s concerns. John Paterson again said:
- We also believe the bill indirectly discriminates against Aboriginal people in the NT, particularly those Aboriginal people living remotely who are often more likely to drink in public places when they visit service centres or towns.
How does the government respond? By attempting to hide the facts, by introducing a committee stage amendment that will remove the public reporting of the cultural identity of the person being detained. Does the minister honestly think the member for Arnhem will be fooled by this approach, or that John Paterson from AMSANT or the APO will somehow not notice what is going on?
Even the federal Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, is not a fan, expressing his concerns at this government’s decision to scrap the Banned Drinker Register, arguing that it should be preserved.
Since the introduction of this bill, I have taken the opportunity to speak with a number of alcohol treatment centres including CAAAPU and Vendale. I place on the record my appreciation for the time they took in working with me on these important issues. In talking to these service providers, I did not hear a commitment to mandatory detention, or the use of force to restrain people from leaving, or return them to treatment. I, basically, heard that these organisations will continue to provide the same services next year in the same way as they are this year.
I was astounded to hear during a recent briefing that the organisations are, supposedly, ready to commence delivering services on 1 July 2013, with all the necessary infrastructure in place. When I was at CAAAPU, it was full. When I was at Vendale, it was also full, and they raised concerns about the capacity of the current Power and Water infrastructure to manage demands of new infrastructure and new clients. As of two weeks ago, no building works had commenced at Vendale, yet the briefing from the minister’s office is that these buildings will be in place and ready to go as planned. We are looking forward to seeing those new buildings from 1 July.
I have also received letters and e-mails from constituents and concerned members of the public, and I thank them for their time and contribution as well. I will outline some of their concerns now. I call on the minister to address the important issues these members of the public have raised.
A number of my constituents are concerned there are not sufficient support services such as counselling, mental health evaluations, life skills programs to assist re-entry into society post-treatment, employment services, assistance with housing, financial counselling, and so on. They point out that patients have no chance of getting better unless they address all these other issues. One of the main concerns about problem drinking is that when you leave a place like mandatory detention, you return to an environment with family and friends who are drinking, and you will go back to drinking; there will be no support.
There is concern that isolation from family and friends, confusion about what is happening to them, and being detained against their will may have a severe emotional impact on the client that may cause trauma, anxiety, and depression.
There is concern that, despite all their rhetoric about development support for remote Aboriginal communities, the CLP government only wants to tackle problem drinkers in urban areas and not in the remote communities, which are struggling with alcoholism and antisocial behaviour at sometimes greater levels than what is experienced in urban areas. Many of these communities are desperate for positive programs to address these issues. Issues in remote communities will continue if more rehabilitation is not offered in our regional areas.
There are concerns, and rightly so, that the program will cost a massive amount of money to implement, and there will be very few people who will achieve success from being forced into rehabilitation.
I also have some specific questions for the minister from constituents:
- 1. I would like to make a request that the NT government conduct a community forum on this topic with the aim of addressing the confusion and public opposition to this proposed legislation.
2. Will family and friends be able to visit those undergoing treat to provide support? Will remote community residents be able to contact their family on a regular basis? If family are concerned about the level of treatment provided, what are their options and rights?
3. Where will the assessment centres be in remote areas? Will they be included as part of the existing police stations, or require purpose-built facilities?
4. What is the estimated time frame between the completion of the assessment being completed and a mandatory residential treatment order being granted?
5. Why is the assessment only given to people who have been taken into protective custody, rather than those who have been picked up by the NT Police and taken to a friend or a relative’s place rather than into custody?
6. Why are there no provisions to assess people who come to NT Police attention due to other alcohol-related behaviour such as alcohol-fuelled domestic violence and nightclub brawls?
7. Are the residential treatment centres fully compliant of all appropriate guidelines including deaths in custody legislation?
8. Are the residential treatment centres secure enough to ensure that people will not abscond from treatment. Given the medi-hotel is built for another purpose, what changes have been made to this facility and at what cost?
9. Once the available places are filled what is the process for those who will continue to present for assessment?
10. What is the estimated success rate for this type of treatment plan?
11. Given that many patients might be suffering from a variety of medical conditions including infectious skin ailments, known or undiagnosed STDs, and mental illness, what provisions will be made to ensure the safety of patients and treatment centre workers? Will there be a process to isolate patients who need it? If so, what are the processes and guidelines for this?
12. As mentioned by the Chief Minister, Adam Giles, on ABC radio on 1 May 2013, please provide details on current or previous trials of the same mandatory detention rehabilitation model.
I will add to these some additional concerns of my own. When you leave prison, there is a requirement to repatriate you to the community you came from. Under the CLP mandatory treatment regime, you may be returned to your place of residence or not. Under the CLP’s scheme, you could leave after just three months, walk to the closest takeaway alcohol outlet and buy a drink. There will be nothing stopping them from doing this.
When it was revealed by doctors that alcohol admissions at Alice Springs Hospital Emergency Department had doubled, the minister blocked the release of the statistics. Minister, you should be making available the data on the operation of the scheme including absconding and the number of people who have successfully completed the full length of treatment and are not drinking at three months, six months, or 12 months after release. The Chief Minster said the success rate would be 5%, but we do not know; 5% of what? Is the CLP concerned that being open and accountable would demonstrate clearly that this scheme is failing?
It makes it difficult to believe that this scheme will be ready to commence on 1 July, given you have acknowledged the serious failures with the construction of this bill, with 43 committee stage amendments finalised only yesterday. The whole approach to this bill has been fatally flawed.
Madam Speaker, it is Territorians who will suffer and pay the exorbitant amount of $45m this financial year for the CLP’s policy failure. If people do not want to give up alcohol, they will not. This policy will cost a lot of money and it will not work. I will leave my additional comments for the committee stage.
Mr STYLES (Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I am stunned at some of the comments the member for Fannie Bay has made. He just said that this is a failed policy, but it has not started yet. I do not know how you put the cart before the horse or the egg before the chicken but, for someone to make such a bold statement that it is a failed policy when it starts on 1 July and today is 27 June is amazing.
I remind the member for Fannie Bay of what he said on 27 October 2011 as he is now shadow minister for alcohol policy. He gave some advice about measures of success in relation to mandatory rehabilitation:
- … there will be mandatory rehabilitation for problem drinkers.
I will stop there. This is the member for Fannie Bay who was part of the former Labor government, saying there will be mandatory rehabilitation for problem drinkers:
- Mandatory rehabilitation might not work, but we have a responsibility, as a community, to try to make that intervention. It might not stop them drinking forever, but we have to try. It is our responsibility to do our best to reduce the harm alcohol causes.
I made a couple of notes in relation to the member for Fannie Bay’s speech. He said, ‘We do not believe it will work’.
I have a number of other quotes from the member for Karama who said mandatory sentencing would work. I note the member for Fannie Bay talked about his experts and everyone in the community. That is a big bold statement; ‘everyone’ supports his view! He quoted Dr John Boffa of the People’s Alcohol Action Coalition from Central Australia. I have met him and chatted with him, and it would appear his opinion is that anything which is not his idea is not correct. He has one particular aspect to his policy; that is, cut the supply. We all know what happens when you try prohibition.
I also bring the member for Fannie Bay’s attention to a number of endorsements we have had. I quote part of what the Chief Executive of the Barkly Region Alcohol and Drug Abuse Advisory Group, Stewart Naylor, said about the government’s proposed mandatory treatment services:
- I see the new mandatory treatment services as an alternative solution to providing services to individuals that misuse alcohol. I look forward to working with government and various government departments to help implement this process. Hopefully, through education, counselling and support we can decrease those individuals from reoffending. I firmly believe that compulsory attendance to education, counselling etcetera is paramount to achieving a good outcome.
That is what will happen on 1 July.
I quote Mr Matthew Bonson, the Chief Executive of the Council for Aboriginal Alcohol Programs, and the former Labor Party member for Milner, who said:
- The CAAPS organisation has accepted an invitation to be part of Mandatory Treatment Service Development Advisory Group. The quality of the organisations who have been invited to participate on the Mandatory Treatment Service Development Advisory Group signals an opportunity for a thoughtful and considered evidence-based approach to the issue of mandatory treatment for Territorians experiencing a range of health, mental health, and alcohol and other drug issues.
CAAPS will focus on creating the best health outcomes for people who are mandated for treatment under this policy. However, CAAPS will maintain its independence when delivering its own family-focused alcohol and other drug program, and continue to advocate for a range of harm minimisation policies.
I note the member for Fannie Bay also said he visited CAAAPU in Alice Springs. I have a letter from Ms Eileen Hoosan who is the CAAAPU Chairperson. I read this into the public record:
- Why CAAAPU support NTG Alcohol Mandatory Treatment.
As an Aboriginal organisation with over 20 years’ experience specialising in the treatment of Aboriginal people with problems of alcohol abuse and dependency, CAAAPU is very disappointed by the level of poorly informed criticism towards mandatory treatment.
If a member of our community is at risk, or their family is at risk because someone has a serious physical illness, eg. a brain tumour causing violent behaviour; or a mental illness, eg. psychotic episode, then as a community we offer help. If help is refused then we make whatever hard decisions are necessary to keep everyone safe.
CAAAPU therefore supports mandatory treatment for those at risk to themselves, or others, when it is part of a comprehensive treatment plan that follows the ‘Alcohol Treatment Guidelines for Indigenous Australians’.
Treatment that is effective long term includes addressing enabling factors in the community, and aftercare which helps a person to establish a life that has meaning and purpose. A life that reflects the Aboriginal cultural values: respect and responsibility for yourself, others, Law and country.
While fully appreciating that the use of alcohol and recreational drugs is ultimately a personal decision for an individual, we would like to point out that the assumption that everyone has the capacity to make such a decision is wrong.
Many people who are severely affected by alcohol and other drugs abuse and/or dependency are too unwell psychologically and/or physically to make such decisions.
People who have grown up in extremely stressful environments, or who are suffering even mild foetal alcohol syndrome, are highly likely to have significantly impaired brain development - especially areas of the brain responsible for managing feelings and mood, impulse control and understanding the connection between actions and consequences.
People with an acquired brain injury (ABI) resulting from cardiovascular illness, head injuries, malnutrition, etc, or suffering from Complex trauma or Complicated Grief can have their brain functioning similarly compromised.
Such people live from day to day. Consuming alcohol is their means of compensating for their feelings and behaviour.
Recovery and rehabilitation therefore requires clinical management of alcohol and other drug problems and the first crucial requirement to start this process is a feeling of safety. For some people, this can only be provided in mandated residential treatment.
She highlighted:
- We commend the current NT Government for recognising this need.
After mandatory treatment some may choose to become voluntary clients to continue growing stronger. As with voluntary clients, they may need to recycle through residential treatment more than once.
As Aboriginal people of CAAAPU we understand that everything is connected. We cannot abandon people who are sick, miserable and destitute, especially those who cannot care for themselves.
The stronger and healthier we can make them, the stronger we all become. Helping, protecting and caring for each other helps us all. That is the Aboriginal way. That is the CAAAPU way. A place of health, hope and healing.
I am very moved by that letter because what we have been doing for many years has not worked. We have seen increasing numbers of people in prison as a result of alcohol-related crimes. We have seen the number of people going through sobering-up shelters increase. We need to do something totally different.
Again, I go back to the member for Fannie Bay’s statement that this a failed policy, when it has not even started. I do not know how he works that. He must have a crystal ball or gets in the Tardis from time to time and does a bit of time jumping.
I also draw your attention to comments of other members in the opposition, who were in government at the time, and of the member for Nelson. On the ABC news site, which was updated on Tuesday 1 February 2011 at 11.23 am, was an article titled ‘Call to lock up problem drunks’. There are also other articles. It says:
- Independent politician Gerry Wood holds the balance of power in the Territory parliament and says it is time the government introduced mandatory detention for problem drunks.
It went on to say:
- ‘I mean if people simply cannot or do not have the ability to turn their lives around, and are continually being a nuisance - harassing people, defecating on people’s properties, simply humbugging people - then I think it’s time the government said, ‘Well, look, you can’t help yourself. We as a government then need to step in and do something about it’ ...
That is the member for Nelson. Further, the then Attorney-General, the member for Karama was quoted:
- … Territory Attorney-General, Delia Lawrie says there is no need for mandatory detention because the government is about to introduce a raft of new rules including an ID card system to stop problem drinkers buying alcohol.
‘Whether you call it mandatory detention or mandatory rehabilitation, it’s got the same outcome’, she said.
‘People are ordered by the court to attend a treatment facility and sustain that treatment facility, or else they face jail’.
What we have now is, apparently, a total backflip on what their policy was and what they were promoting. The problem with the mandatory alcohol rehabilitation they introduced is you did not have to go. I have asked before in this House: how do you have a mandatory program you do not have to go to? Those two words are not synonymous, and I do not know how you put them into one sentence. You have to sustain that treatment or else face gaol; so it is mandatory. But, you do not have to go. If you did not go to that, what happened to you? Nothing; you stayed on the Banned Drinker Register. It is amazing that you just stayed on there.
When you look at how successful that was, there was one person taken into protective custody 117 times in the year, and he received 114 BAT notices. BAT is an acronym for Banning Alcohol and Treatment Notice. That is a stunning figure. The Banned Drinker Register worked so well! Well, if it worked so well, how was that person taken into protective custody 117 times and given 114 BAT notices? That worked really well, didn’t it? It must have been scary for them to buy alcohol again!
The problem was the previous government’s Banned Drinker Register did not stop anyone walking into the bar of a hotel; it simply attempted to prevent them from buying takeaway alcohol. The sad thing was it also prevented many other people who forgot their driver’s licence - tourists, and other people. We were the laughing stock of the tourism industry where people would say, ‘You people here are crazy; you cannot even buy a drink or anything’. It was a ridiculous situation.
To go back to the experts, on 9 December 2011, as the then shadow minister for the alcohol rehabilitation program, I attended a meeting of all the alcohol service providers in the Northern Territory. It was held in Darwin. I went into that room and I was to be there for an hour. I left three-and-a-half hours later because these people wanted to hear exactly what we were proposing. I might add it was a policy we took to the election.
At the end of that meeting, I asked those people, ‘Who supports the current BDR?’ I knew the answer was that not many of them supported it. They did not support it because it was not working as it was supposed to. I then asked the people in the room, ‘Who supports our policy?’ Not much stuns and amazes me these days; however, it was a unanimous decision in that room. Everyone put their hand up; every organisation and person in that room supported us. That is not something I wanted to say in parliament when we were in opposition, because those people did not want everyone to know it was a unanimous decision of support by all the service organisations and people who work in the alcohol rehab area. There are a few people who do not, and we do not pretend that everyone supports our policy, but there are so many people who support us. Everywhere I go I get support for it.
People such as those who work in accident and emergency cannot wait for this to start as they see drunk people come in who have committed serious crimes. If you are in rehabilitation, you are not going to be drunk. You are not going to be harassing your partner, your kids, or other people in the community. You are not going to be murdering or bashing people because you are drunk.
Some really good things are happening. The member for Fannie Bay spoke about his understanding of all of this.
I am probably the only person in this House who has ever worked with habitual drunk legislation. In the beginning of my working life in Western Australia as a brand new police officer, I worked with the habitual drunk act. People would go through three times in 12 months. You were taken in and locked up for being drunk, when being drunk was an offence - you experienced some penalty. We had people go through in lots of three months’ incarceration. We did not have many of the services available now in those days, but we rehabilitated people.
An Aboriginal man whose name I will not use, out of respect for him, was an habitual drunk. He was sliding down the slippery slope and had all sorts of problems in his community. This is just one example of many. He was incarcerated in a town on the coast of the north of Western Australia. He came out after a couple of those incarcerations and stopped drinking. Actually, he did not stop drinking; he stopped getting drunk. That was about mid-year. At Christmas time he sent a message to me and asked if I would come to this home, which was a Nissen Hut on the banks of the Gascoyne River, and have a Christmas drink with him. As a very young police officer, I was very proud to be able to go there. He opened a bottle of beer, sat down and said, ‘I would like you to enjoy a beer with me now because I can do that thanks to some of the work you and your mates did for me’. I was 21 years old when that happened, and he was an old man - a senior man who thanked a 21-year-old boy who was on the way to becoming a man for what we had done.
We did that with many people, not all of them Aboriginal - many were white people. I do not think we had any Chinese people go through at that stage. This is not a race issue; it is about everyone in our community who needs a hand. I go back to the letter from CAAAPU. We have to help these people.
When we talk about habitual drunk legislation from Western Australia and mandatory rehabilitation, what we have here is far better resources and professional people who can help these people who are in a position where they cannot help themselves. I heard the member for Fannie Bay talk about this targeting Aboriginal people. I can assure him this will target people in Mitchell Street. It does not matter who you are; if you are in Mitchell Street on Friday night and you are making a not-very-nice person of yourself, then you will be targeted. If you have had too much to drink and you are taken into protective custody, and there are plenty of people in Mitchell Street who are taken into protective custody, then you will suffer the result of having to go into mandatory rehabilitation. If that happens, then ...
Mr Giles: It will have a positive benefit of having mandatory intervention.
Mr STYLES: That is true. I will pick up the interjection. There will be a positive outcome of mandatory intervention. For these people, it is about changing their level of personal responsibility. There are people who are in a situation and this will bring them back in and allow them to focus. There will be other people, like my Aboriginal friend in Carnarvon in Western Australia, who will make positive choices because this mandatory rehabilitation is about giving people the ability to make positive choices.
The other statement I recall hearing earlier was in relation to experts and police. As a former police officer, I am in contact with some very good friends, and many new friends, in the police force. I stated in this House when we were in opposition some of the information I had from police officers. Police officers did not believe in the Banned Drinker Register. Obviously, there were some who did but the majority I spoke to said it was not working. The BDR simply stopped people from buying takeaway alcohol. You could still go into the bar and, whilst you were sober and did not appear to be affected by alcohol, you could drink and then leave. In regard to getting takeaway so they could have a drink, the problem was someone else could buy it.
The member for Fannie Bay talked about secondary supply. Police officers and lawyers thought it was a joke. How do you get a conviction for supplying someone who you do not know is on the Banned Drinker Register? You say to somebody, ‘Are you on the Banned Drinker Register?’, and they say, ‘No’. Right, I supply them the alcohol. What if they lie? Then, when you go into a court, people simply say, ‘I did not know they were on the Banned Drinker Register’. Due to privacy rules, you could not find out who was on that register.
I will not mention the name of the place I heard about just before we got rid of the BDR, but a person went in there, had their alcohol, had their money out, and said, ‘I do not have my driver’s licence with me’. The person there - I do not know who it was – said, ‘Do not worry, we have one’. They pulled out a box in which were at least 250 driver’s licences people had left behind and scanned one of those. They said, ‘Fine, see you later’, and the person left with their alcohol.
The other problem with secondary supply is there were people, obviously, going around town making a huge profit from selling alcohol to people who either could not or would not buy their own, or those who were on the Banned Drinker Register and had run out of driver’s licences.
Dawn House kept its own records, and an independent report from Dawn House said its records indicated that after the BDR commenced the number of domestic violence assaults went up by 7%. They interviewed their people and found that people who were put on the Banned Drinker Register were threatening and hitting people because they would not get them alcohol. That was an appalling situation where women were put in a position by men who had been on the Banned Drinker Register. If these people were told to do mandatory treatment, that was not going to happen because they did not have to go. There was no teeth in that.
When we look at a range of situations in relation to the problem that besets our community - the Banned Drinker Register was about limiting supply. In fact, it did not limit supply; people got around that problem. As the member for Fannie Bay rightly said, when people have an addiction they will get their drug of choice. If they cannot get that, they will substitute. The sad part was, in my electorate drug dealers were targeting Aboriginal people living near the Leanyer area and were delivering marijuana to them. They were still getting a drug, still getting smashed, getting into trouble, having fights and arguments. They had just changed the drug of choice. The sad thing was these people were profiting because they were charging way more than it cost for alcohol. It goes back to the original situation: these people have a problem, an addiction, and they need some help.
We, on the other hand, do not wish to penalise the entire community, which generally consumes alcohol in a responsible way. We do not want to penalise tourists or our tourism industry.
The interesting fact that came through was that in Alice Springs, when the alcohol accord came in, the biggest deliverer or supplier of alcohol was Australia Post. That might seem a bit funny, but people who still wished to consume alcohol in a responsible manner simply ordered all of their alcohol online. There was an average of 15 000 L of alcohol going through Australia Post over a couple of years. The interesting point about that is those interstate sales do not go on to our records. Any payments to the liquor commission and any taxes are not paid, nor is that alcohol going through the local businesses.
Who is being inconvenienced? Basically, the general public, tourists and others who are normally responsible people. We have a policy that is pushing business out of the Territory. It is being delivered, sure, by Australia Post, right to their front door. I heard there were people on the Banned Drinker Register who would simply get online. There were people running little supply businesses and black market alcohol was on the increase.
With our policy, it will be a lot different. The member for Fannie Bay said it definitely will not work, but I do not believe that. I have worked with it. I believe it will work and we should all support it, because there are demonstrated successful programs around this country where mandatory rehab does work. In the case of alcohol, it is a part of our health program. The problem drinkers need to have the assistance we will give them. It will reduce their exposure to committing crimes whilst under the influence of alcohol. It may be they might have to go through one or two times, or maybe more.
It is about changing people’s behaviour and encouraging people to take responsibility for their own actions. That will be hard for some, but for many people who go through mandatory rehabilitation, I believe that will occur.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to the House and ask that the opposition listen to what many people in the community are saying, not just their own experts who are obviously supporting what their view is this week. As I have read out, there are a number of media releases - I have about a dozen here - from the opposition, when they were in government, that support what we are doing.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I take issue with the misleading comment the member for Sanderson made that there were media releases from Labor supporting what the government is doing. No, we clearly do not support you. If you want to talk about mandatory rehabilitation and whether or not we had the process for mandatory rehabilitation, we will discuss that. However, do not try to spin to the point that it is misleading. For you to say that, in any way, Labor supports what you are doing is wrong. Not only do we not support what you are doing …
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Introducing mandatory rehabilitation treatment for problem drinkers. Whose photo is on it?
Ms LAWRIE: There is no point of order. If you want to do a personal explanation come back into the Chamber and do it later on. I have the call.
Never have we supported the CLP’s plan for mandatory rehabilitation or mandatory detention. You have no credibility on this subject because some of us remember the absurd comments from the member for Sanderson during the debates on the Enough is Enough alcohol reforms such as, ‘You should not have the BDR because, essentially, what will occur is bottle shop attendants will stalk attractive young women because they are scanning their ID’. That was one of the more absurd comments you made. It did not pan out. It is completely bizarre.
Mr Styles: You do not know what is going on in the community. It is actually real.
Ms LAWRIE: I will pick up on the interjection. This man, in his own bubble, still says it is actually real. The member for Sanderson still maintains that bottle shop attendants stalked attractive young women based on the scanning of their ID. You are so far out in your own bubble you are completely irrelevant and absurd.
The debate has been a difficult one for the government, granted. They have become increasing hysterical in their response to the criticisms. It is evidenced by the hysterical expressions by the Chief Minister at the CLP Central Council, referring to the people who were against the government’s proposals on the mandatory rehabilitation as lefties who just need to get out of the way. He used a phrase I will not use in this Chamber, but we have all been acquainted with it in the media commentary. It was hysterical. I can understand it has touched a raw nerve with the government.
To have the experts lined up, one by one, coming out - not because they are Labor lefties, they are somehow at the behest of the Labor Party in the Territory, or we somehow control these experts - but because they saw the devil in the detail, finally and belatedly, of the legislation.
The Australian Medical Association, the AMA, has pointed out that the government should not proceed with the legislation. It is not an organisation that takes these debates lightly. It is obviously coming from the clinical concerns of care and treatment of Territorians. My experience with the AMA has been it does not enter political debates lightly. For them to come out openly and publicly against this legislation is quite remarkable.
The Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance of the NT (AMSANT) is staunchly opposed to this legislation. It has publicly spoken out against it. This is Aboriginal Medical Services which, at the coalface, deals with, works with, and cares for Aboriginal Territorians who have a chronic alcohol problem. If there was anything in this that said this will be a good thing for those clients, AMSANT, I do not doubt, would be supporting it to the hilt.
The sad and tragic reality of this very flawed legislation is that it is wrong. It is wrong to treat people in the manner in which this government proposes. It is wrong to round people up and lock them up because they are drunk. It is wrong that when those people abscond, as they will, as they do, even when they have committed an offence and are remanded into treatment facilities - people who work in the sector know that is what happens. If you are trying to lock up a drunk person against their will and you do not have the means to secure them in the facility, they abscond.
Yes, this legislation has been amended on the journey so that when you abscond three times you will be criminalised. You will be criminalising people who have a chronic alcohol addiction ...
Mr Elferink: Yes.
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Port Darwin, ‘Yes’. There lies a stark and clear difference between the policies of the CLP and of the Labor Party.
We are advocates of mandatory rehabilitation. We introduced it through the tribunal we established under the Enough is Enough reforms, and introduced it through the SMART Court. The cute reference the member for Sanderson made to try to misrepresent my position and, indeed, Labor’s position in our alcohol laws, was in regard to people who have committed an offence. Very clearly, under Labor’s laws, if you committed a criminal offence then, absolutely, through the SMART Court, if it was not a violent offence, you would be mandated to rehab. You would be detained and, if you absconded, you would go to gaol, where you otherwise would have gone if the SMART Court and the rehab options had not existed.
The difference is we would not gaol people who had not committed an offence. Under Labor’s policies, someone who is a chronic alcoholic stayed on the Banned Drinker Register ...
Mr Elferink: Let free.
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection by the member for Port Darwin, ‘Let free’.
They would be called to the tribunal. One of the powers that was about to kick in when the CLP scrapped the legislation, the Enough is Enough reforms, was the income management of up to 70%. That was about to kick in. It did not kick in because the CLP came with a rush of blood to the head and tore everything up. They did not just tear up the BDR, they tore up that tribunal with the income management as well.
What stupidity! What folly! What a better place many people would be in today if you had not done that. In recognition that you got that so wrong, you are creating your own tribunal and trying to have referenced to it Commonwealth powers for income management. You are so arrogant in how you go about your task that you did not have the conversation with the Commonwealth that has to reference those powers. You did not sit at the table and explain the tribunal and how it would work to try to get income management powers. You just publicly announced you would have them.
Such conceited arrogance, after you had scrapped a tribunal with income management powers. Then, when you sought to establish your own version of it with income management powers, the Commonwealth recently said, ‘Hang on a second, you have not even spoken to us’. You had not even sought those referral powers, so how could you announce it?
We were very clear that people who did not commit an offence, who had a chronic alcohol addiction, needed treatment pathways. We established the tribunal and the funding for treatment pathways. The leverage of income management, had it been allowed to occur - as has been the Family Responsibility Commission experience in Northern Queensland which we modelled it on - shows that people turn up for the assessment because they do not like the idea of 70% of their income being managed. That is the leverage that gets them to the tribunal, through the assessments and into the rehab pathways.
The rehab pathways were a variety of alternatives, by the way. This view that it was ‘one size fits all’ is a nonsense. The Enough is Enough reforms by Labor had funding for the rehab institutions such as CAAAPU, CAAPS, Vendale or FORWAARD. Each of those could apply for additional funding for beds because institutionalised rehab has its place and its role - absolutely.
We also picked up on the sector’s advice on ambulatory treatment; that is, treatment that plugs into existing Aboriginal medical services such as Congress, Danila Dilba, and the AMSANT clinics in remote communities where you plug in your Alcohol and Other Drugs specialists, and they are dealt with through, first of all, the doctors system where they are clinically assessed. Holistic programs are designed and mapped around that individual and, irrespective of where they live - whether in a remote community, a regional town, or a large urban centre - are there for them.
Funding came through the forward estimates for years for organisations to be able to apply to establish different rehab models designed for remote communities in remote locations such as the Tiwi Islands, for example, or if someone wanted to establish something like Mount Theo in Central Australia, which is a fantastic rehab centre. The ‘one size fits all’ was never part of the Enough is Enough reforms, but all of that was torn up and thrown out by the CLP when it came in and not only scrapped the Banned Drinker Register but tore up all of the reforms.
Now it is doing some catch up and is starting to introduce a language around different rehabilitation options. However, the experts cannot get away from it and we cannot stop fighting it being so wrong criminalising drunks and mandatorily detaining them. There have been no answers yet about fences or guards. It is nonsense that somehow because you pick someone up and take them to a facility they will stay there. They will not! Evidence shows people abscond. Thanks to the CLP, after they abscond three times they are criminals. That is appalling!
When I am in remote communities explaining to people these laws, people say to me very clearly, ‘We did not vote for that; we were not told about that; we do not know about that.’ My question to the CLP is, where is the information about these laws that is going out across the communities of the Northern Territory? How are you explaining them? Is it in language? What communication will occur? People have the right to know what they are confronted with under the laws being introduced by your government. In the remote communities they certainly do not know about the minimum mandatory sentencing laws for assault. Are you going to keep them in ignorance about these laws as well, or will you have a communication strategy covering every area of the Territory …
Ms Walker: They did not even know power prices were going up in the bush.
Ms LAWRIE: Exactly, member for Nhulunbuy. They certainly did not tell people about power prices going up in the bush.
This attack you have made on the expert response is very shameful ...
Mr Conlan: Labor experts.
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Greatorex ‘Labor experts’ ...
Mr Conlan: Yes, that is all they are.
Ms LAWRIE: Again, I pick up on the interjection, ‘Yes, that is all they are’. I will read from a media release from the Aboriginal Peak Organisations of the Northern Territory. These are the people you describe, member for Greatorex, as Labor; that is all they are. How insulting to people who do not have a political bias. There may well be members of the organisation who are Labor. There may well be members of the organisation who are not. But to dismiss the Aboriginal Peak Organisations of the Northern Territory - an alliance of the Central Land Council, the Northern Land Council, CAALAS, NAAJA and AMSANT publicly stated, ‘The Mandatory Rehabilitation Bill must be released for public consultation’. That was on 24 April 2013. They went on and stated why they needed to be properly consulted.
After they had been consulted and after they had seen the devil in the detail - which we all waited an awfully long time to see, and no wonder you kept it hidden; here we are with 43 amendments. If you actually listened you would be stopping the process altogether.
This is what the Aboriginal Peak Organisations of the Northern Territory said on 13 June. This is the alliance of the Central Land Council, the Northern Land Council, CAALAS, NAAJA and AMSANT. Their media release was headed, ‘Bite the bullet and drop the bill - and talk now’. Have you listened to that? Have you done that? No.
I will read the media release onto the Parliamentary Record:
- The Northern Territory Government should immediately withdraw its proposed Mandatory Rehabilitation Bill and get down to the evidence rather than tinkering with a fatally flawed approach to alcohol abuse, John Paterson, spokesperson for the Aboriginal Peak Organisations NT (APO NT) said today.
‘The Chief Minister and his colleagues have been pursuing a path that has no evidence, and no credible support’, Mr Paterson said.
‘The amendments released by Minister Lambley this morning fail to address many of our concerns, and will only serve to prop up a scheme that is fatally flawed. This legislation affecting Aboriginal Territorians has too many unanswered questions’.
‘The welcome intervention by the Northern Territory Branch of the AMA yesterday made it spectacularly clear.
- ‘To quote AMA President Peter Beaumont:
- The whole thing is meant to be a health pathway, and it’s funny that the path leads to criminality if people don’t abide by it.
This is about illness and addiction; it’s not about crimes, other than the fact that some people do commit crimes.
But the ordinary courts of law can handle those; we already have laws for those.
I will go on to quote from Mr Paterson.
- ‘From the recent letter from Prime Minister Gillard to our Chief Minister, it is clear that the NT cannot simply take over the RDH medi-hotel - on that basis alone it leaves the NT’s proposals in tatters.
‘And it’s clear the NTG are doing all of this on the run - with little regard to how it will affect the people in the Territory.
‘We call on our Chief Minister to bite the bullet and drop the bill, and call an urgent summit to discuss ways forward, beginning with point of sale controls. Without addressing supply issues, we will not tackle alcohol abuse.
‘That summit should include health experts with real world experience, along with Aboriginal organisations and other stakeholders - people that have sadly been ignored throughout this whole process.
‘Adam Giles should also agree to the Prime Minister’s call to work with the Commonwealth on a comprehensive approach’.
Completely ignored! The CLP has ignored what is genuinely a very real and reasonable call from the Aboriginal Peak Organisations of the Northern Territory ...
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! Just seeking clarity. Did the opposition, when in government, have an alternate solution and do they offer any alternatives now? Or are they just criticising?
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Ms LAWRIE: Thank you. Chief Minister, you only serve to make a fool of yourself when you do that, trying to be a statesman; I know it is difficult. You asked whether the Labor Party had an alternative solution in government. It was called Enough is Enough. It established a supply measure, the Banned Drinker Register. It established an Alcohol and other Drugs Tribunal, with clinical assessment and pathways to rehab and treatment, as well as leveraging income management referrals from the Commonwealth. It also had the Substances Misuse and Alcohol Referral Treatment Court, called the SMART Court. It was a $75m, five-year program, comprehensively designed to tackle chronic alcoholism in the Territory. The experts at the coalface all said it was good: AMSANT; NAAJA, CAALAS; the AMA; the police; rehab providers. They lined up and supported the alternative, Enough is Enough. I will send you a kit to read if you somehow missed it when you were in opposition.
Do we have an alternative? Yes. Did we introduce the alternative? Yes. Did we implement and fund the alternative? Yes. Did you come to government and scrap it? Yes. Do we maintain that the alternative should have continued? Absolutely, and we are backed by experts.
The Aboriginal Peak Organisations said supply measures are essential; go back to the table and work with the experts. It has gone on to call for a board of inquiry, which we have supported. We have supported the member for Nelson’s call for a parliamentary committee. You continue to turn deaf ears to all of those calls, through your arrogance and foolishness.
The whole question of whether or not it worked was not answered because you scrapped it. Everyone who understands programs and evaluations knows you need something to operate for a minimum of three years to evaluate it and truly understand whether it is on a pathway to success. You scrapped it a year in. We know that since you scrapped it, domestic violence has increased 24% and the number of assaults against the person have increased 17%. I heard you say ‘no’, member for Port Darwin. Why would you ever want to embrace the fact? Because it enters your world and disturbs you. I refer to the source: NT Territory’s quarterly crime statistics for the March quarter 2013, and June quarter 2012, which was the last with the Banned Drinker Register.
Under the June quarter 2012, there were 977 reported cases of domestic violence and in March 2013, there were 1214. That is an increase of 237, or 24%, in domestic violence incidents.
Mr Elferink: An 18% drop in property crimes.
Ms LAWRIE: I will pick up on your interjection about property crime. A woman would rather see something stolen from her fridge than be bashed. No one wants property crime and, under the Labor government, we halved it from what we inherited under the CLP. You think that having a drop in property crime is fantastic compared to a massive 24% increase in domestic violence. Shame on you! Unbelievable! A 24% increase in domestic violence since you scrapped the Banned Drinker Register - under your watch, under your own quarterly crime statistics.
Also under your quarterly crime statistics there was an increase in the number of assaults and in alcohol-related crime of 17%. That is since you scrapped the Banned Drinker Register. But do not let the facts get in the way of your agenda.
What you have created, what you think is right, is totally wrong. Every expert says it is fatally flawed - AMSANT, the Alcohol and other Drugs Network of the NT, the AMA, and the police.
You covered yourself in shame, member for Port Darwin, when you gagged publicly, one of the most senior serving police officers of the Northern Territory. But you cannot gag Vince Kelly, the President of the Police Association, who has spoken out on behalf of police in the recent Police News. I quote from the Police News.
- A message from the President.
The political debate around alcohol abuse in the Territory has reached new lows with both sides of politics simply ignoring evidence that does not suit the 30 second media grab. It is clear from recent media statements by Federal and Territory politicians that we cannot expect a cooperative approach to dealing with this difficult issue in our community.
You, our members, deal with the social problems created by alcohol abuse every working day. Brawls, domestic disputes, robberies, car crashes - so many of them have the same root cause - alcohol. Police have to deal with the hopelessness faced by so many disadvantaged in our community who have turned to alcohol.
The objection of the government to the BDR appears to have been based on two principles - that it had little effect on problem drinkers and placed an unreasonable requirement on responsible members of the community.
As the Alice Springs based People’s Alcohol Action Coalition … has publicly stated:
‘The BDR was designed in the full knowledge that some people would still be able to get some grog. It was about people obtaining less alcohol and getting less drunk less often because they could not buy takeaway grog anywhere, and secondary supply was banned. This is a very legitimate approach to dealing with alcohol dependent people’.
- There was also a clear, considered pathway to treatment using an incentive/disincentive approach. The BDR would have helped drinkers on the road to recovery through the incentive to get off banning notices and through the AOD Tribunal if the CLP hadn’t decided to ditch that body once it won government.
Mr Kelly continued:
- These measures were not allowed time to kick in properly and the Government has stubbornly resisted an independent evaluation of the BDR.
These statements are based on experience, expert advice and academic research, that is they are evidence based observations. If there was one fault in the BDR it is that the treatment options were underfunded by the previous government and the law and order benefits were overstated.
It now appears there is also emerging evidence that hospital admissions for alcohol related harm have climbed dramatically since the BDR was disbanded by your government. This supports the contention that the BDR was primarily a health initiative and should have been treated as one part of a harm minimisation program for individuals and the community.
You cannot gag the Police Association. It is very clear in its support of the continuation of the BDR. It points out there were pathways to treatment; it calls it underfunded pathways. Obviously, as the former Treasurer, I take issue with that, but they recognise it nevertheless.
You have the AMA, AMSANT, the police, NAAJA, CAALAS, CLC, and NLC all saying, ‘Stop’. Stop what you are doing and listen to what they are saying about it being fatally flawed. Yet, you plunge headlong into it.
You will pass this legislation by the fact that you have the numbers. Then what? What are you proposing? Let us look at the figures in the budget paper. In the budget paper you say you will assess 800 people in this coming financial year and 480 will go into rehabilitation. Your Health minister has said you expect a success rate of about 10%. The Chief Minister has publicly said he expects a success rate of about 5%. Therefore, we can guess it will be somewhere between 5% and 10%, which fits with what people in the rehab sector say are the normal success rates. Based on this, it will cost $90 000 a person for assessment, and $900 000 a person for rehabilitation ...
Mrs Lambley: $900 000? Come on! That is misleading parliament.
Ms LAWRIE: For successful rehabilitation, $900 000 per person. Just check your maths. Oh, that is right, you were sacked as Treasurer!
Mrs Lambley: Resigned, sweet pea.
Ms LAWRIE: Oh, stormed out!
Mrs LAMBLEY: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! The Leader of the Opposition is misleading parliament. No way is it going to cost $900 000 per person for them to go through rehabilitation.
Ms LAWRIE: For successful rehabilitation. Do your maths! You are saying 800 people will be assessed, and 480 will go through rehab. Even on a 10% success rate, with the $45m you are investing, that is $900 000 per successful rehab. Seriously? Do your maths.
Mr Tollner: You are wrong.
Ms LAWRIE: Oh, here comes the bovver boy, he is back in the Chamber to do some shouting. He has had his dinner and he is back to do some shouting across the Chamber.
Those are the numbers: 800 to be assessed, 480 they are predicting will go through rehab, 5% to 10% success rate of rehab. That is $900 000 per successful rehab. There were 2500 on the Banned Drinker Register, but this system is only picking up 800 for assessment and 480 for rehab. When you ask where the beds are, you hear things like …
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: Where are the beds? Okay. The government said we will have about 50 beds at some stage in the Alice Springs Central Australia region. Fifty beds when? CAAAPU does not have 50 beds today. We visited CAAAPU. I said ‘Where are you going to have mandatory rehab beds here?’ They pointed to the vacant block of land on their site and said the government will have to build a facility there because their existing facility is at capacity. There are a few beds spare but it is nearly at capacity. They do not have capacity. They pointed to the block of land where they said the government will have to build a purpose-built facility because they recognise the concerns around deaths in custody of people who are being mandatorily detained. They also pointed out they do not have the capacity to deal with the first 72 hours. Anyone in the rehab sector will point out the real inherent dangers in the first 72 hours of taking someone in.
The real question remains: where are you going to take the 50-odd people in Alice Springs and Central Australia after you force these laws through? Where will people go for their first 72 hours if not to CAAAPU …
Mr Tollner: Where is the hospital? Anywhere near there?
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Fong Lim. He said, ‘Where is the hospital?’ That is the model then? You will put people into the Alice Springs Hospital for 72 hours? The capacity at Alice Springs Hospital runs at what today? What additional funding are you providing to Alice Springs Hospital to deal with the first 72 hours involvement in the rehab model? That is a serious question. I am sure you will be able to answer it in the committee stage, Minister for Health. According to the member for Fong Lim, in the first 72 hours these 50 clients in Alice Springs will be processed through the hospital then, according to what I have heard in this debate …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! I ask that the Leader of the Opposition be granted an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: According to the CLP model, in the first 72 hours the 50 people they envisage being able to be captured by this program in Alice Springs - even though we know there are many more than 50 people who need treatment pathways in Alice Springs; but let us go on the figures articulated by the government. Fifty people into the hospital in Alice Springs, then to CAAAPU which does not currently have the facilities. I am looking forward to your advice in committee stage, Minister for Health, on the funding, scope, and design of facilities for CAAAPU in Alice Springs, quite aside from the funding, scope and design for facilities at Vendale outside of Katherine, because Vendale is at capacity.
Then we have the medi-hotel. You have no arrangement with the Commonwealth for use of the medi-hotel, which is where you would get the bulk of your numbers from in the new rehab system. You say 100. It is a facility designed for about 50 people but, obviously, you are double-bunking. I do not know how you run a clinical model on that sort of arrangement, putting 100 people into a facility that is designed for 50: 100 people with chronic alcohol dependency and serious withdrawal issues into a facility not designed for that, aside from the concerns we have in hanging points and the issues you would find in the deaths in custody inquiry.
You follow that path at significant risk. It is so risky you cannot find a provider to run that. You cannot go out to the non-government sector; they will not touch it because they know of the liabilities inherent. What will happen? What will you say and how will you respond if you have deaths in custody? Do you have a plan in your system’s planning and design for responses to deaths in custody? I look forward to hearing that advice in committee stage.
That members of the government find this a laughing matter is a sad indictment of where this government is at on this subject.
You will pass the legislation because you have the numbers. You will pass the legislation ignoring the advice of the experts. You will pretend, in your folly, that there was no Labor alternative, that there is no Labor alternative, when everyone knows there clearly is, and was, but you will not countenance it.
Then you will have a system where no one in the rehabilitation sector is geared up to be able to admit people to deal with the first 72 hours or, indeed, the capacity in designed buildings to deal with the type of clinical model required to support this. Then, at the end of the day, you will be criminalising Territorians because they have a chronic alcohol addiction, to your eternal shame.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, we will continue to point out the technical flaws and the abhorrent aspects of this as policy.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I speak in support of minister Robyn Lambley on the alcohol mandatory treatment plan.
Recently the Minister for Alcohol Rehabilitation, Robyn Lambley, visited Bathurst Island at the invitation of traditional owners to inspect the potential location of alcohol treatment facilities there. She met with the traditional owners and other stakeholders to discuss the importance of the facilities to the Tiwi and to the government’s mandatory treatment plan.
The Tiwi traditional owners strongly support the mandatory facilities on Bathurst Island. Many Tiwis are very concerned about the terrible impact of the continuing cycle of alcohol and drug dependence upon individuals, their families, and the wider community. On the island, the Tiwi try very hard to encourage a responsible community approach to drinking alcohol. The club at Wurrumiyanga, for example, is only open from 4.30 pm to 7.30 pm for four days a week.
Currently, some Tiwis come to Darwin to try to purchase heavy beer because it is not available in a supervised managed club environment on Tiwi Island. Often they are locked in a downward spiral of dependency on grog and they become ill, and sometimes die in the long grass around Darwin. Many Tiwi find themselves locked up just to be released and then locked up again, with no hope or means to change the deadly downward cycle they find themselves in.
Wurrumiyanga, formerly known as Nguiu, has an alcohol management plan for community. The community wants to achieve the following main objectives: access appropriate services for treatment, rehabilitation and support services for alcohol and drug misuse; empower elders, community leaders and role models to have ownership of community laws and orders; facilitate education and information about the problems and danger associated with alcohol and drug abuse; and provide community safety and protection for women, youth and children.
The alcohol management plan aims to reduce the amount of harm in the community that can occur as a result of misuse of alcohol and drugs. The threefold strategy is to be used to focus on demand reduction, changing individual attitudes, personal acknowledgement and behaviour relating to drinking alcohol: changing the tolerance of the community to irresponsible, risky, drinking; harm reductions - reducing the harm to individuals and the community; encouraging safe drinking choices and drinking environment; providing support intervention - compulsory if necessary so as to prevent further harm to individuals and community members; and supply reductions - reducing alcohol consumption and delayed harm by managing availability and accessibility of an alcohol supply.
It is very important for the community within Arafura to be involved in working out the best way of managing alcohol as far as they are concerned. I aim to continue to consult widely within Arafura in the coming months to gauge community feeling towards alcohol management issues. This is why I have been strongly supportive of placing people who are in grave danger of losing their lives in a facility where they can have a chance to dry out and where they can think very hard about the dangerous direction their life is taking.
Such a mandatory arrangement is important because it enables Tiwi people to receive important work training that will enable them to become work ready. It is a clear measure, both within our demand reduction strategy as well as our harm reduction strategy.
Many young Tiwi Islanders are losing contact with their important cultural obligations and responsibilities. As they lose such an understanding, with no skills in the basic areas of literacy and numeracy, they are unable to work in productive activities. Every job now in our communities requires people to be able to read, write, and understand basic calculation. The ability to work and contribute in a positive way in the community is essential to building self-esteem and self-respect so people can appreciate that there are, in fact, important ways out of the current cycle of destruction and death.
It is hoped that the Tiwis can contribute a number of jobs in forestry, for example, by assisting with planting and looking after the many seedlings needed for our forestry project. Art and craft will also be important as an activity and to strengthen peoples’ culture linkages and understanding. These two would be important for building and strengthening self-respect and self-esteem amongst our people.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I see mandatory facilities as a way in which people can be given a chance to think about the opportunities available to them and approach this life they have been given. It is a way to break the terrible cycle of dependency, despair, and early undignified deaths. I know I am supported in this by many Aboriginal people within the great electorate of Arafura.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I am disappointed to be here on the floor of this House discussing a bill which is so seriously flawed that it requires 43 amendments. I am disappointed that Labor’s alcohol reforms were thrown out with the change of government, in line with CLP election promises. It was a political and populous decision led by the CLP: a decision not based on any evidence. Since scrapping the BDR and the other alcohol reforms. we have had nothing put in place for 10 months. Clearly, the CLP has been very challenged to meet its election commitment in finding a model, a legislative instrument, that will suit its purpose.
However, with or without the amendments, this bill and the whole policy approach of the new CLP government was seriously flawed from the outset. It is not just me or my colleagues on this side of the House who say this. It is the flaws of this bill’s punitive approach, which potentially see problem drinkers criminalised, that have been highlighted by medical and health experts, professionals, and social justice advocates. There is a conga line of those advocating against this approach of the CLP, including the Australian Medical Association, the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency, the Criminal Lawyers Association of the Northern Territory, the Northern Territory Council of Social Services, the Northern Territory Police Association, the Alice Springs-based People’s Alcohol Action Coalition, the Aboriginal Peak Organisations of the Northern Territory, and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Social Justice Commissioner.
As the Leader of the Opposition highlighted, as recently as yesterday APO NT, the Aboriginal Peak Organisations of the Northern Territory, issued a statement calling for a bipartisan approach through the creation of a board of inquiry into alcohol consumption and harm in the Northern Territory, not unlike what the Independent member for Nelson had been calling for and which the opposition supported.
I urge the Chief Minister to man up and listen to the pleas of Territorians and the strong and collective voices of health, legal, and social justice advocacy groups to withdraw this bill before the House and to heed the advice of the Aboriginal Peak Organisations of the Northern Territory, having not heeded the advice of opposition, to establish a board of inquiry.
However, I am not very confident he will do this, not only having dismissed the calls of these groups, but to have labelled them as:
- … leftie welfare orientated people who rely on the misery and the poverty to sustain their own personal economy
He then offered some advice which told these lefty oriented welfare people to ‘get out of the way, to p… off’. It is as offensive as the member for Sanderson saying the opposition needed to listen more widely than only our ‘little experts’ as he described them. Who exactly is he referring to, and what credibility does the member for Sanderson have on this subject after going on national television saying the link between alcohol and crime in the Territory was negligible?
I go back to the comments of the Chief Minister. Those comments speak volumes about the attitude and sheer arrogance of this new government and the very arrogant and pig-headed approach the new Chief Minister has adopted. To dismiss the views of doctors, nurses, rehabilitation workers, lawyers, and Aboriginal organisations and accuse them, bizarrely, of somehow feeding off the misery of others is despicable, highly offensive and calls into question his capacity to lead, especially when he adopts language which is unbecoming of a public figure and demeans the position of Chief Minister.
The Chief Minister should be listening to these experts, these Territorians who understand the alcohol issues far better than the Chief Minister - a Chief Minister who, by the way, proclaims drinking to be a core social value in the Northern Territory. He is not listening to them but, rather, ploughing headlong down a path and dragging the Health Minister with him to implement radical and alarming measures to deal with problem drinkers: people who are sick and have addictions.
On national television recently, when asked on Lateline if he could name an expert or organisation which supported the bill, he could not. The fact that he then chose to lash out at those experts is absolutely shameful.
What is missing in this entire debate is evidence which shows the CLP’s reforms will work. The fact is, there is no evidence. However, the CLP, in the absence of evidence and, yet, with an abundance of advice and criticism from experts, continues to forge blindly ahead with ‘do not tell us what to do because we know what is best for you, and we will be deciding the approach to governing the Territory’.
They at least recognise that the former Chief Minister, whose best offer to the debate about how to handle problem drunks was to walk up to them and tell them to stop, was hopeless and they got rid of him. But with the new and unelected Chief Minister installed, there was at least a recognition that stupid CLP policies were hurting Territorians and, from there, we have seen a number of backflips. The Chief Minister is clinging on desperately to save face, and is refusing to back down and away from this disastrous and costly path of legislation, locking up problem drinkers and forcing them to be detained whether they like it or not.
At least under the amendments, absconders are given a second chance before being charged with a criminal offence, but it is a very small token. Essentially, the amendments make a terrible bill a bad bill, but a bill we are not convinced will work and fix the issues of alcohol abuse in the Northern Territory.
The removal of Labor’s measures, as I said at the start, was done with no evaluation or assessment, despite pleas from experts to at least have an evaluation and assess what was in place and the degree to which it worked before they axed it. But, no, they went. Let us remember these measures were put in place a few years ago in response to the Territory’s terrible alcohol-related problems which cost taxpayers around $640m a year in costs associated with our health system, police, corrections, social services, human services, and the terrible cost you cannot place a dollar on: the misery it causes to families, children, and women in particular, being on the receiving end of those who are problem drinkers.
I have spoken in this House on a number of occasions about the reform measures implemented in northeast Arnhem Land. These measures work because they are supply measures that deal with restricting problem drinkers’ access to alcohol. They were implemented first of all in Groote Eylandt, and then followed in Nhulunbuy. In Nhulunbuy they came into place on 1 March 2008. There was resistance to that process at the start. The idea was that you had to apply for a permit to purchase alcohol and, from there, each time you purchased takeaway liquor you needed to show your driver’s licence, or whatever the other approved identification was. There were people who objected to that, in the same way people, with the BDR, objected to having to show ID.
However, over a period of time, people became very accustomed to it, in the same way that if I want to enter the Arnhem Club in Nhulunbuy, I cannot enter without an access card which I must swipe to have entry to the premises, or if I walk through the door because it is open, I must show that card before I enter. That is a measure that ensures these places are kept safe and problem drinkers are not allowed in.
However, the important thing about the measures in northeast Arnhem Land with the alcohol management plans is they did not come from the government saying, ‘Here is a plan for you’ but, from a grassroots level - from the same grassroots that, I dare say, my colleague from the Tiwi Islands talked about when he said what his people want and see as being best for his community. Good on him for working with his colleagues to see a rehab place put on the Tiwi Islands.
However, the issue is about forcing people into rehabilitation, and detaining them. Obviously, I only had a briefing on the amendments on Monday, so there is an awful lot of information to take in. There are an awful lot of questions we will be raising with the minister as we work through these amendments.
I feel very sad, knowing as I do the success of what was a forerunner of the BDR in northeast Arnhem Land - it still operates. A number of people - and I continue to have people who are listening to this debate on what is happening now the BDR has gone and what will happen next - asked me if the alcohol management plans in northeast Arnhem Land will be affected. ‘Is the government going to stop our alcohol management plans? I objected to them at the start but I can see they really work.’
We know they work because there has been a formal evaluation of the alcohol management plans which confirms they work. The Attorney-General can play with the crime statistics all he likes, but the crime statistics, as quoted by the Leader of the Opposition - and I quoted them in estimates the other day with him - show that since the BDR has gone, the increase in alcohol-related crime is 17% and the increase in domestic violence associated with alcohol is almost 25%. Those figures are real.
In northeast Arnhem Land I recently had a meeting with - forgive me, I think he is Assistant Commissioner - Jamie Chalker, who visited Nhulunbuy. I was very pleased to be invited as a community stakeholder to a meeting with him and a couple of colleagues, along with the OIC of Nhulunbuy Police, about what the current community issues were. The crime statistics had only just come out and we talked about that. I said there were a couple of reasons for that. One was very good community policing, very proactive work undertaken by our police, but that is in tandem with the fact that we have alcohol supply measures, such that the Nhulunbuy region had the lowest crime stats on record. You cannot walk away or turn away from the correlation between access to alcohol and crime. It is a crying shame. The system has worked in northeast Arnhem Land, not just in my electorate but in the member for Arnhem’s electorate, as well.
If we had not been seeing results with these alcohol measures then they would have been axed, but the fact is they do work. After just over 12 months of the Enough is Enough reforms introduced by the Labor government, to axe them without an evaluation and assessment, is incredibly short-sighted.
I am concerned about people being taken into protective custody, insofar as the randomness of it. I think again of my electorate where we have a very effective night patrol that will pick people up who need to get home - people who are inebriated on occasions. Under their processes, they do not return a person to the neighbouring communities of Yirrkala or Gunyangara if they are intoxicated. They give that person the option of going to the sobering-up shelter in Nhulunbuy run by the East Arnhem Shire, and that is where people are taken.
On any random night, if the night patrol is not operating, it could be that those people who would normally be picked up and taken into the sobering-up shelter will be picked up by the police patrol. That would see them entering into the system. There is that randomness about it; it is a bit of a lottery as to whether you get in there or not.
I make a comment about the removal of the SMART Court and the Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal, along with the new legislation. The fact is that whilst the CLP will completely deny it - because they are not interested in listening to evidence or experts - the SMART Court, Substance Misuse Alcohol - what does the R stand for?
Mrs Lambley: Who cares?
Ms WALKER: I know you do not care, Minister for Health, you do not care at all.
The SMART Court was supported by a number of experts. It was strongly supported by the Chief Magistrate. The Chief Magistrate has been quite outspoken about that in the media. Interestingly, the SMART Court is about dealing with people’s issues before they become serious offences - before they find themselves in the Corrections system. It goes to the heart of dealing with the substance misuse problems they have. Substance misuse problems often do not stand alone; there are other problems going on in people’s lives that connect them to alcohol or other substance issues.
When I talked about the SMART Court in the estimates process the other day with the Attorney-General, I asked for a few figures. He told me that 230 defendants in the life of the SMART Court had been referred. Out of the 230 who were referred, 146 were accepted into the SMART Court program. Out of that 146, there were 52 who graduated. So there was nowhere near a 100% success rate and the SMART Court would not expect that. However, 52 graduating out of 146 in the program is more than a 30% success rate. That is a pretty good success rate when we look at the predicted success rate for rehabilitation, according to the CLP, being 5% or 10%, depending on who it is you are talking to.
The Attorney-General dismissed the SMART Court program, as ‘It just costs too much. It just costs too much; we just cannot afford it.’ There is something incredibly short-sighted about that in looking at the longer-term benefits of investing in programs like that which go to the heart of the problem and do not criminalise people. You could not go into that program if you had committed a criminal offence, but it gave people an opportunity and kept them out of prison.
I know the alcohol mandatory treatment program is not about prisons, but it is about locking people up; it is about mandatorily detaining people. There are so many issues that will arise with this and there is no guarantee of its success rate. In fact, we are predicting a very low success rate.
The other thing that concerns me is the CLP government is desperately seeking beds to meet its commitment. One of the key targets is the medi-hotel on the campus of the Royal Darwin Hospital. I understand the federal government Health minister has yet to indicate you can have it for that purpose. I believe the use of that facility would concern bush members on both sides of this House because the medi-hotel was a purpose-built facility designed for people who have to travel from outside of Darwin for medical treatment. That person could be somebody who is not sick enough to occupy a hospital bed but needs to come in for some treatment and needs somewhere secure, safe and affordable to stay, particularly Indigenous constituents. That treatment could include pregnant women whose closest hospital is the birthing unit at Royal Darwin Hospital. They need to be in at around 36 or 37 weeks of their pregnancy. These are the people who would have access to the medi-hotel.
I have amongst my constituents people who come in for surgery. They often need a day or two to recover from that surgery before they are fit to travel back to Nhulunbuy or whichever community they come from. They are being denied access to that medi-hotel, and that is the part of the debate that seems to have been fudged over by the government. In fact, the Treasurer made it very clear he is not interested in these medi-hotels. He sees them as places for long-grassers, basically, and the taxpayer is not a hotelier. I find that highly offensive. The medi-hotel at the Royal Darwin Hospital was fought for long and hard by the Labor government and delivered by the federal Labor government. I believe those people out bush have no idea this facility has been withdrawn from them.
The Leader of the Opposition asked the CLP where their communication plan for the roll out of this program was. She asked who you are talking to, and how people out bush know what the consequences of being picked up twice in the space of three months for being drunk are. They do not know. They did not know their power bills were going up. They could not work out why their power card that used to last five days was only lasting two days. This government is terrible at communicating with people.
I am also very concerned about the facility in Nhulunbuy. I do not know how this facility will be adapted to meet the new legislative requirements of a detaining facility, given the special care centre in Nhulunbuy is co-located with the sobering-up shelter. I talked about the randomness of someone, potentially, one night being picked up by night patrol and another night being picked up by police. One night they could be in the sobering-up shelter, and a week later they might find themselves in the mandated treatment bed where they will be detained alongside voluntary participants in rehabilitation. It is really difficult to understand physically how this will work and how it will be communicated to people.
What is involved in the aftercare programs? I look forward to hearing a little more about that because we know if we put people through this mandatory alcohol treatment they do it for three months. They may not want to be there. There will be an element of people who will not want to participate, and you cannot make people want to go through something. However, at the end of the day, what are you releasing them to? How is the aftercare program going to work? If people have come from a dysfunctional environment and are returning to a dysfunctional environment, how will lives be improved? No doubt we will see these people going through the cycle of going in and out of these rehabilitation centres with limited success, all the while with enormous costs to taxpayers.
Madam Speaker, I will have questions as we go through the many committee stage amendments. Essentially, I do not support the bill, do not support the amendments, and do not support the course of action this CLP government is taking.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, this is an extremely serious bill. It has ramifications that are, to some extent, new from the point of view that the intention of this bill is to take away the right of someone to be able to freely walk the streets, because of an alcohol addiction. It is something we should take seriously. I heard a bit of laughter before, and I understand there is a bit of argy-bargy across the table in much of what we do here. However, this is too serious a bill to just knock another person’s opinion. People will have different opinions. I have a different opinion from the opposition and, to some extent, from the government.
I agree with the principle that there comes a time when some people need assistance when they cannot help themselves anymore. I also think society needs a break from those people who are simply a nuisance. No matter how hard people try with charity and support, some of those people are simply at a point where there has to be some intervention. I do not say that lightly, because we are moving into an area that is controversial. We do it with people who have mental health issues or cognitive impairment. There are cases where we already do that, and it is only done with much care and legislative control. I feel we have a case that sometimes we have to help people.
I am looking at this from a point of what I believe is compassion. It has to be clearly stated that if you do not come to the debate from what you think is the correct way to help these people, or the belief that we have to do this with compassion, then you might as well throw people in gaol. That is where I differ from the government. We can talk about the legislation, and I believe there are still some errors in the legislation, but my main concern is if we are to do this correctly and with compassion, then we need to build facilities first that show that compassion.
I will go through some of the things we should look at. Mandatory residential treatment should definitely be the last resort; it says that in the act. We cannot deny that most of the people who will be put away will be Aboriginal. Many of them will be well out of their own country, for whatever reason. The member for Arafura put it pretty succinctly; many people come into town because they want beer they cannot get on their island. I believe many people come to town from other communities for a very similar reason: theirs is a dry community and they cannot get alcohol.
We should be looking at an Aboriginal solution as the top priority. We should have healing centres as a top priority. We should be taking people back - maybe not to their own country, because sometimes family could be an issue. We should be using the resources of Aboriginal people to help overcome what is killing their people. That needs to be the first priority of government before we take the more drastic step of locking people up.
I would like people who are assessed as being suitable for this program to be given the option of going out bush where they can go hunting and are comfortable, where they are in familiar surroundings and can go fishing, hunting, and have time to dry out with people who have compassion and believe they can help. There are people in Arnhem Land and other areas - I mentioned my sisters-in-law. There are people out there; they may not be professional but they are compassionate people who find their countrymen in the city drunk and fighting to be a shame job. If we had the right approach and had this organised, they would help with the solution.
The solution will not be easy and will probably be minuscule because you are dealing with people with serious alcohol problems. If you talk to anybody in the rehabilitation business, getting people to stay off the grog permanently is no easy task. Most people would know you can get someone off for a short while, and then they go back on it. I put that first as an option that needs to be looked at.
In relation to the mandatory residential facilities, I said they should be purpose-built because they need to be home-like. They need to be places where people will feel they are not in prison, even if they cannot go out. They are, for instance, in the bush; perhaps have vegetable gardens, facilities where they know they will get three good meals a day and will be cared for and have medical treatment, because many of these people do not just have an alcohol problem, they have other medical problems. Again, if do not have that word ‘compassion’ involved in the mandatory rehabilitation, then it just becomes a means of removing people from the streets. If that is the case, I do not think that would work, nor would it be compassionate.
I spoke to someone today from one of the alcohol rehabilitation groups, and they said they are not great supporters of this bill. I heard one of the members talk about support. They will go along with this because they need to be part of it. I do not necessarily think they are great supporters of it but, for them, they see a bit of an anomaly. They are running systems which probably have a much higher chance of rehabilitating people because they are voluntary - people make a decision they want to change their lives. Yet, the amount of money they get is not great at all. Of course, what we will do is put a large amount of money into a program that probably has a much smaller chance of success. From their point of view that is slightly imbalanced. A program that will probably have results, which will unlikely be something you will rave about, will take money away from those groups which have been working for many years through voluntary rehabilitation.
If the government wants to go down this path of spending a large sum of money, and I understand it will cost a large amount of money, it should have been supplying more money for the alcohol rehabilitation groups which are operating presently so they have the opportunity to try to spread their facilities over the Territory to reduce the need for mandatory rehabilitation. I understand that they see the approach as a little skewed.
I travelled to Katherine to see Vendale, and I also went to Alice Springs to look at CAAAPU. I also went to the medi-hostel - I call it the hostel; medi-hotel is probably not the right name. First, the people at CAAAPU were fantastic - great people. When you go in the front door and meet the people who are at the coalface and have to deal with what is a fairly difficult and a continuing issue - people think they are banging their heads against a brick wall trying to fix it. Those people were most generous in showing me around.
They showed me their plans, which I have here, for a series of demountables. I discussed it with them and asked if they had taken into consideration that those demountables might be a risk to the welfare of a person because one of the big issues in locking people up is deaths in custody. People can argue whether they are technically in custody. I will not get into that argument at the moment. You are locking people up against their will and, if you were to lock the people up in the prison and someone died there would be an inquiry. If you went to a modern prison today, there would be a purpose-built room where people cannot harm themselves.
I understand the most important phase of a person withdrawing is about the first seven to 10 days. There are issues I am not overly clear about, and I thank the minister’s advisor and staff for the two briefings I have had; I appreciate that very much. They know I have concerns. One is to ensure that these assessment facilities, because they would be separate, I imagine, from the rehabilitation centres, will be built or designed in such a way so people cannot cause harm to themselves, such as have hanging points. They will be going through those withdrawal symptoms, which might include withdrawal from other drugs. I am not, at the moment, confident that that is all there.
We are bringing this legislation forward. Are the assessment facilities up to a standard that someone could be held there for seven to 10 days and there would be no or negligible risk of them harming themselves? This is a risk for the government. After reading information people have sent me I have found that usually after seven to 10 days there is not such a risk. However, there is a risk. It is not the withdrawal risk, it is the risk that you are putting someone into a facility against their will. Why do people do bad things in prison? Why do people do silly things even in detention centres? Because they are frustrated that they have been locked away. You have that issue which will have to be thought about very carefully.
When I went to CAAAPU and I saw these demountables - some of them are second-hand – they looked like single men’s quarters. They are not as flash as the ones at the INPEX village, but they are a standard similar to mining camp quarters. My concern is that we have not purpose-built something which recognises we need to have compassion; that is, we need to ensure the person who stays there will not cause harm to themselves by living in the facility. We want to get this program up and running so we will put four or so demountables at CAAAPU.
There is nothing at Vendale at the moment, so I cannot comment. I assume it would be similar - some demountables. Vendale is a terrific spot. I could not meet the director, but I met the pastor and I had a look around. It is a beautiful spot. Of course, it is a voluntary rehabilitation centre, but it is a beautiful spot in the bush, 30 km out of Katherine.
Then I visited the medi-hostel, and I have concerns. The other day in estimates I raised the issue that one area we have forgotten is intrastate travel: people from the bush travelling to Darwin with their partners if someone is sick. People used to ask me how they could get their partner to come with them if they had to go to Adelaide. That happens on a local level, especially in Darwin, because Darwin has the facilities Adelaide has.
A carer, partner or spouse has to come and needs to stay in a hospital. That was one of the reasons for that medi-hostel: for the carers to be close to their loved ones. As I understand it, the medi-hostel will be used for 18 to 24 months, and maybe that is not a big deal. I just highlight the fact that the other part of the hostel was for carers. It is important for a partner or a spouse to be able to be close to their loved one when they are having a serious operation. We should be asking why we have to use that facility in the manner we are about to.
The facility is fantastic, there is no doubt about it, but the government had to make adjustments to it. They are removing some of the air conditioning vents and the prison officers or staff of Corrections have been there to look at the rooms. That, in itself, tells you they also have issues. The issue of harm is something that needs to be carefully looked at because, as I said, if that happens, everything will dissolve.
The other problem I have is I tried to provide a model of what I believe one of these facilities should be like. It should be fairly large, probably close to the bush, and have some gardens and outdoor facilities. The medi-hostel has a very nice garden and a very nice lawn, but I am not sure that is the right place for many of these people. It is flash, and by the way, they should take the TVs away. I was talking to one of the people who manages an alcohol rehabilitation centre and they said you should not allow phones or TVs because they are a distraction.
We have those facilities at Vendale, CAAAPU and the medi-hostel. I do not believe those facilities are the right facilities. I understand the medi-hostel will be temporary. However, I have not heard what would replace it.
The other area that concerns me regards escapes from a facility. There are amendments to the bill. Originally, if you escaped you would go to prison or get a fine. I suppose there is a fair chance if you kept escaping you would end up in prison. The amendments say if you escape twice you go back to the place you came from, but if you escape three times, you go to prison. Having that in there basically means you can escape from the facility. I would have thought if you want to put that clause that a person cannot escape, you would need to build a facility that you cannot escape from. The argument would be that you did not make the facility escape proof because you did not care that they went to prison.
I looked at CAAAPU and asked how they would keep people there. I asked if they were going to put a big fence up, but they do not want a big fence. They want a fence similar to one they have. It would not be hard to get over that fence. It would only take a couple of chairs and you would be over the top in no time.
I do not know what the facilities will be like at Vendale, but if they are similar there will be a three-strand wire fence with chain mesh at the front because it has been built for voluntary rehabilitation. It is easy to escape and it would not take much to walk 500 m up the Stuart Highway and you would be in Katherine. I know the government department will spend a great deal of money on fencing at the medi-hostel. I am not so sure how difficult it would be to get over a solid fence - maybe just get a couple of chairs and get someone to hoist you over?
Although the government is trying to do the right thing for the medi-hostel, these facilities should have been purpose-built before we put anyone through this program. People might say that will take a long time. That is true. We built the secure care centres for people with cognitive impairment, and then we passed the legislation for people with cognitive impairment, so they had a facility up and running which was purpose-built. I have looked at the facility in Darwin. It is being used for a different purpose now, but that was a facility that was made with a lot of thought so the person going in there would not be harmed. There was space outside. The one at Holtze backs on to the bush and has a little garden. There was a lot of thought before people were permitted to stay there. I will not get into what has changed now, but that was the basis of that place.
They are my basic concerns. I do not think things have been built as they should have been. I am concerned about the welfare of the people who will stay there, especially from a self-harm point of view. I am worried that if the facility is not secure, then it will be too easy to make the three escapes and end in prison. I would also like the option of the Aboriginal solution. That is not forcing it on Aboriginal people, by the way. If they felt they could contribute and be part of this without people being locked up in facility near a big town, then the government should be open to it to see if we have alternative ways of not locking people up in some of the facilities.
The other issue I came across was the sobering-up shelters. I met the people at the Katherine sobering-up shelter. Sometimes it is enlightening if you have been sitting in offices and you go and meet people at the front counter of the sobering-up shelter. That was sobering for me because you see people at the coalface. They were great; they showed me around. They showed me the rooms, the showers, and where they have breakfast. There is always hope for people because when I asked them what they have for breakfast they told me they have a cup of tea and vegemite sandwiches. Vegemite actually has a nutrient …
Mr Vatskalis: Vitamin B.
Mr WOOD: … vitamin B in it so, of course, it is good for people who have alcohol problems.
They were fantastic people. They told me that people who come into the sobering-up shelter are generally dropped off by the police and, if they can walk in, they take them. They can stay there for six hours or until they are sober, and they look after them. Of course, if they do not go there, they go to the watch house.
The member for Nhulunbuy raised the issue of whether people will get to the watch house by accident when they should not be there. This is an issue I also raised with the department. The sobering-up shelter has 18 places at Katherine. If it is full, then the police take people to the watch house, and they will get a tick against them on the way to getting three ticks, and on the way to becoming part of a mandatory rehabilitation program. After raising this with the police, that is a hypothetical example I have given.
However, I agree that most police in country towns know who is who. They will know the regulars, the people who obviously are a problem. I hope some common sense will prevail. I am not 100% sure; maybe the minister can tell me whether a person automatically gets a tick if a police officer takes them to the watch house. If it is automatic, there is a problem. It was an issue raised by someone at the sobering-up shelter. You can get a ringer who comes in for the weekend in Katherine, get on the turps a bit, is picked up by police and put in the watch house, gets a tick, but you do not see him again for another six months. He has just come in, as some ringers do, to celebrate. It is all right, member for Barkly, my daughter was a ringer. They do that. If they have been out bush mustering cattle for three months, a place like Katherine or Tennant Creek looks pretty good.
Those issues about how you work on the coalface - and that is the coalface - need to be assessed as there needs to be guidelines. When I raised this with the Police Commissioner, I got the impression there are no guidelines yet for police in dealing with this. We do not have mandatory rehabilitation presently, so it is not a really big deal if the policeman takes them to the sobering-up shelter or the watch house, because he does not have to make a great decision. He can also take them to the hospital if they look like they are sick and need hospital treatment.
The police are currently in a different world where they know they will be the people ticking the box. If people get three ticks, they then see if they need to be put through the system. That is an area that needs a bit more debate and discussion. I would like to see some guidelines.
I only have five minutes left, but I would like to say a couple of things. We should have had a select committee. I know the government does not agree. This was a perfect example of a select committee’s job. A select committee could have run for three or four months. I do not think it would have made much difference to what we are doing. It would have given ownership of this to the parliament to go out to the community. I get so tired of the system which tends to fight itself when we are all trying to get to the one result. Politics sometimes makes me angry because it is about you having the solution and this mob not. That is my concern.
I said today in relation to the Estimates Committee that when I went to New South Wales to the Public Accounts Committee conference, people said when there is a committee there are far more chances of it being bipartisan. People tend to work together because they do not have this atmosphere around them. They tend to work together because they have a goal to reach. People have worked in a bipartisan way in all the committees I have been on in the Territory.
There was a letter in today’s paper from Paul Everingham. I will give you two sides of the equation here:
- In answer to the critics of the NT Government’s mandatory alcohol rehabilitation program, can any of them tell me what, if anything, has worked in the past in this very sad area?
To the best of my knowledge everything that’s been tried, from almost time immemorial in the NT, to wean people off alcohol dependence has failed dismally.
I agree, except there are successes, because, as I said, there are people working and doing their best with voluntary rehabilitation centres, and we know who they are.
Paul Everingham went on to say:
- The harm alcoholism wreaks on people, families, and the community is staring us all in the face.
Instead of criticising, let’s at least give it a try.
That is great; I have no problem with it. I applied the same theory to the BDR. That was my cry: let us give it a try. I know people were laughing.
Vince Kelly said something similar. He supports mandatory rehabilitation legislation. He said:
- … it is apparent that the program will be limited to a relatively small number of people and it is generally accepted that mandatory rehabilitation will have limited effect on controlling alcohol abuse and related antisocial behaviour.
Vince is not a fly-by-nighter; he has been around a long time. He has a pretty good idea of what he is talking about. He went on to say, in relation to the BDR:
- These measures were not allowed time to kick in properly and the government has stubbornly resisted an independent evaluation of the BDR.
Paul Everingham said …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request the member be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Paul Everingham said instead of criticising the government’s program, let us at least give it a try. I will not be voting for it. I am happy for them to give it a try, but they will know the reasons for my concerns. I am saying give it a try. The BDR did not get a trial because it was knocked on the head from day one. Paul Everingham is saying what I feel.
The two programs running together might have been great. However, we are all looking at this much of the problem - a little - when the problem needs to be looked at from various angles. The BDR, working with mandatory rehabilitation, might have reduced the number of people in mandatory rehabilitation. Perhaps the two together might have given us something we could have assessed. That is something the select committee could have looked at: whether they could have the two running side by side, with a three-year or four-year trial to assess it.
We will spend a great deal of money on this program. As we know from the budget estimates, we will put something like $80m into it. We will have some nice buildings, many reports and all sort of things. However, what will be the outcome? Will it do what you are trying to do? If it takes some people off the street, that is good. Members who have city electorates know - and I have been to some of these places. People have called and said ‘I am sick of it’. I have visited these places, not far from here, where people are sick of people lying on the front lawn defecating, swearing - all sorts of things. Believe it or not, I used to be a gardener and worked in Geranium Street. I can tell you what it is like to be the bloke who turns up first in the morning to clean up the mess. It is not pleasant ...
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Yes, it is not. The point is, we need to help those people, and we need to give the community a break from that. However, you have to balance that with compassion; we are trying to help people turn their lives around so they have an opportunity to get off the grog. That is what we are trying to give: an opportunity to think about where they are. If it is only 1%, that is a good 1%.
As I said, I agree with the philosophy of what the government is doing. My main concern is more about how it will work in operation, on the ground. That is my biggest concern.
I am sad it could not have gone to a select committee. We could have looked at it a little more broadly in context with other things. We could have gone out to the community and tested the legislation. When you need 41 amendments, that would have been a good thing for the select committee to look at.
I gather with the Queensland committee model we are talking about, the legislation is put on the table of the parliament and the committee thoroughly analyses it to see if there are any mistakes. When it comes back it easily goes straight through with no amendments, and often it goes through with bipartisan support. I believe the government missed an opportunity to go down the path of a select committee.
I will be watching carefully, and I hope the government reconsiders, when it comes to the facilities, pulling back for a while and saying demountables are not the way to go. You need special facilities for these people; they are still human. You need to ensure they are not subject to self-harm and, at the same time, we work to try to turn their lives around from this scourge we have in the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I will finish off with what the previous Chief Minister of the Northern Territory said:
- The harm alcoholism wreaks on people, families, and the community is staring us all in the face.
Mr CONLAN (Central Australia): Madam Speaker, I support this bill. I pick up on a couple of interesting comments from the member for Nelson. He loves committees. I understand why, member for Nelson, when brokering the deal with the previous government, you never played yourself into the game and requested to become a minister, because you do not like making decisions. It is pretty clear; it is all about committees ...
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am being misrepresented. Would you believe I had the opportunity to be a minister, but sometimes principle gets in the way of personal ambition.
Madam SPEAKER: Please withdraw those comments, member for Greatorex.
Mr CONLAN: For what, Madam Speaker? I do not understand. Please, what …
Madam SPEAKER: The reference to the member for Nelson wanting to be a minister.
Mr CONLAN: Okay. He just said he wanted to be a minister, Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: Just withdraw!
Mr CONLAN: Okay, I withdraw. However, he did have every opportunity to become a minister. We agree with that. It was obvious he did. It was right there for the taking but he walked away from that opportunity to have some influence over these types of issues and all that is dear to him. But, no, he gets to his feet all the time and drones on and on. I have noticed he has a conversation with himself, he plucks hypotheticals out of the air and then answers them himself. It is extraordinary and takes up 30 minutes of the parliament.
He came up with this incredible comparison between Paul Everingham and Vince Kelly and said, ‘I am going to give you both sides of the argument’. Here is something from Paul Everingham and here is something from Vince Kelly. With greatest respect to Vince Kelly, he is no Paul Everingham and I do not think that is a very accurate comparison. It is not really oranges for oranges, member for Nelson.
I do not know what it was you just said in that 40 minutes. You do not support it but you will give it a go, ‘I kind of agree with it but kind of do not. Some people say this so I agree with them but, then again, some other people say this so I agree with them.’
We have just seen what has happened in Canberra with regard to a hung parliament and how destructive it is to the nation. We have seen in the last four years how destructive a hung parliament has been to the Northern Territory, and you are responsible for that. Now, you say, ‘Well I am not really sure, it should go out to a committee’.
The time for committees is over. It is time to make a decision on this very serious issue facing the Northern Territory. It is absolutely time. We have the numbers. Yes, the Leader of the Opposition is absolutely correct; it will pass tonight or, perhaps, tomorrow morning, because we have the numbers. This government firmly believes that what we are about to embark on is not only ground-breaking but will address the very real problem that has been plaguing the Northern Territory for decades. Paul Everingham is correct; it has been a problem for time immemorial. However, the policies of the previous government did not work. You failed Territorians and now we are about to embark on something that is ground-breaking. We believe it will work.
Mandatory rehabilitation has not been tried and we are now about to embark on it. As of 1 July, mandatory rehabilitation will become law in the Northern Territory and will remove people from the scourge of alcohol for three months. Not only will it give the families the break they so desperately require - the children, wives, spouses will have the opportunity for some respite - it will also give the rest of the community a break such as those businesses that are confronted by it day after day, and the tourism industry that is confronted by it year after year, time and time again.
It will also give the alcoholic, the drunk, the person with the problem, a break from the booze, which is a key component. It removes their ability to consume alcohol. It is a real measure that removes them from accessing alcohol. Under the Banned Drinker Register – which was really the banned buyer’s register - alcohol was still available to those people by walking into a bar, or through secondary supply from friends who bought them drink at a bar or bottle shop. A couple of bars in Alice Springs installed a swipe card system. However, not all of them did, so they could still walk into a bar or a club and purchase alcohol. This removes their ability to physically access alcohol because they are in a treatment facility. That has to be good.
I do not understand what is wrong with that. I cannot understand what is wrong with removing the ability to access alcohol from someone who clearly has a desperate problem with alcohol, to the point where they have become one of the most vulnerable Territorians. How is removing the ability for them to access alcohol and give them respite for three months wrong?
The minister for alcohol policy is across all the detail, and I am across some of it, but my understanding of this legislation is it will also require that person to undertake some type of course, such as literacy or numeracy or some job skilling. That will mean when they emerge after three months, they have some ability to contribute in a meaningful way to society, rather than just being a drunk on the street. That is crucial to that person’s wellbeing and to their future. It is also crucial to their families and the rest of the community. The community and their family expect it, and we are providing that person with that precise opportunity.
I fail to see where the problem is. We have tried so much with so many programs over the years. We have seen what Labor has done over the last 10 years. When they first emerged on the scene in 2001, they really did try, but towards the end it just became too hard. You could tell because of the continual amendments to their programs or regimes.
This has never been tried; never did they go as far as mandating rehabilitation as we have done. This is something that needs to be rolled out and applied to the Northern Territory because nothing has worked. We are drowning in a sea of drunks, and the drunks are drowning in a sea of their own misery. The families are suffering, the drunks are suffering. I have to say it again, we put so much emphasis on the families and giving them respite, but there is nothing wrong with giving someone a chance to re-evaluate themselves under the auspice of sobriety. If you are sober you can make a clear and conscious decision about your future. You can wake up in the morning feeling refreshed; you can undertake a literacy or numeracy course. You can take a job skilling course and throw yourself into it. Once that three months has ticked over, you can emerge and contribute in a meaningful way to society. We expect it from that person and they should expect it from themselves.
The member for Nelson said he is not too sure about what to do because some people might say this, and some people might say that is a degradation of his duty as a member of this parliament. He had an opportunity to step up to the plate. He had every opportunity, but he still could not bring himself to sign on the dotted line and say, ‘Okay, I will take some responsibility’. He is all care and no responsibility. It is appalling the way he has walked away from that responsibility. He preaches it to every one of us when he does not like what we say. He is very quick to preach it to all of us, but the moment he is thrust into the hot seat he cannot take it. It is appalling.
As we have discussed today in the second reading of the bill - we are about to move into some 47 or 41 amendments; there are quite a few, but this is hefty legislation. When this kicks in on 1 July, the government’s alcohol mandatory treatment legislation, we believe, will succeed where Labor failed.
I pick up on some of the interesting comments by the Leader of the Opposition who talked about the experts. I said across the Chamber, ‘The Labor experts’. She said there was no political bias by any of these so-called experts. It is very interesting, because one of those so-called experts - probably the main player in this anti-CLP, anti-mandatory rehabilitation argument – is Dr John Boffa. His name has been mentioned a lot. John is quite happy to put his neck out, so I am sure he will not mind if I shoot it off.
Dr John Boffa was handing out how-to-vote cards for the Labor candidate in Greatorex, Mr Rowan Foley, during the last Northern Territory election - standing there with ‘Vote 1 Rowan Foley ALP’. I do not know what other experts the Leader of the Opposition is talking about, but John Boffa claims to be the leading expert in this; he is certainly the most vocal. He is the ‘go to’ person, for the ABC in particular, whenever they want a comment about mandatory rehabilitation or the Country Liberals’ approach to alcohol rehabilitation. He is the poster boy for anything that is anti-Country Liberals’ policy. He is supposed to have no political bias, yet we saw him there for four hours on the Sadadeen booth handing out how-to-vote cards for the Labor candidate for Greatorex. So, go figure.
How many of these other so-called political experts have no political bias? I am sure you will not find too many, because this debate polarises people. It forces people’s hands politically, except, maybe, the member for Nelson’s. He might be the only one who can sit there, hand on heart and say, ‘I cannot really make too much of a decision’.
We watched for 11 years as the former Labor government failed. We have planned and devised this real program of mandatory rehabilitation. It is a comprehensive program which we believe will work. Under the plan, those identified as problem drinkers who are placed in protective custody three times in two months will face up to 12 weeks of mandatory treatment. Alcohol, that potentially addictive drug, will be taken away, and that is how you get to the problem.
We have emerged out of this regime of trading restrictions and swipe cards, the BDR, and the alcohol restrictions that have been imposed on communities such as Alice Springs, Katherine, Tennant Creek and, recently, towards the end of the previous government’s term, some small restrictions imposed on Darwin, with very little to show for it.
The thrust of those policies was to attack supply. They were supply measures; they were not demand measure policies. They were there to address the supply of alcohol and not to address the demand of alcohol. This is a highly-charged political debate that goes to the heart of people’s ideologies, there is no doubt about it. That is why it is so heated in here, because we think you are wrong and we are right, and vice versa.
Tonight, we will win this. We have put up with yours for the last 11 years and we have seen that it does not work. We will try it our way. We believe - and it is our ideology - that demand is the problem. There is no doubt that some supply restrictions make an impact. If you shut down a bottle shop and people cannot get to it, then people cannot buy alcohol from that bottle shop; there is no doubt about it. But it does not quench the thirst - pardon the pun - or the appetite for alcohol. If a person has a problem, is an alcoholic, they still have the desire, the thirst, and the appetite for alcohol.
Therefore, our measures, we believe, go to the heart of the demand side of it: treating that person who has an illness because it is a health issue. Alcoholism is very much a health and wellbeing issue. It is an illness and our measures will go right to that. Tinkering around with supply measures and not putting money or resources into demand is counterproductive.
The argument we hear from over there is, ‘Yes, this will cost a lot of money. You guys will cost the Northern Territory a fortune to do this; it is too expensive.’ Well it has already cost $642m to not do it. That is what alcohol-related issues in the Northern Territory have cost the taxpayer. Imagine if we could spend just some of that doing what we are doing. It might come in at half. In fact, the figures are $35m a year to roll it out. The minister for alcohol policy, I am sure, has plenty to say in response to the Leader of Opposition’s assertions about the figures and how much it will cost. What did she say? It was $90m or something?
Mrs Lambley: $90 000 each.
Mr CONLAN: Yes, the Leader of the Opposition has her figures wrong. I am sure the minister for alcohol policy will take great pleasure in correcting the record.
It costs $642m a year to not roll out a mandatory rehabilitation program. We firmly believe these treatment programs will go a long way to reducing that cost to the Northern Territory taxpayer, because they will be targeting the problem. Alcohol is not the problem; it is people who have a problem with alcohol that is the problem. The issue is people who are addicted to alcohol. Most of us in this House enjoy a drink and there is nothing wrong with that. Enjoying a drink in a convivial environment is fantastic. It is a great pathway to wonderful conversation, and brings on such great social enjoyment; there is no doubt about it. I love having a drink, as do many of us. Enjoying a drink with friends is fantastic.
However, there are those, as we know, who cannot. They either choose not to because they do not like it, because they have a problem with it, or have a problem with it but, yet, still choose to drink. They are the people we need to target; those who cannot control their own behaviour through this illness, which is alcoholism.
I thought I might just touch on, for the sake of this debate, some of my portfolio areas that alcohol affects. Tourism is probably the biggest. The effects of alcohol as seen through the eyes of a tourist cannot be underestimated in the Northern Territory, particularly in some of our smaller communities of Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and Katherine. It is very prevalent in Darwin but, in those communities, it is just so obvious. The problem is still just as bad, but it does not necessarily appear to be as obvious in Darwin, although I am sure there are plenty of Darwin MLAs who would disagree with me. It is widespread, nevertheless, across the whole of the NT.
Not only did Labor take their eyes off the ball when it came to Tourism - we have made that point a number of times in this House since coming to government - but their failed alcohol policies have put more drunks on the streets and made the Northern Territory a less desirable destination. It is as simple as that. There is a direct correlation with our image around the world and Australia and the number of visitors coming to the Northern Territory.
Alcohol is involved in 60% of assaults and 67% of all domestic violence in the Northern Territory. Most worrying of all, alcohol-related deaths in the Territory are three times the national average. The figures are pretty staggering. This is the message we are sending to the rest of Australia and the world about the Northern Territory. The Territory has so many incredible destinations; it is a wonderful attraction, a world-class tourism product. But, for too long, our problems with dealing with alcohol have been exposed to the rest of the world. We believe that has been related directly to the visitation and expenditure our visitors bring to the Northern Territory. There is a number of other factors too, and I have gone into that when specifically talking about tourism with regard to marketing.
However, with the effects of alcohol, violent assaults, and assaults in general, Alice Springs was, sadly and unfairly, labelled the murder capital of Australia which, as a local, I know is ridiculous. However, that is how these things were portrayed to the rest of the country and the world.
To be humbugged by drunks for money is not the image we want. Being exposed to problem drunks fighting in our streets, parks, and shopping malls is not the image we want to portray. The impression our visitors gain under the failed policies of the previous government has done us enormous damage. As a local living in a town that was plagued by alcohol-related problems and, in many cases, still is, I can tell you we are not immune from those impressions ourselves. As much as we love the communities of Alice Springs, Katherine and Tennant Creek, these problems are taking place right under our noses. I have been exposed to the effects of alcohol and alcohol-related crime by having my back fridge raided twice in a row, three times in one week. These issues have been left to rot for too long.
I congratulate the Minister for Alcohol Rehabilitation for the work done in this space. This is significant legislation. It is a world first, I believe. I know it will face some enormous criticism, if it has not faced enough already. It will pass tonight or tomorrow morning, and we will see, as of 1 July, a mandatory rehabilitation program implemented for the first time in this country. That is something to be very proud of. We will give those drunks, and their families, in particular, who desperately look to us as the government for leadership, a chance. We will give them a second chance to get off the booze, get themselves sorted, clean themselves up, and get themselves into some work. Do you know what? If they fall back off the rails, they will go back in again.
We are under no illusion that someone will emerge from a three-month program and, all of sudden, be cured. It is my understanding as well, from some of the research and work and conversations I had over the years when I was handling those shadow portfolios - I was the previous shadow Health minister and the shadow Alcohol Policy minister - that to really cure someone from chronic alcoholism through treatment programs such as this requires a hell of a lot of money, but also a long period of time. In fact, I have heard the time frame of about five years spoken of. If you want to cure or treat one person successfully for alcoholism, not only is it very expensive, it also takes a long time.
We cannot afford it. We do not have the luxury of that time frame because the problem is so rife and there are so many vulnerable people who desperately need a break from this right now, but we literally cannot afford it financially, for a number of reasons, and $5.5bn comes to mind.
This will provide them with a break for about three months. If they emerge from that treatment facility and, with all good intentions, intend to go to work but do not, but fall off the wagon and go straight back on the booze, and are picked up again three times, then they are back into it again. They then have another three months and it gives their family and the community another three months of respite. Importantly, it gives them a chance to get themselves together. It gives them a break from drinking and exposing themselves to dangers, whether it be sleeping on a railway track, walking across a main road without a care in the world, or across a highway. For crying out loud, how many times has that happened? These people are oblivious to the oncoming traffic. They are a danger to themselves and the community. They are so vulnerable and they expose the community to that vulnerability as well because of their actions.
You will never convince me that giving someone a chance to give themselves a chance is the wrong thing to do. I was brought up that way. You give yourself a chance. You have to give someone a chance to give themselves a chance; that is just the fair way to go. This is absolutely fair. It is a bit tough, but it is fair. This will go a long way to addressing our issues in the Northern Territory. It will address a range of other issues because so many of the problems we face in the Northern Territory are alcohol-related.
All of my portfolios areas are affected by it, such as Sport - our sporting carnivals. Our Tourism industry, our parks, even our Arts and Museums sector, believe it or not, is affected by the advent of alcohol-related crime. Education - kids are not going to school; mum and dad are not sending them there because they are consumed with alcohol. Our health system is jam-packed with this. Everywhere you look, there is not …
Mrs LAMBLEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time for the member for Greatorex, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr CONLAN: Thanks, Minister for Alcohol Rehabilitation.
Everywhere you look, alcohol-related issues play some part in the Northern Territory.
To me, it is vital we get on with this. It is coming through on urgency and some people in this House do not particularly like urgency. It is not something we like to make a habit of, but there is much to do. We cannot afford to mess around; we cannot afford to wait.
You guys on the other side of the Chamber had 11 years. You made some small inroads in some small areas; there is no doubt about it. It is a very hard subject and, ideologically, you could not bring yourselves to take the hard yards and make the hard decisions. Some of you wanted to but, generally, Caucus or the party would not let you. You were beholden to the extreme, and no one would allow you to make some tough decisions. The member for Casuarina gets it but, of course, he was beholden to the party and to Cabinet and Caucus. There are many factions, as we know, in the ALP. He just did not have the support. However, generally, people know what is right and what we need to do.
The member for Nelson is a disappointment in this space. I have to say it. I am not trying to pick on him, but here is someone who had the opportunity to do something but, again, we heard ‘No, it has to go out to a committee. Let us put it out to consultation. Let us have a review and a committee that travels all around the Northern Territory consulting with people.’ If you did that, you would get nowhere, and that is what has happened.
People were too afraid to make a decision. We sat back for 11 years watching you guys not make any decisions in this area. Look at the mess we have been left with to clean up. It is a tragedy. Those poor families and children were never given the opportunity because you guys did not make a decision and help them properly by mandating treatment - something this government is quite prepared to do.
The minister for alcohol policy deserves my praise, and she will get it. It is incredible work. This bill is a huge document and there is a lot of work to come tonight, I believe. It is 9.30 pm and there are a good few hours of debate to come in the committee stage.
Let us make no mistake, this will be heated, if not on the floor tonight, then in years, days, or weeks to come in the community and the media, through a media release, a radio interview, wherever it might be, because ideologically, we disagree; we are at odds. We believe this is the right way to go, you do not. That is why you never did it. Look at the evidence which suggests that, perhaps, the pendulum has swung towards us a bit, because this has never been tried and the previous policies failed. Now, it is time to try something new. That is pretty clear.
Thank you for the opportunity. I have spoken on alcohol issues a lot in the past. I was the Alcohol shadow for a while and the Health shadow for five-and-a-half years. I read the Menzies School of Health report. The member for Casuarina would remember all those debates we had about this issue in the past. I am so pleased to see we have finally arrived at a point after everything we have talked about over the years - all these years as a party, a wing, a shadow Cabinet and, now, as a Cabinet. That huge body of work and debate, the think tank, the conversation that has happened to get to this point, was incredible. It is not an easy space to get to.
We all sat down in the beginning and said, ‘Alcohol is a huge problem in the Northern Territory, what do we do about it?’ It has taken a long time to get to this point. The significance of my speech and all these speeches is not lost on me tonight. This is an historic bill. For better or for worse, down the track we will see who is right and who is wrong. People will look back on this parliament in years and decades to come - maybe even a century, who knows? - and will say this was significant legislation that was passed, much as they must look back on the euthanasia debate that took place in this House. This is, potentially, as significant. We are making history tonight, for better or for worse; we believe for better. I know you guys are very sceptical and are probably convinced it will not work. We believe it will.
Madam Speaker, I am very proud to be part of such an historic and significant debate, and something we firmly believe will make an incredible difference to the lives of the most vulnerable Territorians.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, if we try to find a solution to a complex program such as alcoholism on ideological grounds, both parties are bound to fail. The member for Greatorex says that is ‘our decision, our ideology, and it will pass tonight’. I have no doubt it will pass tonight on numbers. However, will the legislation be the solution to this complex problem?
The first failure is the legislation does not really recognise that alcoholism is a disease, an addiction. Alcohol is an insidious drug. Yes, the member for Greatorex is quite right; we all have a drink; we like one, two, or three glasses. It can be the beginning of a very good conversation. However, alcohol can also be the end of a family life or a friendship. Alcoholism does not just happen overnight; it can take months or years.
That happens because alcohol changes the structure of the chemicals of your brain, slowly and steadily. Some of these chemicals control how you feel, and it is not surprising that alcohol in small quantities makes you feel really well. At the same time, it will change the chemicals in your brain, like the GABA and dopamine, so you require more and more alcohol to feel better.
There are a number of reasons why people become alcoholics. Some have it in their genes. It is well researched that people who have alcoholic relatives in their families tend to be alcoholics more often than others who do not have alcoholic relatives. The age of the first alcoholic drink is another factor. Research in the United States has shown that if people start drinking before the age of 15, they have a higher risk of becoming alcoholics than others who do not. People who smoke have a higher chance of becoming alcoholics than people who do not.
The member for Greatorex talked about supply, but controlling supply does not do anything about alcoholism. A study in America, from 1983 to 2002, showed an increase in the taxes on alcohol, hence an increase in the price of alcohol, has resulted in a significant drop in the deaths related to alcohol. In some cases, it was nearly two to four times greater than other prevention strategies such as school or media campaigns.
When people are stressed they tend to consume more alcohol. Again, studies in America have shown that soldiers who come back from Iraq and Afghanistan suffering post-traumatic stress tend to become alcoholics more than other population groups.
Beer drinking gets people into drinking every night. ‘Let us go to Mitchell Street and have a few drinks’. That few drinks happens more often as time goes by and you can finish up being an alcoholic.
Another factor, surprisingly, is how our body metabolises alcohol. Some people can metabolise alcohol very well, but others will need more alcohol in order to feel good.
One fundamental difference is people will not be treated for alcoholism unless they first admit they are alcoholics and want to be treated. Locking a person away for three months, six months or a year will not treat them for alcoholism. The person has to want to be treated for alcoholism, but first he has to admit that he or she has a problem.
The member for Greatorex said it will give a break to their families but, member for Greatorex, look around you at the people who are dealing with alcoholics today in the Northern Territory. How many of them have a stable family as we know it? How many of them care for families or children? For most of them, if not all of them, the only thing they care about is where they will be for their next fix when they wake up in the morning, when lunch time comes.
I give you an example. I have a guy in my neighbourhood who, every morning, walks from his house to the shopping centre. I watch him walk back holding a bottle of wine in his hands, rushing home to drink it, because his focus is that bottle of wine in the morning, that bottle of wine in the afternoon - nothing else. He does not care about his personal hygiene, how clean his clothes are, or what he is doing, as long as he has that bottle of wine which he carries very carefully to his house so he can consume it. He is a nice fellow; he does not cause any problems. You can see in the morning how he rushes to the shopping centre to buy that bottle of wine and carries it very carefully to his house. The same thing happens in the afternoon. You can set your clock by the time he comes by because he is very regular.
The difference between us and the legislation the CLP put in place is that restraining people will not fix the problem alone. You need a very complex solution to such a complex problem, and alcohol is a complex problem. It has to address a number of issues, not only locking people away. We raised the issue before of the way this legislation was structured and drafted from the beginning. Of course, the government did not want to take notice of what we had to say but, thankfully, somebody on the fifth floor decided to it might be worth listening to what the people had to say, and they consulted with the community.
As a result of this consultation, we see today 46 amendments to be introduced to this House. That shows you that the original drafting of the legislation was far from good or perfect. If you need 46 amendments to correct this legislation, it means your original legislation was not up to scratch. Is this good legislation?
The member for Greatorex talked about Dr Boffa, and claimed he is not impartial. Dr Boffa has his political beliefs, but we should not discount his expertise on the subject because he chooses to vote Labor, Liberal, Greens, or whatever. On the other hand, we have other people like Peter Beaumont, who is publicly raising concerns about this legislation. Dr Beaumont is not pro-Labor, at least to my knowledge.
Then you have the expertise from the AMA. The AMA is not a Labor-affiliated organisation or a union; it is an association of experts - doctors. They raise concerns and are very vocal. They have been very vocal in the last few days and, just a few days ago, we saw a letter from the AMA in the NT News raising, once again, concerns about this legislation. If Dr Beaumont and people in the AMA raise concerns about this legislation, somebody or something must not be right, and that is the issue.
It is not that we think you do not want to do anything about drunks. Yes, you want to do something about drunks; we want to do something. We have a different approach; that is fair. But, at the same time, when you have such a reaction from experts in the legal field, the medical field, the social field, obviously, something must be wrong with that legislation.
Locking people away for a period of time, three months - these people have not committed any offence, they are just alcoholics. They are sick people. The fact that you picked them up drunk on the street three times within a period of time does not mean these people are criminals. They are sick. They are people who require treatment and medical attention, not imprisonment. When you lock them somewhere for a period of time, it is called imprisonment, not medical care.
The first 72 hours these people are detained are the most critical. This is where the withdrawal symptoms start, and are stronger than any other time. This is the time when the people will be desperate for a drink and cannot get it. This is when they experience the withdrawal symptoms. This is where they will make stupid decisions about their lives. The facilities to house these people are currently considered to be not suitable for this. People will be so desperate they will try to take their own lives because they cannot take a sip of alcohol to maintain their life as they do now. There is nothing in the legislation, or at least in the government’s proposals, to provide facilities that are suitable for these kinds of people.
They require medical support, putting more pressure on the hospitals. They require mental health support. I cannot see anything in this year’s budget the government has brought to this House to say there will be an increase in funding for mental health services. They will need specialist treatment. Most likely, the Department of Health will be able to provide that to them, but at what cost? Who will miss out? If we have 10, 20, 30, or 40 people with this requirement, that will be an enormous pressure on the department without any extra investment by the government in the Department of Health to provide the service required.
We even have the situation where these people are taken into protective custody - or whatever you call it - to be treated, but are required to pay for their own treatment. I asked the department before, if people are sick and are detained because, under our legislation, they have to be detained because of a contagious disease, do they have to pay for their treatment? The answer by the department was, no, they do not; the department and the government will cover their costs. However, we are asking people who are sick – alcoholics - to pay for their own treatment.
What happens when they come out? They have been three months without a drink. Guess what will happen when these guys get out? They will go to Centrelink, or their bank account, where there is a packet of money accumulated, and the liquor store 500 m away from the place where they have been detained for three months without alcohol. Do you know what will happen? They will be queuing up in the liquor store to get the first drink to celebrate their release from the alcoholic rehabilitation service, as we call it.
I said before, if we try to resolve a complex problem like alcoholism on ideological grounds, we are bound to fail. My concern is this legislation will not only do nothing to solve the alcohol problem in the Northern Territory, but will not provide treatment to people. People will not want to be treated because, first of all, they will not admit they are alcoholic. They are not going to surrender themselves to be treated; they are being detained against their will to be treated. This will not resolve the problem of alcohol.
It has to be more than one solution; it has to be a combination of solutions. Yes, provide a treatment but, at the same time, you have to control supply. You have to have other support for the family, if there is a family, and support for the people when they come out, not just the three months, finished, open the gate, out you go, and go to the bank and get your money. You need more than that. I heard arguments about supply, and how the BDR was inconveniencing buyers, and these people could find alcohol if they wanted it anyway.
Let us look at cigarettes and minors. You are not allowed to sell cigarettes to minors, to those under 18 year olds, but I bet little kids can easily obtain cigarettes. If we think supply does not work why do we prevent supply to minors? Why do we not allow minors to buy cigarettes? Why do we not leave cigarettes to be sold to anybody? Because we know they are harmful to health. We do not want young kids to smoke, so we try to stop young kids buying cigarettes at the point of sale. They are not allowed to buy it - simple story.
We have two standards here. One is for cigarettes: we control supply very strictly because it is harmful and we do not want young people to smoke. In the case of alcohol, we do not want to restrict the supply of alcohol because it might inconvenience some people.
The reality is, at the very beginning people opposed the BDR because they thought it would inconvenience them when they went to buy alcohol. At the end, nobody complained to me. Darwin being a small city, as the member for Sanderson knows very well, if he goes to the local supermarket, everybody knows him. If he goes to Coles New World, everybody knows who he is. I tell you, many times they have complained, and will not hesitate to tell him between aisle 4 and aisle 5 what the complaint is and ask what he is doing about it. If you go into the liquor store to buy a bottle of wine, if you have three people behind who have something against the government, they will let you know very well.
However, when BDR was the law of the Territory, people never said to me, ‘Your bloody government makes us show our ID cards’. People were quite happy. Some tourists thought it was a very good idea and that it should be introduced in Melbourne or Sydney, because they have problems in Kings Cross and the CBD in Melbourne. There was no inconveniencing, but it was a method of controlling alcohol. We know that, because even people who worked in liquor stores told us that when the BDR was introduced, after a period of a few months, everything settled down. The people who could not get alcohol just disappeared but, now, all of a sudden, they say people are queuing up to buy alcohol - not one bottle or one cask, but a fair quantity of alcohol.
Minister, I know you have the best intentions. I know you want to do something about alcoholism. Every day we see it. It is not as if it is somewhere else and nobody cares about it. We see it every day. I have seen it, as I said before, in my own neighbourhood. You probably see it in your neighbourhood. I do not have a problem trying to find a solution and a way to deal with this system. The problem is, let us find the best solution based on expertise, on the best advice we can get from people who understand, such as medical experts, not on ideological grounds. If we base it on ideological grounds, next year we will be here with you introducing more amendments trying to fix it, and us arguing, ‘We told you so, it did not work, look what you have to do now’.
Madam Speaker, alcoholism is not a crime. Alcoholism is a disease and it has to be treated as a disease, not as a police matter.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I will not stay on my feet for too long. I know it will go late tonight, and there is still other legislation to cover. However, there are a couple of things I want to address in this debate.
This idea that the CLP has been promoting is not new; however, it has, through legal advice, undergone somewhat of a change. The original manifestation of this was to use the criminal justice system. However, the intent was always to bring about a health outcome using the vehicle of the criminal justice system. It turns out we do not need to use the criminal justice system because the advice we have received is that this non-judicial custody is entirely lawful and able to be rolled out without requiring people to go through a court. For that I am grateful, because it means we can achieve the health outcome we have always sought without having to sentence people, or send them into the court process.
I heard from members opposite that there is a concern we are criminalising public drunkenness. If, by criminalising, the members opposite mean we are making drunks personally responsible for their actions, then you could count it as criminalising. However, in actual fact, what we are doing is an intervention on consumption of liquor to such a point that a person is a danger to themselves and/or the community in which they live. People who are so often and so regularly drunk that they may be picked up by the police for being so intoxicated they cannot even stand upright three times in a two-month period require an intervention. They require some sort of intrusion into their lives with a view to changing their conduct for their own good, and the good of the community at large. That is what this bill intends to do.
I heard the complaints from members opposite about it not having the relevant amount of science attached to it, etcetera and, ‘You will not succeed in what you are attempting to do’. I refute that with, basically, some common sense. If a person is in custody seeking medical treatment for their addiction in the same form that a person might be held in non-judicial custody for mental problems so they can deal with their mental problems, then, as far as I am concerned, it is something worth pursuing.
I am extremely mindful of a comment that has been made by several members opposite today in relation to the potential for deaths through this process. I acknowledge that potential exists. There is that potential currently in our mental health service. There is that potential for people who go into hospital and, goodness knows, there is a potential for deaths even for people in police custody or in the custody of gaolers. I can tell you now that the likelihood of a person dying in custody where they are receiving healthcare is substantially less than the number of people who are dying right now in our communities, day in, day out, as a result of their addiction.
The addiction we are dealing with is every bit as deadly as heroin addiction, cannabinoids addiction and methamphetamines addiction, because it is an addiction to a chemical that changes the mood of the person who is addicted to it. People seek it out to change their conscious state for whatever reason they are unhappy with the conscious state they employ when they are sober. There are psychological reasons and there could well be physiological reasons that might be the case.
Currently, they are dying because they are staggering out in front of cars and getting run over, dying of diseases such as pneumonia because they are sleeping out unprotected in winter in Alice Springs, and dying because they have renal collapse. One example I can cite is of a fellow who was drunk and asleep on railway tracks and was run over by a train. They are dying now, and in large numbers. We do not get to see about them in the newspapers because they often go unmarked and unnoticed in their deaths. Their deaths represent the end of an unremarkable life awash with their drug of choice. So, why would we not intervene? Why would we not take steps to intervene when people are dying in such substantial numbers?
I will go so far as to say that this is only a partial response. A true response to this problem in the Northern Territory would include a response which deals with the way welfare is dished out in this community, because it is the welfare dollar that almost exclusively funds this calamitous conduct in our community on a near daily basis. Yet, the fact that the federal government spends millions of dollars in this jurisdiction every single fortnight, so we can spend millions of dollars in this jurisdiction every fortnight cleaning up the mess, seems to go largely unnoticed by the vast majority of commentators in this space. I would be well pleased if the John Boffas, et al, of the world - the NAAJAs, the CLC, the NLC and all of those organisations - decried the damage that passive welfare is doing to the people they claim to protect. However, they are utterly silent in that space, and to do so in the atmosphere where you are only attacking the Northern Territory government for its attempted intervention is to only be complaining about part of the problem.
I hope they would join the growing chorus of people who gnash their teeth in angst, as I do, at the destruction that passive welfare means in our communities. I do not mean just the Indigenous community, I mean our community as a whole. I understand what the former government tried to do with the BDR, and that they took the approach that you require a social approach to deal with individuals’ problems, because that is, essentially, what the BDR sought to do. A social approach to deal with individual problems is often inspired by the fact that if you decide to go down the path of asking an individual to be responsible for their own conduct, it means you have to be critical of them personally, as well as decry or denounce their chosen lifestyle.
We, on this side of the House, are not afraid to decry a person’s personal conduct and we do not see individuals’ drunkenness as a manifestation of society’s responsibilities towards that person. We place more faith in the individual to make the right choices - and the vast majority of individuals who live in our community make the correct choices - even if so many of those people who do have alcohol and other drug problems contain those problems to a degree where they do not inflict themselves in a substantial way on third parties. Where they do and they commit driving offences or alcohol-related assaults, they should be and are accountable for their conduct.
However, this is not an absolute position, because if it were the Country Liberals would repeal the Liquor Act and allow vending machines which sold beer in Aboriginal communities, in the Smith Street Mall, and in the Todd Mall. Of course, we do not; we understand there needs to be an element of control. The question is never whether you switch that on or off absolutely, because the on-absolutely position means you have prohibition, and the off-absolutely position means you have no controls whatsoever.
There is a social expectation that this dangerous drug, which it is for some people, should have some controls placed on it. The problem is, if you follow that philosophy too far, before you know it you are saying society is exclusively responsible, and what we will do is make society do certain things such as produce their drivers licence every time they want to have a drink. When you try to introduce a system like that, the problem is those individuals who are conducting themselves in a fashion which is contrary to the expectations of normal society, because of their addiction, will find a way around that set of rules. This is why we had a frequent flyer through the system of 117 apprehensions in the year the BDR operated, which means he must have received 114 banning notices.
The tribunal set up by the former government had 19 members and issued 16 orders across the Northern Territory. Of the 2500 people the former government claimed were off tap, many hundreds of them were frequent flyers through the police custody system, as well as being picked up by night patrols and goodness knows what. Much of that liquor, when they could not source it immediately or directly from a bottle shop, was provided to them through a third party, thus creating a black market. Alternatively, they stole it.
I heard the objection from the Leader of the Opposition when I pointed out there was a substantial fall in property crime in the Northern Territory attributable to the lifting of the BDR. Her answer was – and I understand it – ‘For goodness sake, would you rather deal with a person who is being punched or a person who is having their beer fridge raided?’ From the Opposition Leader’s point of view, people’s property - innocent third-party properties - means nothing in pursuit of the social goal. We do not necessarily subscribe to that extreme view. We believe people have a right to have their property protected by government, but we also believe people should be responsible for their actions.
Consequently, from our perspective, we believe people should be held individually accountable not by way of punishment - that will come later with alcohol protection orders - but by way of protecting them from themselves. How many people in this parliament have been arrested three times in two months for being so drunk they had to be taken into protective custody? Nobody. How many people in this building? Nobody. How many people across the Northern Territory? If you believe the statistics from a few years ago, 35 000, or about 12% of our population. That is nonsense. It was never that many. It was a small percentage of the population going through the spin cycle again and again because nobody was holding them responsible for their drinking.
A mandatory rehabilitation program will take them off the streets, sober them up, and then get them to ask some questions about their conduct. Will it change the world? For some it might. It will certainly give the community and their families some respite, and it will send a clear signal to those people who are drinking that they will be held responsible, not in a criminal sense, but for their drinking habit. We will be holding up a mirror to them in that process.
Is it cheap? No. Do we want to spend the money? Not really. Do we have to send the money? Yes, we do, in the same way the former government was prepared to lay $75m on the line over a five-year period. It is a lot of dough. However, the amount of money we are spending on renal dialysis or people dying from being run over by cars - the average fatal costs us $2.7m. Many of those people are drunk when they are driving. Often, the people being run over are the frequent flyers who are coming through our regular apprehensions. This is about trying to save lives and protect the community. What will happen, and we do not say it cannot, if a person dies in custody is, doubtless, there will be a coronial investigation, and, doubtless, they will be screaming from left, right, and centre about how horrendous this legislation is and how predictable that death was.
Here is the truth: the problem with a preventative program is you can never point to the death you prevented. You cannot say Bob Jones did not die at 5.55 pm on Saturday 12 September 2013. That is what a preventative program does. Unfortunately, when you are in a position where you take people into custody that is a risk you take. However, if you are so adverse to that risk, police would take nobody into custody and Corrections would hold nobody in prison. The mental health authorities, who also have non-judicial incarceration, would not take people into custody. Why do we do it and accept it so readily in those environments? The reason is we need to protect the community and/or the people themselves. We take the risk. It is a political risk we engage in.
Children and Family Services takes people into custody all the time. Any number of kids are taken away from their parents and handed over to the custody of other people. God knows, the current opposition will remember the name Deborah Melville very well and what happened in that instance; it caused the government enormous pain. One aspect that should be acknowledged in circumstances like that - I acknowledged it at the time - was if government does not intervene how high will the body count be? How high would the body count be in Children and Families if we did nothing about child abuse in our community? How high would the body count be if we did nothing about arresting and placing into custody people who are sentenced to violent crimes? How high would the body count be if we did not intervene in any number of areas?
We do and will carry a responsibility, as government, to provide a level of care. However, what we are trying to do is provide a level of care to these people so they might not to be one of the people poured into a body bag by a police officer at 3 am because they have been run over by a car, killed by one of their mates, died of exposure or, as in a case I just described, run over by a train.
Global social responses have a limited chance of success. They may have some effect, but they also often have results which are unintended. I remember the Tyeweretye club in Alice Springs – called the responsible drinkers’ club - had a body count associated with it because it was a social program where all we needed to do was tweak the social approach and everything would be sweetness and light. On Friday night, if you did not pick up 100 drunks outside the Tyeweretye club, something was wrong.
Social programs are a sociological attempt to get everybody to march in step to the beat of a single drum. Humanity is not that simple. You cannot, by some political philosophy, make the whole of humanity walk in goose step with each other whilst we sing the Das Internationale. It does not work. What you can hope for is a psychological response because that is aimed at the individual.
The former government accepts much of that. I note the former Corrections minister was going down the path of doing certain things, all of which were targeted at getting people to change their conduct by making them responsible for themselves. He acknowledged that approach is necessary because the sociological approaches have failed. Goodness knows, they are failing now in the area of illicit drugs.
How hard and how expensive is that to police? The public expects heroin to be kept illegal, expects cannabis to be illegal, expects methamphetamine to be illegal, so we work to keep them illegal. How hard is that to police? We have many deaths associated with all those drugs in our communities. We spend money on drug squads, prison cells, and all types of things policing that. However, the public expects us to spend the money for the good of the community. It is also so with this problem.
However, there is not a public expectation that we should ban liquor. There is a public expectation that we should, in some ways, regulate it, which is why we have a Liquor Act. There is also a public expectation that people who drink contain their behaviour to a point where they are not a danger to the community and not, necessarily, a danger to themselves. That is what this legislation is about.
This legislation is about containing people and making them responsible and answerable to themselves, as well as giving respite to their families and the community and, ultimately, to themselves. If a person is so sick they are unable to control themselves - let us say with schizophrenia - we have no problem with placing them in non-judicial custody. Why do we make an exception for a person who has a drug addiction in the form of alcoholism? Why should we? That is the question this legislation drives.
For all of those reasons, I support this legislation. I know it is a risk. I know there are challenges we and members on that side of the House have not even thought of yet which we may run into with this legislation. When I and everybody else in this room got into politics, I suspect we got into politics to make a difference. As the person who has put the bodies into the body bags, done the coronial investigations, and seen the calamity that liquor represents in our community to those individuals, making those people responsible and protecting them from themselves is a worthwhile change to make. If we achieve that by taking this risk, we will have done something good. We will have done something to change the Territory for the better.
Madam Speaker, I am not, as a politician, risk adverse. I believe that once we are given this opportunity, as members of this parliament and government, we should use those risks for - as the prayer we say every day in this House says - the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I am proud to participate in this debate. As we are hearing, it is a very important debate. As members of the Legislative Assembly, we are all about trying to solve this problem; there is no doubt about that. As a Territory opposition, we are holding the government to account because there are some serious issues with this legislation which we are attempting to highlight.
It is a monumental time, as the member for Greatorex said. He referred to his speech as being a monumental speech, as it was. In reference to the member for Greatorex - who I take some responsibility for intrinsically, when I challenge him to rise to the occasion as a minister of the Crown - I was very impressed tonight to hear some good elements of debate. However, if I took his speech and laid it out on butcher’s paper on that table, then I would be able to highlight the areas of personal and vindictive attack, and the really negative aspects of his contribution which, if deleted, would only leave the good. He has a bit to work on.
His personal attacks on the member for Nelson were unwarranted. People who know the member for Nelson know he has devoted his life to people in the community. Listen to his story, understand where he comes from, and reflect on the incredible workload he produces as an Independent member, as a member of a minority Coalition government, now back to being an Independent member. Reflect on the research and community contacts and the consultation he completes to participate in the political process.
I knew Dr John Boffa as a doctor in Tennant Creek with the Anyinginyi Health Aboriginal Congress. He is an excellent doctor. He is an active member of the community, awarded a Territory award. Now in Alice Springs, he is extremely active in saving lives. There are no reasons to add those elements of personal attack. They should be removed, member for Greatorex, and we will concentrate on the positives.
To make a reflection on those positives, you drew some very nasty analogies of both of those gentlemen. What I looked at when you were participating in those personal attacks was a lonely individual, speaking into a microphone and basically responding to your last caller on the radio ...
Mrs LAMBLEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask that the member for the Barkly direct his comments through the Chair. He is directing them to the member for Greatorex.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Araluen. Could you direct your comments to the Chair, member for Barkly.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Is there a standing order that does not allow you to refer to a member in or out of the Chamber?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes there is, member for Barkly.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I was saying, I am trying to cut that negative out and concentrate on the positives. That person was speaking into the microphone responding to the last caller. We can take that out of the debate, but we get to a point I have casually called a ‘Jodeen Carney moment’. I refer to Jodeen Carney, and I hope she is listening. As a conservative, in my brief time in this parliament; she was by far the best performer, the best conservative - very intelligent, smart, articulate, and a ruthless political opponent. I learnt so much from her and I acknowledged that upon her retirement.
I now refer to ‘Jodeen Carney moments’. I could use the opportunity in this House to psychologically unpack the member for Greatorex and tear strips off him, but I chose not to because it would be negative. But, for Jodeen, those elements of the debate where he said, ‘I do not know all the details of this legislation but I am supporting it’, could have been a major assault opportunity from an opposition member.
The revolving door of mandatory rehabilitation could have been a major assault opportunity for a member of the opposition. Those comments about the recovering alcoholic needing more than five years of intensive medical intervention could have been another area for a major assault by an opposition member. Member for Greatorex, I will stand off that negative, practice what I preach, and say that in those moments of really positive debate and contribution to the Territory parliament I saw you suffering the pressure of being a minister. I saw you suffering under pressure, because the pressure now is not just to talk, it is the delivery. You are responsible to deliver this legislation. You are responsible to make this legislation work, and you are responsible to the Territory public.
I relish the opportunity to speak to young Territorians, and in those environments I really enjoy the opportunity to talk about what a member of the Legislative Assembly does. When I get to the part of ‘as a government member, I am a law maker’, you always get that extended breath, not from me but from the young people. You then get a great engagement about what it means to be a law maker, ‘You actually make laws?’ Yes, that is a very important part of the job. You participate in making the laws of the Northern Territory. We have heard many times in this debate about how important this legislation is.
When those moments come about in educating youngsters, I make sure I add that I do not do it alone; I do not just make it up as I go along. I reference the experts - the community members who have expertise in the area where you are legislating. I research, I am inclusive, I have an open mind, then I go through a process of debate with the government, and we come to a resolution that will be the basis of legislation that then goes through passage and is assented to as law. It is a very long and involved process.
What has come out of this debate is that the opposition is saying it does not believe the government has fully referenced this legislation. It seems to reflect a chain of events that delivered it tonight on urgency, after 10 months, because the opposition, after a political process of promising something and then having to deliver - scrapping the Enough is Enough alcohol reforms with nothing in their place - has now had a sense of urgency to deliver something. On that journey, the Territory opposition believes the government has ignored the experts in the field and, therefore, are on the journey we all want to be on; they have a product to present to the Territory but, unfortunately, it is still full of failings.
The member for Port Darwin said, ‘Do not worry about that, we will see the results of this legislation as it rolls through’. This is far too important to leave it to Beaver, ‘We will sort it out as we go along’. Already, we have a strong element of ‘make it up as we go along’ when you see there are 44 amendments to this legislation in the House, on urgency, as we speak.
The commitment to make this legislation work in forward estimates is $100m of taxpayers’ money. The experts are telling the Territory opposition there are elements of this conservative reform missing. When you think about that commitment and having a flawed process which will deliver half the result, you have to come back to the drawing board. That is what we, the member for Nelson, the peak Aboriginal organisations, and many Territorians are saying. They do not believe the pure punitive measure of locking somebody up to deliver wellbeing and a sense of clarity and understanding will make the difference. You will roll them in, but we have some serious questions around this legislation when they walk out.
We have seen a very active first law officer of the new government work in extremely difficult situations in regard to 26 August, through to the latest line-up of Cabinet. You have a distinct theme of a punitive approach to solving Territory problems. As the first law officer of the Northern Territory says, we will see what this delivers and how it goes.
The management of alcohol misuse in the Territory has joined and lined up with that punitive approach to take people out of the scene, out of the equation, and in that magic space everything will be good and they will walk back into the community. Unfortunately for many of them, it will be into a community of choice which supports their offending behaviour.
The Territory opposition believes this is flawed and we want to get it right with a bipartisan approach. However, I do not believe the government is prepared to go all the way with our recommendations to call for the member for Nelson’s concept and what the peak Aboriginal organisations are calling for - that inquiry, the ‘Stop the bus, let us sit down before the resources are totally allocated and work through this together to come up with a sense of ownership by all Territorians’. We do not want you to go it alone, government, we want to be with you.
I will talk through some of the community debate which has been occurring because I have been very active with this. It has been all over the airwaves, right through the Territory - a very powerful debate - and I will quote from Media Network releases. These transcripts are an example of some community debate on Wednesday, 29 May 2013:
- Could have been jailed
NTG statistics show that about 1400 people would have been jailed or jailed for longer had the new mandatory minimum sentencing laws applied in the past 2 years.
The second release is titled ‘John Elferink on impact of mandatory sentencing’ and the summary says:
- The NT Government says it’s difficult to get a clear picture of the full economic impact of mandatory sentencing changes but John Elferink, Justice Minister, says the impact of extra prisoners will involve extra costs in Corrections, but could spark savings in other areas.
The next summary:
- John Elferink certain that prisons will cope with higher numbers.
- The NT Correctional Services minister says he’s confident the Government has resources to deal with any increase in prisoners due to the mandatory sentencing laws. John Elferink says other measures will lessen the impacts on increased numbers.
The next one says:
- Alcohol rehab may be illegal
- The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner has warned the NTG proposed mandatory alcohol rehabilitation scheme will be illegal. The Human Rights Commission’s legal team has been examining the draft legislation that’s before the NT Parliament. Commissioner Mick Gooda says the NTG will struggle to legally justify retaining people who have not committed a crime. He says proposed laws do not allow for judicial oversight.
- Legal representation fears
- The North Australian Justice Assoc. has expressed concerns that people sentenced under the CLP’s proposed mandatory rehab scheme will not be given legal representation.
The next one is:
- Adam Giles on legal advice for policy
- Margaret, Caller Alice Springs asks the Chief Minister who the legal experts the Government has used to check the mandatory Alcohol Rehabilitation Scheme. Adam Giles says John Boffa and Mick Gooda are no experts on alcohol rehabilitation and Robyn Lambley has been consulting with experts in the field.
That is just an example, reported on Wednesday 29 May, of a conversation that has been happening in the community. That is what the community has been hearing and assessing. It all comes down to the plan, which was succinctly summarised by the member for Port Darwin, to find those addicts, chronic alcoholics, and lock them up, and it will be the turning point in their lives. Under this regime, attached to this government mentality for minimum mandatory sentence, it seems they will go to their first fence, climb over that fence, meet a bigger fence, get through that fence, then they will end up in the big house - a prison. Throughout this process they will carry an addiction which will be the driver that continues to totally influence their behaviour on their way forward.
We will see different elements of the community affected like this. I looked at the place where I live. I have been walking the streets, visiting pubs and clubs, and making my own assessment of who will be captured under this legislation. It will not only be the chronic alcoholic alone in the street that is completely incomprehensible - their behaviour is totally antisocial. It will not only be that type of alcoholic or addict, there will be the next layer of addicts who represent some semblance of normal community life. Our children could possibly be captured by this legislation as well. With three presentations for alcohol-related behaviour, they may be targeted by local police. It would be a very unfortunate circumstance, but it could happen. When you pass laws you have to realise the ramifications of the legislation in its whole approach and footprint on our community. We had better be prepared to start to understand that it will not be just the chronic alcoholic; there could be others captured in any mandatory type of legislative instrument.
I now present the alternative. As the Territory opposition, we have been challenged a number of times in this debate, ‘You do not have an alternative, you are just criticising everything’. It is not like that. I am very proud of the work the opposition does; it is a great team and we pride ourselves on holding the government to account, but always making sure we present a clear alternative, a different policy setting. It is just like the budget. We are challenging the 2013-14 budget on CLP policy settings, their fiscal timing, and their lack of clarity around why the decisions are being made.
In this legislation tonight, we are putting up clear alternatives. Our alternatives have been researched through recognised sectors. I go to some more media, ‘Territory grog laws “could cause deaths”’ by Amos Aikman, Northern correspondent from The Australian, 29 May 2013. Amos wrote:
- The head of the peak alcohol and drugs body has warned the Northern Territory’s, alcohol reforms could cause deaths.
Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia chief executive David Templeman yesterday called on the Territory government to lead the nation from a crisis of alcohol abuse rather then set policy back 30 years.
But Chief Minister Adam Giles rebuffed pleas to change direction, attacking critics for allowing those affected by alcohol abuse to avoid treatment for too long. He said his government was ‘here to help’.
That story goes on. The critical comment I found in that introduction was ‘setting policy back 30 years’. It is funny that I have been participating in this debate in the Northern Territory for nearly 35 years. I have been through various policy changes and directions from what was 35 years ago - pretty well not a lot of alcohol policy to real prohibitionist policy under the Thirsty Thursday attempt to regulate, to what I was very proud to be part of, the legislation team into the Enough is Enough alcohol reform and, now, here I am debating this new legislation from the Country Liberal Party government.
The alternatives the Territory opposition is putting out for people to consider in this House tonight, before the vote, relate to, basically, what the Aboriginal Peak Organisations of the Northern Territory call for; that is:
- … a joint Territory/Commonwealth government Board of Inquiry into Alcohol in the Northern Territory to provide a roadmap for action by communities, professionals, and Government to work together to solve the problems of alcohol related harm in our communities.
That is a quote from the Aboriginal Peak Organisations of the Northern Territory’s media release on 26 June 2013. This is the latest off the press in contribution to this debate, with a premise of ‘stop the bus, let us just hold it for a minute, we are still about solving the problem of alcohol abuse but it is how we do it’.
The opposition is saying to members tonight to start to deconstruct the proposed terms of reference for the board of inquiry into alcohol consumption and harm in the Northern Territory. It was an element of Labor’s reform. Unfortunately, the Enough is Enough policy was scrapped, but people tend to focus on the Banned Drinker Register. The Banned Drinker Register was just one tool, with its relationship with the Alcohol Courts and the capacity to take the problem drinker through income quarantining. Those three links were not allowed to be tested. They had the legs cut out from under them.
As a person who lives in Tennant Creek, as I have said before in this House, I was really looking forward to that next element where the Alcohol Courts, the tribunal process, would lay out a rehabilitation program for the client. If the client refused to accept that, we were not going to mandatorily bang that person up, but that person would face a series of income quarantines.
As the numbers on the Banned Drinker Register rose, and as those people who refused to conform were compromised through the reduction in cash, the rest of the community - the other element I talked about that will be captured up in this legislation - would start to be able to make a distinction regarding the person in their community, ‘Hey, hang on a minute, you are not allowed to purchase alcohol and if I supply it to you I will lose my right to purchase it. You have no cash; they took it off you because you are trouble.’ I am going to use some cognitive processing to work out I do not want to be in that space.
As the member for Port Darwin says, we would all start marching to the beat of that drum where there were some real serious consequences. Unfortunately, that legislation was scrapped. The maintenance of trading hours restriction, the ability of communities to maintain their capacity to enforce alcohol management plans, funding rehabilitation that works, not clogging up emergency departments but properly funding sobering-up shelters, cracking down on licensed premises that break the laws, and funding night patrols, represents that alternative. We have an alternative and we have been presenting it.
The Aboriginal Peak Organisations of the Northern Territory, in their terms of reference, give us that very specific road map to look at what the government has, what the Enough is Enough Alcohol reform has, and to fuse them to deliver what will work with an appropriation in forward estimates of $100m - the sort of cash we are asking the government to invest in education under the Gonski model. As the members for Port Darwin and Greatorex have said, if we go down this road and find out we did not solve the problem, then it will be very much a wasted opportunity.
Let us go through the proposed terms of reference from the Aboriginal Peak Organisations of the Northern Territory:
- 1. To examine levels, patterns and trends in the supply and consumption of alcohol in the Northern Territory …
2. To assess the harm caused directly and indirectly …
That is very important to really look at that issue of harm and what it really means:
- 3. To identify, examine and evaluate all alcohol supply …
4. To examine the role of alcohol manufacturing, distribution, wholesale and retail ...
5. To recommend evidence-based supply, demand and harm reduction measures ...
6. To assess the underlying determinants of alcohol misuse, including psychosocial factors ...
7. To recommend appropriate evidence-based early childhood … programs that will lay the foundation of a generational approach to minimising alcohol and other drug abuse in the future.
The experts summarise it by saying any good policy of alcohol rehabilitation has to have measures to address supply and demand, and must have education and awareness measures. They talk about that focus in the early childhood area, so a drunk cannot produce a drunk. A father will give the child a role model of being a positive person with a future, or the mother will give that child the same mentoring. It is all there.
People said, ‘We will pass it, we have the numbers, it is going through’. We heard members talk about an appropriation of $100m in forward estimates. We talked about members on the other side who are slowly starting to have a few nervous moments talking about revolving doors, and, ‘Maybe they will not stay here’, ‘Maybe they will run away’, and ‘What will we do if the prisons overflow?’ but ‘We will have a go’.
Madam Speaker, we will have a go. This is the exhaustion principle introduced by the government. The clock is ticking, we do not have to go anywhere, and we can stop the bus, right here and now. We can stop the bus tonight and say we will go down the road the experts in the Northern Territory, across Australia, and across the world, will provide. For what? For politicians. Who? For politicians. What are you? A politician.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, my electorate of Nightcliff has a large amount of open space, beautiful parks and reserves stretching along the foreshore from Rapid Creek to Nightcliff and on to Coconut Grove. These areas are not only enjoyed by local residents but a large number of visitors. These areas attract not only well-meaning visitors, but also have been, for many years, a place for people to gather and drink. They drink to the point of causing harm to themselves and others. There are, in many ways, a nuisance.
In the election campaign last year, your government promised you would immediately remove problem drunks from the streets. It has never been worse. My office has had to call the police regularly after witnessing antisocial behaviour. There has been so much antisocial behaviour lately; it has become a daily occurrence. Only last week, at an electorate barbecue I held in the park near the foreshore, residents raised with me how bad the problem is. They are being kept awake at night by people participating in antisocial behaviour in the parks, breaking-in, and using residents’ front yards and parks as toilet facilities. It is not acceptable, and they clearly point the blame at your government.
After 10 months of waiting to see your government’s policy we finally get a half-baked policy we are rushing through at the last minute, literally in the middle of the night. The experts have asked you to halt, to take time to understand it better, to do more research. Legislation with 43 committee stage amendments - would that not be a wake-up call that this is rushed and destined to fail? But no, on we push.
Residents in my local area are feeling so frustrated witnessing this antisocial behaviour daily, contacting me to express their unease, their distress in this dramatic increase in behaviour, mainly from alcohol and drinking since the government removed the Police Beat and the Banned Drinker Register. If it is not witnessing this behaviour, it is cleaning up broken glass and bottles.
Chief Minister, in the election campaign last year your party campaigned on the platform that Nightcliff would have a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week police station, but all evidence suggests the exact opposite has taken place with the Police Beat being removed. Police are frustrated, as they have to travel from Casuarina to do their patrols. They are doing their best, but the tools they need to support them have been removed. You say Nightcliff is better served as a column on the Casuarina Police Station roster. I am sorry, from what am being told on the ground by police, that is not working. The antisocial behaviour is worsening. The support has been removed.
Your government talks of the Banned Drinker Register, the BDR, as an inconvenience. I did not find it inconvenient showing ID to purchase alcohol. It was just another card to get out with the credit card and the flybuys card. I find an increase in antisocial behaviour inconvenient and threatening, as do other local residents. One resident told me of having to carry their dog for sections of footpath as the broken glass is so bad; that is inconvenient, not removing your licence from your wallet.
It is clear to residents that antisocial behaviour has worsened under your government. Local traders say the Banned Drinker Register worked. But, do not listen to them; they are saying it made a difference. It was a part of a suite of reforms under the Enough Is Enough program which was a well-thought-out and developed program.
A shopkeeper in the same village as my office was assaulted recently by a person not meaning to cause harm who did not like what somebody said to them about moving on and not taking a sign with them after a few too many drinks. People do not feel safe. Assaults and incidents are happening in our parks, streets and neighbourhoods.
Domestic violence is up 24%. These statistics tell us what health professionals have been telling us for months. You only have to visit RDH ED ward. As a mum, I am there quite often with two boys. The doctors tell you what the overnight statistics are overnight.
You scrapped the income management process that would help families, particularly children, by protecting income to be spent on children, not drinking. As a government, you are not interested in evidence; if you were, you would stop and listen. You scrapped the night patrol; the federal government had to step in there. You ignore the experts, you ignore reports.
So many child protection experts and reports say that alcohol is a huge factor in child neglect and child abuse in the Northern Territory. Your government has removed a measure to protect children by abolishing the Alcohol Courts and, in turn, the ability to income manage parents. Your government is removing tools and causing direct harm to children.
With 171 vacancies in the Office of Children and Families, not only are you letting Territory kids down through a lack of support, you are putting them more at risk by turning the grog back on, by allowing their parents to spend money on grog and not them. Our child protection system is in chaos, yet you are putting more pressure on services by allowing the grog to flow.
The other great concern I have around this legislation is the sudden use of the purpose-built medical hotel facilities for alcohol rehabilitation. Where did this idea come from? Were you just sitting around and thinking of places where you could host it? ‘The uni does not work; we could not do it at a boarding school. Oh, hang on, there is a building at the hospital’ - a purpose-built facility designed to support regional and remote patients who are not well enough to go home but do not need to be in an acute hospital bed. It bewilders me why your remote members of parliament can let a policy take away 50 beds that were designed to support their constituents when they have to come to Darwin to go to hospital. No paying attention there! ‘Let us suddenly make it an alcohol rehabilitation centre.’
My colleague, the member for Arnhem, spoke on how important the medi-hotel facility is for mothers from her electorate awaiting the birth of their children. I could not agree more; this is what these facilities are for. I have watched patients’ families in the children’s ward of RDH head off each day and return each night. They are using RDH acute hospital beds as a hotel. They have every right to have a bed and be supported, but not in the paediatric ward of the hospital because your government has not opened the doors to the medi-hotel. If you would use this purpose-built facility purely for what it was built for there would be more beds in RDH; we would not have bed block.
To use this facility as a rehabilitation centre is not fair. It was not built as a rehabilitation facility. I have heard comments that some air conditioners have been removed and you might remove some TVs. However, there must be huge issues of safety in preventing people from harming themselves there. I am sure you have had people look at it, but would you really feel comfortable sending a recovering alcoholic into a facility that was not purpose-built? Then, you suddenly decided the purpose-built secure care facility was perfect for a rehabilitation facility. That is also not okay; that was built for a purpose, it is needed for something.
All this for a program that will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per individual, totalling many millions on a mandatory rehabilitation program for a 12-week period that experts say will fail. There is $100m in your forward estimates and they say it will fail. There is no effort to stop supply. If you are one of the small number forced into the program which will leave hundreds of drunks on our streets - 2500 and we have 100 beds so far - upon finishing the program that has cost hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars, you will return to the same situations and the same supply of grog.
The problem with this legislation is it is not researched; it is not evidence-based. It does not have the surrounding measures to support people: night patrol, banning supply. What are you going to do when people finish these programs? They come to Darwin, Alice Springs, and Katherine. I have visited Vendale. It is a fantastic facility but if somebody does not want to be there, they will waste time, abscond, cost money and, at the end of it, what are you going to do? Put them back on the streets in Darwin, or send them back to a community? Anyone who has dealt with a recovering alcoholic knows they need support. They fall off the wagon many times. Not that I have ever been a smoker, but how many friends do you have who say it is so hard to give up smoking? I imagine drinking is similar to that; it takes them many attempts. Yet your government thinks that by spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a 12-week program for 150 Territorians it is suddenly going to clean up the hundreds of drunks from our streets and parks. There is no effort to stop or regulate supply.
I also note in tonight’s debate the arrogance of those opposite pulling faces, interjecting with comments which only matched the comments of the Chief Minster last weekend. I urge you, in this emotional debate, to stop, think and listen, especially to the bush MLAs. These are your families who are coming into town.
There is no research in this. Stop, do some research, talk to the experts, listen to them, and put in place well-thought-out plans. Do not rush a bill before the House with 43 amendments. I do not know if I have ever heard of 43 amendments to a bill. That is huge. You only introduced this legislation to the parliament in early May; it is now late June. It is a huge piece of legislation that will cost so much to introduce. It seems so patched in so many ways. ‘Oh, we need a facility, let us quickly find one. Oh, we need some legislation for that, throw a bit together, then 43 amendments.’
I am not knocking the hard-working staff who have pulled this together, because it is your government at the helm directing them to do so. But, 43 committee stage amendments is huge, and they are the ones we know about.
I sometimes wonder, from the trivial behaviour I see from the members opposite, if they realise what they are doing. This is a law you are creating which will affect Territory families. If laws are not well thought out, backed by experts and researched, they will fail. Have you asked questions? Have you looked at other states? We know a huge part of our drinking problem is with Indigenous people. Have those questions been asked?
Madam Speaker, there are so many questions, so many grey areas. These failures, if we do not stop and wake up to ourselves, could be so costly on so many levels, not just in dollar terms. We are making laws in this House this evening, and this is something we must not take lightly. That is why tonight I urge you to stop, listen and think about what you are doing.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, we are in this House again debating ways to tackle the horrors of alcohol and the impact it has on far too many men, women, and children across the Territory. It is the cause of so much misery that destroys too many lives and subjects too many people, especially in the Territory, to poverty, abuse, neglect and sadness.
People understand this is a complex issue, and a comprehensive holistic approach to tackling alcohol abuse is needed. The Enough is Enough reforms delivered under Labor were heading in the right direction.
Today, we see a bill that does not get us there. In fact, it is a mile off and fails to tackle the critical issue of supply. The experts in the field of treating abuse agreed this is not the answer. There has been a great deal of discussion within the community about the government’s decision to scrap the Banned Drinker Register upon winning government. They went into the Territory election with the key commitment to immediately remove drunks from our streets, and they did the complete opposite.
Instead, what did we see? There are 2500 problem drinkers back on the drink across the Territory. Everyone could see the instant impacts of the removal of the BDR. The feedback I am getting, loudly and clearly from my constituents is they cannot understand why the government scrapped the BDR. The police said it was the best tool they had, and most people I have spoken to have told me that they did not mind showing their ID, especially when they started seeing the benefits from less antisocial behaviour in the community. They believed the BDR was making it much harder for problem drinkers to get alcohol, and it was making a difference.
People could see the difference when they went into the city for a meal, around their workplaces, on the foreshores, in the parks, around the shops. It was plain and obvious to all. People tell me they do not get the government’s logic for scrapping the BDR, and they do not believe the mandatory rehabilitation plans will work. Most of all, they do not understand why the government scrapped the Enough is Enough reforms with nothing to replace it immediately. Instead, we had a long wait for the new government to come back to this place to put some changes in place. I struggle to accept that the people opposite believe the Territory’s alcohol problems have reduced since scrapping the BDR.
Here we are 10 months into the new government, watching you rush through legislation that experts do not back and which lacks community support. You are choosing to hold people against their will with the hope to rehabilitate them from their alcohol addiction. This is not an evidence-based approach. You are putting $45m in this budget on a new system that no expert is backing. There is no evidence-based proven performance to show that it works, and there is little chance of it working. Most people agree that if a person does not want to be rehabilitated, it is unlikely it will work. More needs to be invested in tackling alcohol abuse, but you are throwing money at an experiment that alcohol experts, medical experts, legal organisations, and Indigenous organisations do not support.
It is also of a great concern that the government is looking to force, when it is fully ready in future years, around 200 people per quarter into mandatory rehabilitation. This year the budget books say there will be 800 assessments and 480 people will go into treatment. That is 120 people in a quarter. Given we had 2500 problem drinkers on the BDR when you scrapped it, and that number was growing, what happens to the 2300-plus drinkers? Clearly they will continue to go down a track of hard drinking to their own personal destruction and the misery of those around them.
The government’s new approach to tackling the supply of alcohol is alcohol protection orders. People are telling me they do not believe this will be an effective measure to stop problem drinkers accessing alcohol. It offers little assistance to those selling alcohol in bottle shops or in a bar identifying anyone who has one of these alcohol protection orders.
People want to see those with serious drinking problems receive the help they need and have the deterrents in place to help steer them to better health. Unfortunately, this bill looks doomed for failure as the government has failed to listen to the experts, medical professionals, alcohol health workers, and the police, to name a few.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Alcohol Rehabilitation): Madam Speaker, I thank all members of this Chamber who have spoken tonight on the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Bill 2013. I am thrilled and excited about this bill. It is one of the cornerstones of our election campaign which we used going into the August 2012 election. The people of the Northern Territory voted the Country Liberal Party into government because of this commitment to roll out mandatory alcohol treatment across the Northern Territory.
Despite what the opposition will have you believe, this bill, this initiative, has very broad and wide support throughout the Northern Territory. This evening we have heard all the speakers from the opposition put a downer on this project. Any success will be major; it will be above the expectations of the opposition. I am really pleased to hear that because there will be successes. The lack of optimism from the other side of the Chamber means that any success will be far greater than they anticipated and expected, because their doom and gloom and pessimism has put me on a high. I know this will have some positive outcomes.
The discussion around experts is curious because they have all mentioned that experts overwhelmingly agree with their pessimistic doom and gloom perspective on how this will roll out and how effective it will be. However, there are levels of experts. That is one thing I will talk about before we go into the committee stage of this process. The experts supporting this pessimistic, negative view of our bill are from a group of extremely committed stakeholders, most of whom submitted criticism of this bill through the consultation process. We received 13 submissions, six from local stakeholders and seven from jurisdictions outside the Northern Territory. Through a further consultation process beyond just receiving the submissions, I had the pleasure of meeting with representatives of many of those stakeholder groups. They are very committed, and I was very interested in what they had to say - the foundation of their criticism.
However, we also consulted extensively with people I regard as the specialists in this area: the people providing residential alcohol rehabilitation services in the Northern Territory. They are the true specialists in this area because this is their bread and butter. They know exactly how these programs work, the problems and challenges, and the strength of this model of operating. When you talk about experts, you have general experts within the alcohol sector, then you have the real specialised experts in this area we are looking at: the experts in residential alcohol rehabilitation.
It was interesting talking to the people who are critical of this bill, because they were not aware of much of the information I had gleaned from the specialist residential rehab providers. My staff were with me when we spoke to many of the other stakeholders. They were not aware, for example, that the current residential rehab providers charge $25 a day, or thereabouts, for consumables. I was not aware of that before I had these discussions with the residential rehab providers. They were not aware of small things such as when people come into rehab they often have lost their welfare payments along the line because they have been so dysfunctional through their use of alcohol, and that these people are often sick and require specific things. In talking to these stakeholders, I found they were being educated by me because I was handing over second-hand information to them from the residential rehab providers.
My point is, although the opposition claims it has the support of the experts in the field, it is not quite true. It has the support of many of the general stakeholders within the alcohol field, but when it comes to the real specialists in the area we are about to embark on, it does not have the support. It does not have the support of the residential rehab providers.
My colleague, the member for Sanderson, read that eloquent letter written by the Director of CAAAPU, Eileen Hoosan, who described in some detail the value in these programs from many perspectives, not just for people who are receiving the treatment, but also for the families and communities that benefit from a comprehensive, holistic residential rehab program. We also heard words from Matthew Bonson, from CAAPS, and various other providers in the field.
This battle has gone on tonight, ‘Our experts are better than yours. We have more experts endorsing our position than the government.’ However, at the end of the day the proof will be in the pudding. Do you know what? It is all going to be okay. Opposition, I know you have worked yourself up into a state, are losing sleep over it, and this pessimism and negativity about what we are about to embark on is weighing you down. You have put on this magnificent stage show tonight to demonstrate to the people of the Northern Territory that it will be a debacle, nothing will be right, and our outcomes will be next to nothing. However, it will be okay because we will have success. At least 10% of people coming out of these programs - this was acknowledged by the stakeholders I met with - will either abstain from alcohol or will have reformed their drinking patterns to the point they can drink responsibly.
There will also be successes around the fact that their families will have respite. The member for Greatorex spoke very well on this subject. The families will have this opportunity to change their lives. Things like child abuse and neglect will be addressed somewhat through this process. Violence against women, domestic violence, family violence and all those things we struggle against as a community, as a jurisdiction, as a society, will be alleviated somewhat through this important window of opportunity - this 12-week period in which people will undergo a health focused rehabilitation program.
I heard many comments from the opposition tonight - this allegation of criminalising alcoholics. When I teased this out with the stakeholders, interestingly, the only thing they could come up with when I asked what criminalising drunks meant, was that it came down to the fact we had a provision in the legislation that the penalty for absconding was an offence. If people absconded once it would become an offence and they could be subject to a fine or a stint in gaol. We looked at that and agreed it was rather tough and are about to change that through the committee process.
The hypocrisy of the opposition is completely overwhelming. The Leader of the Opposition has refuted with vehemence the allegation she supported mandatory alcohol rehabilitation. We have the old media releases; it is in black and white. As the member for Sanderson said, in September 2010 she talked about introducing mandatory rehabilitation treatment for problem drinkers. She went on to say:
- Under the proposed new laws, Police may issue a banning notice for up to 12 months to a person who is:
placed in protective custody three times in three months
charged with an alcohol-related offence …
She then went on to commit to 300 treatment and sobering-up shelter beds across the Northern Territory. That is extremely consistent with what our initiative will mean through the rolling out of this bill tonight. We are on the same page. There is not much difference, historically, to what the former Labor government, now the opposition, has spoken about at length in the past. Clare Martin, Delia Lawrie, and Paul Henderson are all on the record supporting mandatory alcohol rehabilitation. They cannot back away from that; they cannot rewrite history because the history is here to see. No matter how aggressive and repulsed the Leader of the Opposition might be by her former media statement in black and white, the reality is they did support it. For any contradiction of this to come out in parliament is demonstrative of hypocrisy at a very high level.
The opposition has also given some fairly conflicting messaging around its position on this. They drift from backing it - almost similar to the member for Nelson - but not backing it, being incensed by it, but being a little confused, and always going back to BDR. Do you know what? This is not a debate about the Banned Drinker Register. I hate to inform you of this, but it has gone – it has gone-ski, it is finished - period. We do not have to refer anymore to the Banned Drinker Register; it is dead and buried. In substitution of the Banned Drinker Register, we will have a very robust mandatory alcohol treatment program.
There will be problems, hiccups, and hurdles to overcome. It is ground-breaking, it is absolutely new and unprecedented, on this scale, in this way, in Australia. There are other involuntary alcohol rehabilitation programs in other parts of Australia. I mentioned in estimates that I visited an involuntary rehabilitation program facility in Sydney last week. It feels like a month ago, but it was only last week or the week before. It feels like it was about two years ago. That was fascinating. It was a very similar model to what we are about to roll out in the Northern Territory, on a much smaller scale but, essentially, very similar. Interestingly enough, that initiative was rolled out by the New South Wales government approximately 12 months ago with very little public push back. They did not have this resistance from their opposition. It was generally agreed that mandatory alcohol rehabilitation has a place within a regime of different strategies to address alcohol in the community.
That is exactly where we sit. Yes, the scale is much larger. Do you know what? We all know this around this room: the problem we have in the Northern Territory is on a much greater scale per capita than anywhere else in Australia. We have the worst alcohol-related health problems and crime problems in the whole of Australia. Why should we not have the biggest and most profound and unprecedented roll-out of an alcohol initiative in Australia to balance that and address the enormity of what we are facing?
I embrace the feedback we have received through this process of drafting the bill. There have been some time frames around that. I make no apology for that. The former government spent 11 years muddling around. In the last 12 months it came up with the Banned Drinker Register. It flopped, it failed, we threw it out, and we move on.
We were elected to roll this out, and that is what we are doing. I appreciate the feedback. I will give you a piece of information which leads into the committee process in a few minutes; out of the 43 amendments to this bill, 42 of them came directly via the consultation process through the feedback we received from the critics of this bill. If you want to complain about the fact that there are so many amendments - the member of Nightcliff just had a spin in that direction - I will give you this as testimony to the fact that we have listened: 42 out of the 43 amendments are from your side of the House. We have listened and made these compromises because we want this to work and to be reasonably palatable across the community.
Madam Speaker, there is much I could talk about. Given that it is already after 11 pm, I will restrict my comments …
Ms Finocchiaro: It is your bed time, 11 pm.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes, I should be in bed. That is exactly right, member for Drysdale.
We believe this is probably one of the most courageous initiatives ever to be undertaken in the area of alcohol reform in the Northern Territory, in Australia. We make no excuses, we are extremely proud to be doing this. We realise we will be scrutinised and it will be controversial from whoa to go, but we stand beside this because we know we are doing the right thing for the Northern Territory.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: The committee has before it the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Bill 2013 (Serial 33), together with Schedule of Amendments No 6 circulated by the Minister for Alcohol Rehabilitation.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.1 standing in my name. This is to set a date of 1 July 2013 as the starting date.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr GUNNER: Minister, your amendment is changing it from the day fixed by the Administrator, which is obviously a day you can work out with the Administrator, to coming into effect on 1 July, meaning it starts in four days’ time. In the short time this bill has been out for consultation you have come forward with 43 amendments. Does it not seem clear to the government that this bill and your plans still require some work? It seems to us to have it come into effect in four days’ time - will you be ready on 1 July?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Absolutely, and it will start on 1 July. This amendment is to just ensure, by way of fixing a definite commencement date for the bill, that it does roll out from 1 July.
Mr GUNNER: The member for Nelson mentioned this in his remarks during the second reading debate. I was at Vendale two weeks ago and at CAAAPU five weeks ago and they did not seem ready to go from 1 July. Can you explain how and what is ready to go from 1 July?
Mrs LAMBLEY: To my knowledge all facilities will be ready to accept people for mandatory alcohol rehabilitation as of 1 July. I can advise the opposition in due course if there is a problem.
Mr GUNNER: In our last briefing on Monday, some, but not all, police have been employed for this scheme. Will all positions be filled by 1 July?
Mrs LAMBLEY: I do not believe all positions will be filled by 1 July because, of course, all the beds will not be filled by 1 July. We have 200 beds coming online and we do not expect to fill those immediately. There will be a matter of weeks in which there is no great urgency to have every position filled. I can keep you updated on staffing.
Mr GUNNER: Thank you, minister. The advice we received on Monday was that no regulations were needed for this bill, but guidelines were being developed and there were guidelines mentioned through the bill. Being four days out, are those guidelines done and ready?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes, all the guidelines are drafted.
Mr GUNNER: We asked for a copy of those guidelines. We have not seen them yet. Is it possible to get a copy of them?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes, definitely. To be honest, I have not seen the final draft either, but they will be ready for use from 1 July.
Mr GUNNER: Those guidelines have been developed fully with the external stakeholders, the service providers, the Police Commissioner, and all other people involved?
Mrs LAMBLEY: With police, not beyond the police.
Mr GUNNER: Part of what the guidelines do will go to the work that is done at the assessment or treatment centres. Will those people who have been involved in the guidelines know what is in the guidelines?
Mrs LAMBLEY: The guidelines are extrapolated from the bill. We feel the Department of Health and the police are quite capable of drawing up these guidelines, as they would for other parts of the service or the agency. However, if there is any great dispute over the aspect of the guidelines or regulations, then I am sure we can have a discussion around it.
Mr GUNNER: We are not disputing it and, in some respects, not doubting the capacity of it. It is more that we are four days away from it coming into effect and the guidelines are essential for it to be working on 1 July. It is more about whether they are ready and can we see them at some stage?
Mrs LAMBLEY: They are ready because staff are being trained and familiarising themselves with and using the guidelines. We can have a copy to you next week for your perusal.
Ms WALKER: Minister, given this bill and all the actions associated will be ready to go in four days time on 1 July, in Nhulunbuy, for instance, what will become the secure facility is currently a co-located facility with the old rehabilitation centre and the sobering-up shelter alongside. Have those two premises been physically separated with a separate entrance for vehicles that come in and out with the night patrol? Is there a separate fencing arrangement so the secure beds are separate from the rest of the campus?
Mrs LAMBLEY: The secure beds will not be separated from the rest – sorry, there will be a fence. At the moment, the sobering-up shelter is a separate building to the rehab building …
Ms WALKER: It is a separate building.
Mrs LAMBLEY: … and they have separate entrances, so I am not sure …
Ms WALKER: There is one entrance into that centre.
Mrs LAMBLEY: There is a separate entrance into the sobering-up shelter.
Mrs WALKER: Into the physical buildings there are, but one fence sits around the entire campus of the two buildings. Is the intention ...
Mrs LAMBLEY: No, there is no intention to have a separate entrance. It is the same business.
Ms WALKER: So, the one entrance will be for …
Mrs LAMBLEY: For sobering-up and admission into the rehab centre. I see no need to have two separate entrances. That would be a waste of money, to be honest.
Ms WALKER: I guess time will tell in security …
Mrs LAMBLEY: That is one thing we can keep our eye on. If it becomes a problem we can look at it then. We are dealing with the same clientele, essentially.
Mr WOOD: Minister, my understanding is this will be gazetted on 1 July, then police who pick up people can start to tick them off if they end up at the watch house; the law is three times in two months. If you have people who are picked up three times within the next fortnight in Katherine, where will they first of all be assessed?
Mrs LAMBLEY: We will be using the Katherine Hospital as the assessment centre.
Mr WOOD: They can be held there for eight days safely?
Mrs LAMBLEY: The answer to that is yes. Can we follow the process of the committee? We have so many amendments to go through, and I am sure there will be opportunity to ask these specific questions as we go through. It is not necessarily a briefing at this stage; we are looking at specifically making amendments to the bill. I, for one, do not want to be here at 3 o’clock in the morning chatting about the bill. We have had every opportunity to do that tonight.
However, I am happy to answer any questions relevant to the amendments put forward, and address the amendments you want to put forward.
Mr WOOD: This is a unicameral system. The committee stage is the most important time for debate. It is the only time we have a proper debate between members and the minister to ensure this bill is fully investigated and tested.
The reason we are asking this question is you have changed this section of the bill from a date to be fixed, which means we do not know when it will start. We might start when you have everything ready. By inserting 1 July 2013, you have made a date for this bill to start.
That is just not a simple case of the bill to start. The ramifications of this are that you will be ready whenever police pick up someone three times within two months, which could be three times in a week or two weeks. The concern I have is if you are saying that, then you are saying the facilities are ready to accept these people.
Therefore, is the assessment facility - I am using the example at Katherine - ready to take someone who fits within the guidelines of this bill? Is there a place that is ready now where a person can be retained or kept for eight days, because that is the maximum?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Member for Nelson, this program will start on 1 July 2013. If, for some reason, there is a glitch in the system and there is not a bed available at any point in time - whether it is on 2 July this year or 2 July next year - people will not be assessed for mandatory treatment, and that is in the bill.
We only have 200 beds and we can only take that number of people. If a bed is not available then the person is released immediately as they would be within any protective custody order. The next time they are picked up and placed into protective custody, providing it is in that two-month period, the process begins again.
Contrary to what most of you on that side of the Chamber are alleging, this is not a punishment; it is not a criminal system. If we do not have a bed available, if people are not captured by the system, then the consequence is that they just go home.
We do not have to make it like a corrections system, whereby no matter what, these people have to go into treatment. We will do our best to keep our 200 beds full but, beyond that, they will have to go home if there are no beds. That is the reality. It is a health service with a peculiar twist in that we are requiring these people go into mandatory treatment when a bed is available.
Mr WOOD: I am trying to argue the practical side. When I say argue, I do not mean have an argument, but I am looking at the practical side. Take Katherine. If I am a policeman and am told this law has been passed on 1 July, from a practical point of view, if they take them to the watch house and there are no beds available, who tells the policeman? I do not want this policeman doing all this work and it is no good because there is no place to keep them.
Mrs LAMBLEY: People are taken into protective custody now and nothing happens to them. From 1 July, after three protective custodies in two months, the police officer will call the treatment centre to find out if there is a bed available. If the answer to that question is no, then the person in protective custody is released at a time when it is seen as safe for them to leave, as per normal.
Madam Deputy Chair, can we move on? There will be many opportunities to ask questions throughout this process. We are getting a little side-tracked.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 9, by leave, taken together:
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Chair, I have a question on clause 4. It is not an amendment. The question is in relation to clause 4 with regard to the application of the act:
- This act does not affect the operation or application of the Mental Health Act or Sentencing Act.
How does the legislation interact with the Parole of Prisoners Act?
Mrs LAMBLEY: That is a completely separate act. As I said before, this is not anything to do with corrections whatsoever - period.
Mr GUNNER: Obviously, minister, we will ask some questions today, but we will be brief. It is great to have access to briefings but they are not on the public record. We were advised that if someone is on parole and caught, then the Parole of Prisoners Act takes precedence. I believe that was the advice.
This clause specifically says that it does not affect the operation or application of the Mental Health Act or Sentencing Act. That makes sense. What we are wondering though, is how does it interact with the Parole of Prisoners Act? We were advised that the Parole of Prisoners Act takes precedence, but how?
Mrs LAMBLEY: The Parole of Prisoners Act deals with a completely different group of people who have committed a crime. This act deals with people who have not committed a crime but who have been taken into protective custody three times in two months.
Mr GUNNER: I understand what you are saying, but you are missing our question. If someone is on parole and has been caught under the provisions of this act, what happens to them? By what mechanism does the Parole of Prisoners Act take precedence?
Mrs LAMBLEY: I might get the Attorney-General to answer this.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Deputy Chair, if a person is on parole, then it depends what the condition of their parole is. If a condition of their parole is that they are not to drink liquor and they are picked up the first time around, then they are technically in breach of their parole.
If it is not a condition of their parole that they are not to drink liquor - let us say there is no condition of their parole other than, ‘You are at liberty, please check in once a month with your parole officer’, then being picked up under this legislation does not constitute a breach of parole. If you breach your parole you are answerable to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction and an action will be taken for breach of parole.
Mr GUNNER: I accept all that. By what mechanism is it that the Parole of Prisoners Act takes precedence?
Mr ELFERINK: It is not an issue of precedence. One act will operate to deal with a health issue, and the second act will deal with the matter of breach of parole. If you have breached your parole it is up to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction to determine you have breached parole and take action accordingly.
Mr GUNNER: The act specifically says that this act does not affect the operation of the Mental Health and Related Services Act or the Sentencing Act. If you have gone to that effort here, why did you not do that for the Parole of Prisoners Act? I am sure there is an easy answer Attorney-General, I am just wondering what it is.
Mr ELFERINK: The parole legislation is designed in such a way as to deal with people who have been released from custody and have still not completed the end of their sentence. There would be no mechanism by which these two are linked other than the fact a person, as a condition of parole, may be set at liberty. Similarly, sentencing legislation may carry certain sentencing conditions. The sentencing condition put in place is something the draftsman has clearly considered is worth incorporating into this legislation.
Mr GUNNER: I was going to talk to clause 8 as well.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: Member for Fannie Bay and opposition, please can you give me early indication if you want to ask questions.
Mr GUNNER: We have questions to most clauses if that helps, Madam Deputy Chair.
Madam DEPUTY CHAIR: We are on clauses 3 to 9.
Mr GUNNER: I want to talk to clause 8, which is amongst 3 to 9. We have discussed this before but have not had much feedback. The Chief Minister was almost quite cooperative in estimates. Right at end he said he could give us the information but realised he did not have it.
Essentially, the trigger is three protective custodies in two months. We have been seeking some advice around the data that has led to this. Based on the data to date, how many people will you be looking at as part of that criterion?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Eight hundred a year.
Mr GUNNER: That is how many you are budgeting for. We were wondering, because you already have the data, and have been quoting from it, exactly how many fit that criterion?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Almost exactly 800 a year.
Mr GUNNER: You picked the 800 figure based on that being pretty much the exact number of PCs of three people in two months.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Exactly. That is how we came up with 200 beds.
Mr GUNNER: We have been asking that question for a long time. My understanding of clause 8 is it also allows you to change the trigger at any time.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Which one are you talking about? 8(1)(a)?
Mr GUNNER: It is the interaction between clause 8 and the Police Administration Act. Through that you can change the entry trigger. You do not need to come back to the parliament to do that; you can change it through regulation.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes, that is true, by regulation. You are talking about 8(1)(a). Is that correct?
Mr GUNNER: Yes, that is correct. The way this clause interacts with the Police Administration Act allows you, through regulation, to change that trigger point of two times in three months?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes, that is correct.
Mr GUNNER: Obviously, this is early days, but have you given any thought to what or how you may change that trigger going forward? You have created a situation where you can change it by regulation, but have you given any thought to that or how that might work?
Mrs LAMBLEY: I am not prepared to pre-empt anything. This is new ground. To pre-empt something like that would perhaps create a whole new wave of criticism, and I do not want to go there. We have settled on what we have, based on the data provided, and we are happy to see what happens. We will review the whole thing after six months - the whole initiative - so that is an opportunity to look at those types of things.
Mr GUNNER: I can appreciate that. One thing I have been trying to find out is how we will measure this. One question is: have you thought through yet where you might say, if we are not getting this kind of target or this kind of result then we would look at this?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Absolutely. We will be tweaking, monitoring, and reviewing every aspect of this initiative.
Clauses 3 to 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.2 standing in my name. This amends threshold criteria, clause 10(e), for a mandatory treatment order. All criteria in this clause must be met for a mandatory treatment order to be made.
Clause 10(e) of the bill currently requires that the person ‘could’ benefit from a mandatory treatment order. The amendment alters this to requiring that the person ‘would’ benefit, rather than ‘could’. This was a recommendation we received through the consultation process. It is changing ‘could’ to ‘would’. I can continue with an explanation if you like, or are you are satisfied with that?
Mr GUNNER: My question was about the clause, not the amendment.
Mrs LAMBLEY: You are happy with the amendment put forward?
Amendment agreed to.
Mr GUNNER: My question goes to how this clause interacts with the principles. In the principles it says involuntary detention and involuntary treatment of a person is to be used only as a last resort when less restrictive interventions are not likely to be effective – so, it is the most effective option.
However, this clause talks about it being used only when there is nothing else reasonably available. There is a difference between effectiveness and availability. I was wondering if you see a conflict between those two?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Member for Fannie Bay, where are we looking? Is this clause 10 still?
Mr GUNNER: Clause 10. It says there are no less restrictive interventions reasonably available in clause 10(f). Clause 10(f) talks about when there is nothing else reasonably available, but the principles talk about choosing between effective and most effective. There is a slight difference between making choices about what is reasonably available and what is not effective.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Member for Fannie Bay, we can only ask practitioners to do what is reasonable. Is least restrictive a reasonable principle?
Mr GUNNER: I do not believe that is quite what we are asking. It is about the choices being made when you are looking at the criteria for an order. Are you choosing the option that is reasonably available or the option that is most effective?
Mrs LAMBLEY: You are choosing both; you are choosing the least restrictive and the most effective.
Mr GUNNER: Obviously you want the best of both worlds, but there will be times where what is reasonably available might be different to what is most effective. It goes to the decisions they will have to make when they are delivering a mandatory treatment order. The clause says pick the option that is, essentially, reasonably available, and the principle says pick the option that is most effective. I realise lawyers wrote it, but there is a difference between what is reasonably available and what is most effective.
Mrs LAMBLEY: The advice I am given is that ‘least restrictive’ is the principle. It is clinician-speak, and if we cannot understand it, that is a problem. But ‘least restrictive’ is the principle, ‘reasonably available’ and ‘least restrictive’ remain the practice principles. Clinicians within the industry understand this language and this is in the best interests of the person - least restrictive and most effective.
There are no less restrictive interventions reasonably available for dealing with the risk mentioned in paragraph 9: the risk being the person’s alcohol misuse. That makes perfect sense when you read it. What is your issue with it? Explain to me what you do want to know.
Mr GUNNER: No, it is that the two interact. Both of them read fine separately, it is the decision between the two. One of them is the last resort when less restrictive interventions are not likely to be effective - so that is the effectiveness of what is available. Then, here, it is ‘reasonably available for dealing with the risk’. From that reading, one seems to be about the effectiveness of the treatment options available, and the other is about what is reasonably available as a treatment option.
Mr WOOD: Maybe the explanatory notes will help.
Mr GUNNER: I read the explanatory notes. If it is understandable to clinicians, maybe we could get some advice at some stage?
Mrs LAMBLEY: If you do not want to pass this one, we can work on it over the next half-an-hour and give you a much broader explanation. To be honest, member for Fannie Bay, if you just read it …
Mr GUNNER: We do not necessarily have a problem with clause 10 or clause 6; it is more about the two of them and understanding how they work together. Does that make sense, minister?
Mrs LAMBLEY: I believe it is self-explanatory, unless you want us to rephrase the whole …
Mr GUNNER: No, what …
Mrs LAMBLEY: It will not change. I feel it is reasonably self-explanatory.
Mr GUNNER: I raised it for an explanation; not as something that is earth-shattering. Obviously I have not been able to get an explanation, but that is fine. We can move on. There is no problem with clause 10 or clause 6. It is more about how the two work together. One goes to the effective options available and the other goes to the options that are reasonably available. That is all. We can move on if you want, minister.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 11 and 12, by leave, taken together:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.3 standing in my name, which invites defeat of clauses 11 and 12.
Amendment agreed to
Clauses 11 and 12 negatived.
New clauses 11 and 12:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.4 standing in my name. We are basically swapping clauses 11 and 12 around. A recommendation from several of the submissions we received was that the order we placed these in was wrong. Instead, 12 will become 11 and 11 will become 12. That was seen as a more desirable order.
It was a suggestion from the legal profession to resolve the ambiguity about who was compelled in this clause, the person or the treatment provider. The intention is to ensure the more active participation be used, rather than the more passive reference to a client - sorry, being given treatment. Yes, it is just to swap the order. It was a pedantic recommendation we received and we had no reason to object to it.
Mr WOOD: I am not sure how I speak to one of these. I am talking about the section on the mandatory community treatment order. The definition says a mandatory community treatment order is an order in relation to a person and requires the person receives treatment from a specific treatment provider. Do we have a list of specific community treatment providers at present?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes, we do, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: Is that available? I am not saying tonight. Is that a publicly available list?
Mrs LAMBLEY: I am sure it would be, but it is certainly available within the sector, yes.
Mr WOOD: Is there a definition of a specified community treatment provider or a legal explanation of what that is?
Mrs LAMBLEY: The Department of Health makes the assessment of what services will be mandatorily provided community treatment and which ones will provide mandatory treatment.
Mr WOOD: That is fine. Will the provider have to be registered? Will they have to have certain qualifications? What are the guidelines to be a provider?
Mrs LAMBLEY: The guidelines have been developed by the Department of Health and are consistent with this act in what is required for mandatory treatment. We can provide you with those Department of Health guidelines if you like. I am not sure if we have them here, do we? No, we do not.
Mr WOOD: I will just have to do it the best I can. I referred to the possibility of someone providing a service out bush. I do not know whether that is a practical idea because that may not fit into your guidelines of what a specified community treatment provider is. I was saying you have that in the act. Who are they and what are they required to do to be a community treatment provider?’ If you had a healing place out bush, would that fit into this requirement or definition?
Mrs LAMBLEY: It could. In the future we will be looking at different models of treatment provision. We want to work, for example, with Francis Xavier Kurrupuwu and the Tiwi people to develop a model that suits them and their cultural and community needs. Each treatment centre will look a bit different, but there will be some essential ingredients and they are probably the guidelines you are after - the commonalities that each treatment centre will be required to have. Is that correct?
Mr WOOD: That is fine and good. I am not knocking that.
Mrs LAMBLEY: We want to be inclusive. We do not want to say, ‘You are excluded from having a centre in Yuendumu because you do not have access to Woolworths’, or something.
Mr WOOD: No, I hope you have not; that could be quite dangerous knowing Woolworths; they sell other things.
Will there be somebody in the Department of Health to assess community treatment providers? You cannot just become a community provider; you have somebody to assess it. You said it could be different case by case?
Mrs LAMBLEY: The senior director of mandatory treatment services is responsible and has the overarching responsibility to regulate and monitor these services. Obviously safety is one of the main concerns in the expectation of these treatment facilities - ensuring risk is minimised, cleanliness, OH&S, all that type of stuff.
Mr WOOD: If somebody wanted to start one in one of the outstations in Arnhem Land that would have to be assessed by the director of mandatory treatment services. They could apply and say, ‘We would like to do this’ and he would come out?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes.
Mr WOOD: That is okay. I am just working through the practicalities.
Amendment agreed to.
New clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 16, by leave, taken together:
Mr GUNNER: I have questions about clauses 13 and 14. Clause 13 is about the income management order. For that to have force you require the Commonwealth minister to recognise the new tribunal. How you are going with that dialogue with the Commonwealth?
Mrs LAMBLEY: I spoke to minister Macklin today and negotiations are proceeding for us to use income management as part of this initiative.
Mr GUNNER: Do we have an approximate date yet, or a target?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Ideally, I would like it resolved by Monday, but we are working on it. Minister Macklin and I have a reasonably good relationship so I am hoping we can sort this out very soon.
Mr GUNNER: This clause will not be operational by 1 July, but at some stage we are hopeful the Commonwealth government will recognise it?
Mrs LAMBLEY: That is correct.
Mr GUNNER: That is clause 13. I have questions on clause 14 too. Clause 14 says:
- When an assessable person is taken to an assessment facility, a senior assessment clinician must admit the assessable person to the facility and detain the assessable person for the purpose of an assessment.
It says ‘must’ rather than ‘may’. The senior clinician, being a doctor, there will be times when as soon as that person walks in the front door and the doctor says - and it may not happen often - ‘That person should not be here’. However, the clause says they ‘must’ be admitted.
I am just wondering by what process does that doctor say, ‘I can see why you brought that person here, but in this instance they do not need to not be here’. I am wondering why it is ‘must’ and not ‘may’.
Mrs LAMBLEY: When an assessable person is taken to an assessment facility, they will be taken there by the police, so there has to be an administrative transaction, which is called an admission. If the person is deemed unsuitable for treatment or not suitable to be at the assessment facility, then they would be discharged.
Mr GUNNER: The admission in this instance is at the police end, and not at the …
Mrs LAMBLEY: No, it is at the facility end. They have to receive the person from the police.
Mr GUNNER: So when you say, ‘must admit’ that is the purpose of that person walking in the front door, it is not a paperwork question. It is just them walking in the front door …
Mrs LAMBLEY: And the paperwork; it is an administrative process.
Mr GUNNER: I guess that is my question. There may be times when the senior clinician – obviously the doctor is not a copper.
Mrs LAMBLEY: The system is based on the tribunal having the right to determine what happens to the assessable person. Even though the assessment clinician may immediately deem or consider the person is unsuitable, they still have to go before a tribunal.
Mr GUNNER: There may be the occasion when someone walks in that front door - it is not about whether they are assessable or suitable for treatment, it is more that maybe their condition has been misdiagnosed or something. As soon as they walk in that door, the doctor says, ‘I can understand exactly why you have brought this person to me and how they got to this point in this system, but this person should not be here in an assessment centre going through this process, they need to go the hospital for treatment’. Because it says ‘must’ not ‘may’, how does that practically happen at that moment?
Mrs LAMBLEY: It depends on the diagnosis of the person. If the person is taken, for example, to the assessment facility and is found to be acutely ill and requiring acute treatment, they would be taken to a hospital. Once introduced into the system and to the assessment clinician and the assessment centre, they have to be assessed at some point. The pause button can go on if they have to go to the hospital, or somewhere else such as a mental health facility for assessment in the interim. However, at some point they have to go before a tribunal. The tribunal decides their fate within that four-day period.
Mr GUNNER: So, practically, what happens then? They turn up at the door, the doctor says straightaway, ‘I have to admit you at some stage, and take you in, but right now you need to go there, and after you finish there, come back here and then we work through it’.
Mrs LAMBLEY: The doctor would always do a formal assessment. It is not just a visual, instantaneous thing.
Mr GUNNER: That is why I am wondering about the ‘must’ instead of ‘may’. I agree that a doctor would do that, but you are saying ‘must’ admit them into the assessment facility, rather than ‘may’. There must be the occasion when the doctor says, ‘I can understand why this person is here, but they should not be; they should be over here getting this treatment.’ It says they ‘must’ be admitted, not ‘may’.
Mrs LAMBLEY: The person is brought to the assessment facility, they are admitted, and they have to be assessed, even if the assessment takes five minutes. If the person is deemed unsuitable, they have to be admitted, they have to be assessed, and they cannot be taken out of that system until they are put before a tribunal.
Mr GUNNER: Let us go back to the original question. The clause says they ‘must’ be admitted and detained. I am asking whether there will not be the occasional time when, through this system, the police bring someone into an assessment centre and, at the first blush, the clinician says straightaway, ‘This person should not be here’. However, your clause says they ‘must’ be admitted and ‘must’ be detained.
Mrs LAMBLEY: That is right. There will be no circumstances in which they do not flow from the police system into the assessment treatment system.
Mr GUNNER: But, there may be a healthy …
_______________
Acknowledgement of Departure of Clerk –
Mr Ian McNeill
Acknowledgement of Departure of Clerk –
Mr Ian McNeill
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Chair! Many people will not notice that the Clerk of the parliament, Ian McNeill, is just about to walk out of the parliament for the last time after 28 years of service to the people of the Northern Territory.
Madam Deputy Chair, I am sure I speak on behalf of all people of this House in thanking Mr Ian McNeill for his years of dedicated service to the people of the Northern Territory and this parliament. It has been a pleasure and a privilege to work with him. I wish both him and Kit all the very best for the future.
Members: Hear, hear!
_______________
Mrs LAMBLEY: Member for Fannie Bay, the answer is no. Once people come into the system after the trigger is set off - the three protective custodies in two months - police make the call, there is a bed available, and they are locked into a process. A person cannot just be removed from the system; they have to complete the process.
Mr GUNNER: My question is going to the third trigger that has led to protective custody that has been a misdiagnosis. They turned up on the doorstep, there was something seriously wrong with that person, and the doctor on the spot said, ‘I can see why you are here but, for health reasons, you should not be here, you need urgent treatment at the hospital for this other condition’. Should they not be going there? The clause is saying they ‘must’ admit them and detain them, and not take that other action.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Admission is the administrative process of receiving the assessable person from the police and taking them into the assessment facility where they will be assessed. They will always be assessed, even if it is instantaneous. If they need acute care of some description then they would be taken to the acute facility, such as a hospital, for treatment. Then, they come back into the system. The pause button goes on, they return from hospital and are assessed again, perhaps, and the process continues.
Clauses 13 to 16 agreed to.
Clause 17:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.5 standing in my name. This amendment omits existing clauses 17(2) to 17(5) and replaces them with new clauses 17(2) and 17(3).
I can give an explanation if people like.
Mr GUNNER: In making the amendment you have changed the initial period from 72 hours to 96 hours. I was wondering why you lengthened that initial period by 24 hours. Initially, you had it as three days to make the assessment, and I was wondering why you have changed it to four days. What was the feedback you got to make it four days?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Member for Fannie Bay, in the current bill it is three plus three, so the intention was to assess people within three days. If there was a problem - usually the problem would be around people drying out and detoxifying and in some circumstances they would be extremely difficult to assess within three days - we had an option to extend it for another three days.
The feedback we got through the consultation process is that, potentially, a six-day period for the timing of the assessment was way too long. So, we reduced it to four. The rationale was three days, in most cases, would be sufficient. To add on another day means 99% of cases will be able to be assessed within that four-day period. So, six days to four days.
Mr GUNNER: You touched upon this before in the other clause. This allows that commission to pause the clock, as you said, when a person is referred to the hospital. There might have been an assessment at that facility for two days, then they go to the hospital, then they return to the assessment facility for up to two days. The clock is paused. Are they technically under detention when they are at the hospital?
Mrs LAMBLEY: No, they are not.
Mr GUNNER: They could just walk out of the hospital?
Mrs LAMBLEY: They could, they are not prisoners.
Mr GUNNER: They are under detention at the assessment centre either side of the hospital trip, but when they are at the hospital - technically that has been split - and they are not actually under detention ...
Mrs LAMBLEY: They would be supervised - is that correct? If a person absconds during the time the clock is paused, the clock does not start again until the person returns.
Mr GUNNER: So, they are pending assessment and AWOL?
Mrs LAMBLEY: If they disappear, even were they to come back in a month, the clock starts again.
Mr GUNNER: All right. Either side of that period they ...
Mrs LAMBLEY: It is not an offence at that point either, because they have not been determined by the tribunal as being suitable for mandatory treatment.
Mr GUNNER: If they are too unwell to be assessed and are required to go to the hospital, the clock stops. They are not under detention at that time? They are being treated for their other illness, and not in detention?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes. It goes back to my original point; that is, we are not criminalising them. If these people are sick, we are not going to chase down the road after them if they take off at that point.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.6 standing in my name. Amendment 6.6 invites defeat on the existing clause 18.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 negatived.
New clause 18:
Mrs LAMBLEY: I move amendment 6.7 standing in my name. Amendment 6.7 contains the new clause 18 to be inserted. This amendment to clause 18 is a technical consequential amendment flying from the section changes in clause 17 around the timing of assessment. The intent of the clause remains the same.
Amendment agreed to.
New clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.8 standing in my name. The allied consequential amendments to clauses 20(a) and 21(1) are intended to streamline and simplify the existing assessment process provisions which artificially expressed assessment as being in two stages. This amendment was identified following discussions with clinicians, and the legal sector found it to be overly complicated and confusing. Do you want me to continue with that explanation?
Ms WALKER: Minister, in relation to clause 19, does the requirement to explain the intent of the assessment to the extent reasonably practicable extend to the provision of interpreters, understanding we may be dealing with Indigenous people whose first language is not English?
Mrs LAMBLEY: The requirement for an interpreter is described in the clauses pertaining to the tribunal. In this section, and other sections of the act, it does not have a prescription around that. The intention is that the clinicians would describe, advise, and explain the process of mandatory alcohol treatment and the assessment adequately. There will be Aboriginal liaison workers and language speakers within these facilities, but it was not seen as necessary to be prescriptive about an interpreter at this point.
Ms WALKER: Minister, that clause is vague on what would be reasonably practicable. My query about it extends to the provision of interpreters. I wonder, given there will be a review in six months’ time, if one of the proposed amendments may be around enshrining in legislation the requirement that an interpreter, and/or any other necessary communication aids, be appropriately utilised during the process. It is not entirely clear as it stands currently.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes, that is a reasonable comment, member for Nhulunbuy.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.9 standing in my name. Currently, clause 20 of the bill requires the senior assessment clinician to either apply to the tribunal or refer the person to involuntary mental health assessment as soon as practicable after completing their assessment under this act. The amendment to the preamble of this clause makes it explicit that there is a 24-hour time limit for such an application or referral. This amendment will ensure there are clear time frames on clinicians to ensure referral or application occurs expediently following the assessment. This has been sought through the consultation process.
Mr GUNNER: This clause allows, potentially, two things to happen: either the person goes to the tribunal or they go for the mental health assessment. Why are senior clinicians not allowed, at this stage, to exercise their professional judgment and expertise and release those who do not fulfil the criteria for an order?
If the clinicians come to the medical opinion this person does not qualify, this clause means, even in that instance, they still have to go before the tribunal. The person is then detained even after they have been declared well, healthy, or sober - whatever the clinician’s diagnosis is.
Mrs LAMBLEY: This was debated extensively and the conclusion we came to is that by referring all cases to the tribunal you get consistency across the board and probably fair and objective final decisions about what happens to these people.
Clinicians are solely clinicians. The panel, of course, includes a legal representative, a community representative and a medical representative. Those three people can provide a much more balanced decision-making process.
Mr GUNNER: I assume you have received similar feedback to us. Some of the feedback around this clause is that preservation of the potential therapeutic relationship should not take precedence over the fundamental principles of individual liberty. An individual who is assessed as unsuitable for treatment, therefore, has no therapeutic relationship with the assessing clinicians, and it is perverse that the person may be stripped of their liberty to protect a relationship that does not, in fact, exist.
Mrs LAMBLEY: That is something you could debate for hours: does the clinician assessing the person develop a relationship with that person, and is that a relationship which needs to be sustained throughout the rehabilitation process? The general consensus amongst the people we consulted was, where possible, that relationship should be maintained as a clinical client relationship which should be sustainable.
Mr GUNNER: A similar situation where someone has to use their discretion and professional judgment would be when a police officer takes a person into custody and decides, after investigation, not to proceed with the charges and that person is then released. They do not have to go to court to say, ‘I need that person released’; the police officer can just make that judgment. I am wondering why we cannot trust the doctor in the same way.
Mrs LAMBLEY: I do not believe that is a good comparison. These people have been in the custody of the police, and now they are in a health setting where the person who is assessing them will be a health professional providing care, consultation, and treatment of a highly confidential nature. The general view was that should be sustained; it should be held in high regard and that person should not then have to make a decision about what happens to them ultimately.
Some clinicians will want to make a decision, and that will come through the treatment plan put forward to the tribunal. The clinicians will try to get these people to the tribunal and out the door as soon as possible if they are deemed not suitable.
Mr GUNNER: Is this one of the clauses you will be looking at in the six months review if, in hindsight, you say, ‘We can trust the senior assessment clinicians to make the decision that a person does not meet the criteria’? The people who do meet the criteria then go up. It does seem strange ...
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes, I believe this is a classic example of an area we should monitor. It is not about trust; it is about separating powers so there is no conflict of interest. Some may see it as a trust issue.
Mr GUNNER: For us there are two things: one was the trust issue and the doctor’s professional opinion, but the other one was if you are deemed not to meet the criteria for whatever reason - and it could be a really good reason - you are then held in detention post that. You can be held up for four days. I appreciate you do not want that person held that long; you want them to go before the tribunal. However, technically, they could be found to be fine and, therefore, free to go, but they cannot, they have to be detained until the tribunal hears their case, although the doctor has said they are okay.
Mrs LAMBLEY: You are right; there could be issues that come about through that time gap between being assessed as unsuitable and getting to a tribunal. We will monitor that.
Mr GUNNER: What evidence would the tribunal need to override that senior clinician’s decision? We are thinking there may be an instance when that happens, otherwise we will not be doing this. If the senior clinician says the person is fine and the person then goes before the tribunal, what grounds or basis would the tribunal take into account to then override the clinician’s decision?
Mrs LAMBLEY: One example would be the person may be working and they have just been through a hard time. The tribunal might take those types of factors into consideration more than the assessment clinician and decide it is better for the assessable person to go home, go to work, and come in, for example, as a voluntary weekend patient. That would be a reasonable example.
Mr GUNNER: You may have touched on this before. I do not know how busy the tribunal will be. It could have 400 cases in a day or none. We are still trying to work out how often it meets.
Would there be any priority given to cases that go before the tribunal? If you have been deemed by the clinician as not fitting the criteria, would you be the first case up so you can then be released?
Mrs LAMBLEY: I do not know. On the surface that makes sense to me, but I do not know how they will prioritise. My hunch would be in order of who is on the list. It is at the discretion of the tribunal.
In the operational guidelines, the clinicians can fast-track these people. They would be at the top of the tribunal list. I believe that in the first six months the tribunal will be sitting very regularly to get these people processed and into or out of treatment, whatever the case may be.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I know we will talk about assessment facilities later under clause 127. I might have missed it before, but when you say a person is held, does that mean they cannot leave this facility?
Mrs LAMBLEY: The assessment facility?
Mr WOOD: Yes.
Mrs LAMBLEY: That is correct. They are held for four days, 96 hours in total, for assessment within this new amendment.
Mr WOOD: They are not allowed to leave?
Mrs LAMBLEY: That is correct.
Mr WOOD: What happens if they do?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Until they go before a tribunal, the pause button will be on. If they abscond then they will be brought back to resume that process.
Mr WOOD: Who will bring them back?
Mrs LAMBLEY: The police.
Mr WOOD: Is there something that says the police can pick someone up for absconding from an assessment centre?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes, that is correct.
Mr WOOD: Where will I find that? Is it in this bill?
Mrs LAMBLEY: No, it is in the Police Administration Act.
Mr WOOD: All right. This is hypothetical and is going on what the member for Fannie Bay said. If the assessment clinician said to the person, ‘You should not be here. You are quite well, but I have to hold you here for four days’, and then the person absconded, would you bother chasing them?
Mrs LAMBLEY: The police would have to try to bring them back. The issue of absconding has been the most difficult to decide how to deal with. We do not want to criminalise these people. We do not want to penalise them or be punitive in any way. However, it is a mandatory treatment program and for people to abscond is flying in the face of that intent.
When they abscond from the assessment facility it is not considered as one of the three strikes and you are out. Do you know what I am referring to? The determination about their suitability for treatment has not been made by the tribunal.
Mr WOOD: I will leave my questions about the facility until we get to that clause.
Amendment agreed to.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.10 standing in my name. This is to insert a paragraph. This amendment to clause 20(a) is a technical amendment to make clear that the referral for an involuntary mental health referral is only to occur after completion of assessment under this act where the person has not been referred previously for such mental health assessment. It was identified in the drafting of the amendments to streamline clause 19.
Amendment agreed to.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.11 standing in my name. This is also a technical amendment to remove reference to ‘an order’ in clause 22. It is a consequential amendment that flows from the amendments to clause 22 which takes out the reference to ‘an order’. I have to delete ‘for an order’ in clause 20(b).
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.12 standing in my name. This amendment was identified in the drafting of the amendments to streamline clause 19. The amendment to clause 21(1) makes it clear that a referral for involuntary mental assessment should only occur where it has not been requested previously as a part of the assessment under this act.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.13 regarding clause 22(1). It is a wording change only. It was sought by the legal profession to remove a reference to senior assessment clinicians applying for ‘an order’ and does not materially change the effect of the provision. Within consultation there was a degree of discomfort about the phrasing in this section which led to the view that orders should be the sole domain of the tribunal.
Amendment agreed to.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.14 to clause 22(3)(b)(ii) removing the requirement for an assessment report to specifically include reference to the person’s cultural group.
Ms WALKER: Minister, why is that being omitted from the bill? In regard to collecting demographic information about the assessable person, the report must still state whether the person is an adult and other relevant information. Is this trying to hide the impact of this legislation on a particular cultural group by not collecting that information? It seems a curious omission.
Mrs LAMBLEY: It is a curious one. It was strongly recommended by the people we consulted with, the people who were primarily critical of this legislation. We did not feel strongly either way, to be honest. This amendment to clause 22(3)(b)(ii) removes a requirement for an assessment report to specifically include reference to the person’s cultural group. It flows from consultations with the legal sector which queried its inclusion, where other requirements equally important had not been required in the statute. It was never included to be singled out as a specific requirement above others and has, therefore, been amended.
It is not the case that this information will not be included where it is required in an application to the tribunal; simply it will not be a stand-out reference in the act.
We agreed with the bill the way it was, but were advised this was not the best way to go by the legal people - NAAJA, CAALAS and NT Legal Aid. If you object to it strongly I do not have a problem leaving the clause the way it is.
Ms WALKER: It seems a curious omission in the scheme we will be rolling out from 1 July 2013 - collecting data as to who is impacted under this scheme by cultural group. If there is a review within six months, my view is that it may come up as part of that review. It seems a curious omission.
Mrs LAMBLEY: We are still collecting this data. We will still have the data on individuals coming through regarding their cultural group or ethnicity. However, it will not be collected as part of that initial assessment which goes to the tribunal unless it is clinically relevant. The legal fraternity felt it was a little obscure to have that identified and not other …
Ms WALKER: Is it possible to vote against that amendment to defeat it?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes, if you do not want it removed. I do not feel strongly either way.
Ms WALKER: Thanks, minister.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Can I clarify that we did not want to exclude this data from being available. It was not about hiding information. The obvious comment is most people coming through will be Aboriginal. We know that. This is not some veiled attempt at hiding that, which is what a member of the media implied today.
Mr GUNNER: Slightly different, but the same area regarding information you are not collecting for the assessment report - is it individual’s health, finances, or family obligations which I understand appear sometimes in other forms that is collected? I am wondering whether the tribunal will need some of that information to make accurate decisions, say in regard to income management.
Mrs LAMBLEY: It will be provided operationally, but it will not be specified within the legislation.
You do not normally specify that level of detail within the legislation even though in practice operationally, you would be collecting that level of detail, hence the mismatch between the legislation and the operational requirements.
Mr WOOD: Madam Deputy Chair, I was also thinking that in many Health department documents those are the very things you tick off. For consistency’s sake, I thought perhaps that should stay. Would we have to invite defeat of amendment 6.14? Would you have to do it or, would we have to do it? I am not sure.
Mrs LAMBLEY: We can withdraw this amendment. It would be nice if we all took responsibility for it, given it was recommended by your supporters rather than ours.
Mr WOOD: That was process.
Mr GUNNER: We are not possessive of that.
Mrs LAMBLEY: I am happy to withdraw that. I move that amendment be withdrawn.
Amendment withdrawn.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.15. This amendment to clause 22(3) is a consequential amendment that flows from the changes to clauses 11(1)(a) and 12(b) whereby mandatory treatment orders are now expressed in active language to require the person to ‘participate’ in treatment, rather than ‘receive’ treatment. This was a suggestion from the legal profession.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.16 which invites defeat of the existing clause 23.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23 negatived.
New clause 23:
Mrs LAMBLEY: I move amendment 6.17 standing in my name. Amendment 6.17 contains the new clause 23 to be inserted. Do you want me to continue, or do you have a question?
Mr GUNNER: Just a question about the notice of the action which will be taken being given to the assessable person, the assessable person’s primary contact and guardian, if any, and the person’s representative, if any. It does not ask for the person’s consent. Normally you would not circulate that information to people without their consent.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes, that is why the amendment has been changed to ensure the assessable person gives consent.
Amendment agreed to.
New clause 23 agreed to.
Clauses 24 to 28, by leave, taken together:
Mr GUNNER: I have a question to clause 24. Clause 24 provides:
- A senior assessment clinician at an assessment facility at which a person is detained must ensure the person continues to be detained following assessment until the person is required to be released from the facility or transferred to a treatment centre in accordance with the act.
Essentially, if held until transferred, they can be detained at that assessment centre. How long can they be detained then? Technically, they can be held for three months, I guess.
Mrs LAMBLEY: That is within the four-day timing of assessment. That is inclusive.
Mr GUNNER: If, at the end of that four days, transport has not been arranged, then they must go.
Mrs LAMBLEY: They are out the door.
Clauses 24 to 28 agreed to.
Clause 29:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.18 standing in my name. Amendment 6.18 invites defeat of existing clause 29.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29 negatived.
New clause 29:
Mrs LAMBLEY: I move amendment 6.19 standing in my name. Amendment 6.19 contains the new clause 29 to be inserted following the defeat of the old clause. This is on the transport on release. Is there any problem with that?
Ms WALKER: I have a couple of questions, minister. Clause 29 under transport on release states that if a person is released from an assessment facility under section 18, 25 or 28, the senior assessment clinician at the facility ‘may’ arrange for the person to be taken back to their usual place of residence. It does not actually require for that provision of transport to be provided, it simply says ‘may’.
What would happen, for instance, where we have a child? That child is released – but because the clinician ‘may’, not ‘must’, arrange for transport - there could be a child who is released but could be some way from home.
Mrs LAMBLEY: This bill only relates to adults, so no child would be effected by this. The reason why it is ‘may’ is because, at that point after completing 12 weeks of mandatory treatment, they are free to make their own decisions about where they go and what they do. ‘May’ means we are not forcing these people to do anything at that point; it is completely optional. If the person wishes to go to their usual place of residence - the amendment says to be taken to another place the senior assessment clinician reasonably believes to be safe - then that will happen. It does not sound strong enough but …
Ms WALKER: What if, for instance, I gave you a scenario where somebody from Elcho Island or Groote Eylandt had come into Darwin; they have prearranged travel on the Airnorth flight going back on a certain date, but get into a spot of bother in Darwin and end up being picked up and taken in for assessment; therefore, they have missed their flight home. The best thing for that individual would be, upon release, to head back to their home, but they are back out on the streets of Darwin having been released from a facility.
I am trying to understand the level of obligation in assisting transport because it simply says ‘may’. There is actually no requirement that they ‘must’ do it.
This is release from assessment, not treatment. Forgive me, minister, I have that wrong. This is someone who has been brought in for assessment and has been released from that assessment; they are not going into treatment. The person in this process might have missed their flight back to their community.
Mr GUNNER: Clause 25 provides for if a person is not an adult. The bill recognises there are possibilities for people who are not adults being caught up in this system and then being released. There is a chance a 17-year-old child could be caught up in the process.
Mrs LAMBLEY: The usual place of residence may be in Africa. Are we obliged to send them back to Africa? Do you know what I mean? I suppose …
Ms WALKER: That is a bit of long shot, minister. I am thinking that the greater likelihood is, let us say in northeast Arnhem Land where people have restricted access to alcohol, but they may come into Darwin on a scheduled trip, get into a spot of bother, miss their flight home because they have been taken in for assessment, but they have been released from that assessment. There appears to be no obligation within this bill that requires that provision of transport. It can include children. It is unlikely but it could.
Mrs LAMBLEY: We would never include children. It would never, ever include children.
Mr GUNNER: The bill provides for the release of someone who is not an adult, so the bill recognises there is a chance - it might be rare - that a person who is not an adult could be caught up in this legislation and go through an assessment centre. It gives the power for that person who is not an adult - a minor - to be released. I appreciate it is rare, but the bill does recognise there is a chance it could happen.
Mrs LAMBLEY: As a part of this bill, the identification process with the police is tightened so a person is fully identified at the police station …
Mr GUNNER: Clause 25 says:
- If, while detained at an assessment facility, a person is found not to be an adult, a senior assessment clinician at the facility must, as soon as practicable, release the person from the facility.
Clause 25 releases someone who is not an adult. It makes complete sense; I can understand that.
Mrs LAMBLEY: They are not going to get to the assessment facility in the first place because they are a child.
Mr GUNNER: Your bill recognises there is a chance that might happen. I know what you are saying. It is unlikely, but …
Mrs LAMBLEY: All right. It would be a child protection matter. Anyway, okay, so …
Mr GUNNER: The issues that may arise in the courts we are talking to can affect somebody who is not a child as well. If you are coming in from Elcho Island – and, as we were briefed, in rural or remote areas, as you explained before, minister, if you reach that trigger point of three, four of five times, but cannot get to an assessment centre, the police will let you go.
There is a chance that people living remotely might have those triggers floating; they come into an urban centre. The first time they are caught the trigger goes because they are able to get to an assessment centre. They have pre-booked travel back to Elcho Island, which they miss because they are in the assessment centre. Under this provision they are released. There is no requirement on that assessment centre to get them back to Elcho Island, but they have missed their flight. They are left in Katherine, Darwin or wherever. It is not their fault they missed that flight as they have been picked up, and released from the assessment centre. They have been found not to meet the conditions to go to the three-month treatment. I think you understand what I have been saying. So long as they are out the front door …
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes, in that type of scenario we would definitely take them back to their usual place of residence, if that is where they want to go, or to a safe place. In policy, we would transport them. We would adhere to these two criteria. It leaves us that slight opportunity to make a discretionary call - must compel …
Mr GUNNER: Will it be in the guidelines? Would this be saying that is captured in the guidelines? The guidelines say if this situation occurs …
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes.
Mr GUNNER: When we see the guidelines it will be in there?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes.
Mr GUNNER: In the guidelines it can say ‘must’, but in the legislation it is ‘may’ because of the African possibility.
Mrs LAMBLEY: That is right, member for Fannie Bay.
Ms WALKER: Minister, if I could add to that as well? Transport is provided in other situations, for instance, when a person is being released from custody such as following court or on release from prison. These are people who have been in the justice system.
However, in these circumstances around release from an assessment period, these are people who have done nothing wrong, are not charged with anything, yet may find themselves high and dry and stranded.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes. I suppose another difference is they have been placed in protective custody and referred to the assessment centre. When released from protective custody, you are not necessarily transported anywhere. The door is open and you wander out is my understanding.
In most situations, we will take people where they want to go or arrange transport. However, there will be the odd case where that is not realistic.
Amendment agreed to.
New clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.20 standing in my name. The amendment reduces the time for the tribunal to make a decision from seven days to 96 hours or four consecutive days from the time of lodgement of the application by the senior assessment clinician.
As mentioned, I have taken on board comments from the legal sector, human rights, and other welfare groups that the length of time a person remained detained in an assessment facility awaiting a tribunal hearing was too long.
Mr GUNNER: Minister, you have made this amendment based on feedback from the critics. Essentially, in the feedback we have from the critics regarding how long is too long, they were asking if you could bring it from seven days to 24 hours. You have brought it from seven days to four days. If you have made a decision to reduce it, why not reduce it to the 24 hours they were asking for?
Mrs LAMBLEY: In reality it will take less than four days to assess most people to be processed through this system and for them to appear before the tribunal. The four days gives us a little flexibility around weekends. If someone is taken into protective custody on a Friday night, the tribunal will not necessarily meet on a Saturday or Sunday. It gives time to allow for that. It also gives the tribunal time to collect more information and preside for a little longer over cases where they require more information and they see it as a bit more challenging to make a decision.
I do not believe it was put to us that it be reduced to 24 hours - one day. Going from seven days to four was seen as a significant change and improvement.
Mr GUNNER: That mainly came from the legal advice we received. Again, I know comparisons are not always neat, but a magistrate can often make orders over the phone. Things can happen quickly.
Mrs LAMBLEY: We are not talking about a magistrate though.
Mr GUNNER: I know.
Mrs LAMBLEY: It is a three-person tribunal, which is a little harder to coordinate. These are maximum periods. We do not want to have people sitting around in limbo for eight days if it is not required. The sooner they get into treatment and on with their lives the better for everyone.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.21 standing in my name. Amendment 6.21 invites defeat of the existing clause 33.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 33 negatived.
New clause 33:
Mrs LAMBLEY: I move amendment 6.22 standing in my name. Amendment 6.22 contains the new clause 33 to be inserted.
The amendments to this clause are wording and structural changes suggested by the legal profession. The key change is to remove reference to the balance of probabilities and make it clear that if a mandatory treatment order is not made the tribunal must otherwise order the person’s release. New clause 33(b) also resolves a view that the former wording was skewed to decisions by the tribunal to making an order for treatment rather than considering the merits, or otherwise, of making an order.
Amendment agreed to.
New clause 33 agreed to.
Clauses 34 to 35, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 36:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.23 standing in my name. Amendment 6.23 invites defeat of existing clause 36.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 36 negatived.
New clause 36:
Mrs LAMBLEY: I move amendment 6.24 standing in my name. Amendment 6.24 contains the new clause 36 to be inserted.
The amendment to clause 36 is a consequential amendment flowing from the change in clause 31 to reduce the time frame for a decision of the tribunal from seven days to 96 hours. New clause 36 now provides that if the tribunal does not make an order within 96 hours, the tribunal is deemed to have made an order for the person’s release. This is concise and clear in the time frame, and manages any ambiguity about the decision and circumstances to release a person from assessment.
Amendment agreed to.
New clause 36 agreed to.
Clauses 37 to 41, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 42:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendments 6.25 standing in my name. Amendment 6.25 invites defeat of existing clause 42.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 42 negatived.
New clause 42:
Mrs LAMBLEY: I move amendment 6.26 standing in my name. Amendment 6.26 contains the new clause 42 to be inserted following defeat of the old clause.
Clause 42, which sits in Subdivision 3, applies to persons who have been detained and reassessed in an assessment facility as a result of a breach of an existing mandatory community treatment order - refer to process under new section 128(b) of the Police Administration Act. They are on existing community treatment orders.
The new clause 42 is a consequential amendment flowing from the change in clause 31 to reduce the time frame for a decision of the tribunal from seven days to 96 hours. New clause 42 provides that if the tribunal does not make a mandatory residential treatment order within 96 hours, the tribunal is deemed to have made an order for the person’s release.
The person’s existing mandatory community treatment order would continue on their release.
Amendment agreed to.
New clause 42 agreed to.
Clauses 43 to 53, by leave, taken together:
Ms WALKER: Madam Deputy Chair, I have a question around clause 51, which relates to appeals to local court.
Minister, the provision for appeal under clause 51, when read together with clause 113, is a little concerning. We anticipate most people appearing before the tribunal will not be represented by a lawyer, although sometimes they may have a departmental advocate. Given appeals are restricted to questions of law, the opportunity for a person subject to mandatory treatment orders to get legal advice about their position or to appeal a decision is severely restricted. A lay advocate cannot give legal advice, let alone legal advice on whether there is a point of law. It is also unlikely a lay advocate will have the capacity to raise a point of law at the tribunal hearing.
We are also concerned, through stakeholders that have contacted us, with the requirement that appeals refer to a question of law only. It is unclear whether this is intended to extend to questions and administrative review, including procedural fairness and reasonableness. This clause is much clearer than the equivalent provisions, for example, in the Mental Health Act.
In relation to that, I have some specific questions. What is the position in relation to the awarding of costs? What additional resources will be provided to legal services to ensure people have access to adequate legal representation? Will your agency be funding a duty lawyer service for the tribunal so people have access to legal representation?
Mrs LAMBLEY: To answer the last one first, we will not be providing a legal person to attend the tribunal hearings and represent the interests of people. We will be providing an advocate who may, as you have probably read, be someone with a legal background. However, they may be someone from a health background. This is not a judicial process as such; it is a civil tribunal so not technically a legal process. However, the implications from the decision could be considered legal.
In legal representation through an appeals process, people would be able to access a lawyer through the usual services of legal aid or a private solicitor. That might be out of the question for many people coming through this system.
No, we have not provided any additional costs to provide specific legal services in the case of representing people going before the tribunal or appealing. In costs associated with - are you saying if they were sued?
Ms WALKER: Where legal costs have been incurred such as if the person has been taken in for assessment?
Mrs LAMBLEY: No, we have not made provision for that either.
Ms WALKER: Minister, an advocate is not necessarily a legal person and there are duty lawyer services for some of the analogous tribunals; for mental health a duty lawyer service is provided. Under your bill, people in this system appear to be at a distinct disadvantage in access to legal representation.
Mrs LAMBLEY: In the case of people before the Mental Health Tribunal, the Department of Health does not provide funding or legal representation within that tribunal either.
Ms WALKER: They provide a duty lawyer?
Mrs LAMBLEY: No, not the Department of Health. The people requiring legal representation within the mental health system use legal aid or a private solicitor through a pro bono arrangement. This system is no different from the mental health system in that respect.
Mr GUNNER: Someone is paying the bill for that duty lawyer; it might be Justice. There is a payment for the provision of legal representation; it may not be your department meeting the costs. I understand what you are saying about this not being a criminal process, but the effect of it is that someone does go away for three months detention, so they are detained against their will.
It would seem that person would have the right to legal representation. The advice we have had from NAAJA and others is they cannot afford to do that. It would only be similar to what happens in the mental health situation where the bill is fronted for that duty lawyer. The question is, will that person have representation?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes, as I said, through the advocate we are funding. I know this puts pressure on legal aid services but, essentially, that will end up being the option available to people if they require legal representation going through this process.
Ms WALKER: Minister, we are talking about at least 800 people a year who may be going through that service. The legal services like NAAJA and CALAAS are simply not funded adequately to be able to provide legal representation to an additional 800 people who may be seeking it through this system. It seems to be inherently unfair.
Mrs LAMBLEY: It may, considering your perspective. This is a health service, a health program. Despite how people might like to couch it, it is not a punitive criminal process …
Ms WALKER: There is a big legal element to it.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Well …
Mr GUNNER: They are being held for three months against their will.
Mrs LAMBLEY: There is legislation that guides the treatment of these people, and it is mandatory; they will be held against their will …
Mr GUNNER: Yes, three months’ detention. There will be a few people who consider that punitive. While they are getting health treatment, a certain number of people will consider it punitive that they are being held for three months. I know exactly what you are saying about it being a health treatment, but they will be held against their will for three months.
At the point of that decision being made about whether they are held for three months or not, they should have some legal representation to ensure their rights are being respected.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Their rights will be respected in the fact that they are going before a tribunal of three people – legal, health and community representatives. They will have the option of using an advocate who will be there. Regardless of whether they are used or not, that person’s job will be to be available to each and every person going through the tribunal process.
It may not be satisfactory to some people in the community that they are not offered a solicitor at that point in time, but the whole process is about caring and ensuring these people are availed of mandatory treatment if they meet the eligibility ...
Ms WALKER: They may not quite see it as being taken into a caring environment, minister. I imagine many people would be quite alarmed and frightened. You have already said we are talking predominantly about Indigenous people. We have language and cultural barriers, and I imagine access to a legal aid service, should people require it, would be essential.
Mr GUNNER: It might be something you capture in your six month review, but it probably should be caught earlier. You may find if these people do not have access to legal representation issues will emerge from that. It is probably not a funding decision for your department, so it might be that you take on an advocacy role in Cabinet. People who go before this tribunal face a loss of liberty for three months. No matter how good the intentions and how much you consider it a health program, it is loss of liberty for three months. It should be considered that they get representation.
Mrs LAMBLEY: We are not denying them access to legal representation. They will have access to legal aid and, if resourcing of legal aid is an issue for legal aid, they need to take that up with ...
Mr GUNNER: Legal aid is resourced by you.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Not the Department of Health.
Mr GUNNER: The NT government.
Mrs LAMBLEY: They will have access to an advocate. It may not meet your satisfaction, but it is adequate. We are happy to start this initiative on that basis. If it turns out it is inadequate and there is a huge demand for legal aid services, we can address that problem further down the track.
Mr GUNNER: A question around the role of the advocate. One of the issues raised with us very early by NAAJA, and perhaps CAALAS as well, was one of the roles of the lawyer - this might be the role of the advocate and is why I am seeking clarification - would be not just at the first hearing, it would also be about visiting the facility and the client having ongoing care. Would the advocate be taking ongoing care beyond that first hearing of the tribunal?
Mrs LAMBLEY: The answer to that is no, the community visitor program would be doing that. I have spoken to staff from NAAJA about this issue and they have a very broad view of the role of a solicitor in this situation. In an ideal world where there are unlimited resources, having a solicitor not only represent you at a tribunal but follow you through that 12-week period would be fabulous. In reality, I do not believe many of these people will want or require it.
We have been told anecdotally through our consultation with the current residential alcohol rehab providers that the involuntary people they have in their facilities are coming through the corrections pathway and most of them, after a very short period of time, settle down and are quite happy to be there. They see it as a time to rest, contemplate and make the most of the health and welfare facilities available.
Let us see how it unfolds. If there is a significant demand for legal aid services then we will have to address that. We cannot deny people if there is a demand for legal services. They will have access to legal services; it just might not be on the scale some people expect.
Ms WALKER: Will the person in assessment or rehab have the right to have their legal representative visit them in assessment and rehab?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes, sure.
Clauses 43 to 53 agreed to.
Clause 54:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.27 standing in my name. Amendment 6.27 invites defeat of existing clause 54.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 54 negatived.
New clause 54:
Mrs LAMBLEY: I Move amendment 6.28 standing in my name. Amendment 6.28 contains new clause 54 to be inserted following the defeat of the old clause.
New clause 54 clarifies that not only must the senior treatment clinician admit and detain a person at a treatment centre, but specifies a person must remain at the treatment centre unless permitted to leave for a short period by agreement with the senior treatment clinician or through a change in their order status.
This new clause supports a changed offence provision in clause 72 which makes it an offence for a person to be absent from the centre by making it clear that being absent without authority, and intentionally, is an offence in that it clearly compels a person not to absent themselves. This provision was considered necessary as part of the drafting of the new clause 72 offence, which I will discuss in a moment.
Mr WOOD: Minister, would a person be allowed to leave a mandatory residential treatment centre under supervision to go hunting, crabbing or fishing?
Mrs LAMBLEY: I believe so, yes, if it was considered useful or appropriate.
Mr WOOD: I thought it might have been for a funeral or legal reasons, but there can be broad reasons for absence?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes. At Nhulunbuy, for example, the staff told me they take clients or patients to the oval. There is an oval down the road and they kick a footy around and other stuff. They go outside the centre for various reasons. Some are allowed to go shopping after a period of time.
Mr WOOD: I did not see the word ‘stuff’ in that section.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Sorry, I am getting tired. My language is deteriorating.
Amendment agreed to.
New clause 54 agreed to.
Clauses 55 to 67, by leave, taken together:
Mr GUNNER: Clause 62 says:
- The community treatment provider must notify the person and a senior assessment clinician if, at any time, the community treatment provider is of the opinion that the person no longer meets one or more of the criteria for a mandatory treatment order.
It is good news if you can be released early, but it notes they may then apply. Under what conditions might they not apply?
Mrs LAMBLEY: The information provided to the senior assessment clinician by the community treatment provider has to be tested. They need to assess whether to apply or not apply for a change to the treatment order. There is some discretion around the professional assessment made by the clinician.
Mr GUNNER: That is a check and balance on the community treatment provider?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes.
Mr GUNNER: Essentially, the grounds would be if the senior assessment clinician decides the person – they would be sober by that stage. How do you decide if someone is …
Mrs LAMBLEY: You go back to the original assessment criteria for the person being suitable for treatment, and if there has been some change in the person’s circumstances - health, status, or whatever - that might mean the senior assessment clinician might decide to apply for a revocation of the order.
Mr GUNNER: Essentially, the senior clinician would make a call on the person about whether they genuinely have met their target, criteria, or whatever it happens to be. In that instance it is not so much a judgment on the person but the provider about whether the provider has made the right call.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes, it could go either way. The person could be discharged sooner or …
Mr GUNNER: I read this as most likely being discharged sooner.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Right.
Mr GUNNER: Yes.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Or deemed no longer appropriate for treatment. There could be many scenarios. My guess is this would not happen frequently.
Ms WALKER: Madam Deputy Chair, I had a question in relation to clause 65, which is around the preparation of aftercare plans. Clause 65 states an aftercare plan must be prepared for a person who receives treatment under a mandatory treatment order and could be between three and six months. What aftercare services are currently available in urban centres and remote centres across the Territory?
Mrs LAMBLEY: There are some aftercare services available in most of the regional centres throughout the Territory – Darwin, Katherine, Tennant and Alice Springs. There is no doubt we will have to strengthen that part of the sector and put more resources into the existing aftercare services. Most of the existing residential rehab programs we are funding to provide our mandatory alcohol treatment services are currently providing aftercare services. Most of them have discharge planners - aftercare workers who work with other community services. They have a network which links up.
For example, in Tennant Creek they have different stages of rehabilitation. You go from a residential rehab program into a transitional housing situation, then into the community with community support.
We will be providing extra community-based Alcohol and Other Drug workers attached to remote health centres to support the clinical management and managing other health services. We will be enhancing additional skills development and support services through the AOD sector, for example, the CAAPS family program, BushMob bush skills, and FORWAARD, and we will be developing tailored individual plans.
Everyone who leaves will have to have an aftercare plan, which is like a discharge plan, and will be followed up by the AOD services in the community, both within the Department of Health and the non-government sector.
This is an area we have committed to strengthen in the coming years. Stage 1 is the very basic roll-out of this and where we are at now. Stage 2 will be the development of the specific purpose-built facilities which is what you expressed concern about before, member for Nelson, and the rolling out of more transitional care facilities.
Over the next three years, the whole landscape of rehabilitation and aftercare services will be much bigger and better than it is now. We are committed to that.
Ms WALKER: Given this new alcohol mandatory treatment starts on Monday, these aftercare services would need to be in place within a couple of months, I imagine. You said there are some aftercare services in regional area, but clearly in remote centres, perhaps other than where there is a public health clinic, there is very little there to support people with an aftercare plan.
Mrs LAMBLEY: That is correct at the moment. We have three months to augment many of these services because, obviously, the first lot of discharges from mandatory alcohol rehabilitation will not be until around October, so we have a little time. These services take some time to plan and establish.
Ms WALKER: They certainly do in these remote locations. I am trying to picture what it would look like. If you are contracting to an NGO to provide a service, obviously it is costly employing individuals, just in the great difficulties with housing you can offer them in the remote communities to employ people. Your chances of finding somebody on the community may be an option.
Clauses 55 to 67 agreed to.
Clause 68:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.29 and 6.30. These amendments to clauses 68(1) and 70 are consequential amendments that flow from the changes to clauses 11(1)(a) and 12(b) whereby mandatory treatment orders are now expressed in active language to require the person to ‘participate in’ treatment, rather than ‘receive’ treatment. This was a suggestion from the legal profession and has been debated already.
Amendments agreed to.
Clause 68, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 69:
Ms WALKER: I have a question around clause 69. Clause 69 is in relation to access to records. This clause enables certain persons to access the records of a treatment centre or a community treatment provider, and treatment providers may refuse on certain grounds.
My question is in relation to clause 69(2). Is it reasonable to refuse a person access to their entire record if only one part of that record relates to someone who may be adversely affected?
Mrs LAMBLEY: That is not the intent; it is access to information, not their entire medical record. People could have access to their record, withholding the part that might be sensitive or deemed potentially harmful to the person. This happens in all health areas. I worked in psychiatry years ago and there were some things considered not healthy for the person to read at times.
Ms WALKER: Are you saying, minister, there is provision for limited or restricted access to records?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes.
Ms WALKER: Thanks for clarifying that.
Clause 69 agreed to.
Clause 70:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.30 standing in my name.
Mr WOOD: Can I ask a question about that one, minister? Clause 70, charge for consumables - you have been quoting the legal people. Are the legal people still opposed to this clause?
Mrs LAMBLEY: The ones that lodged submissions were critical. When I first heard Vendale and CAAAPU charged $25 a day, I was a little surprised too. You do not expect these places to charge. However, when they explain, ‘This is what we do. People come in for treatment, voluntarily or involuntarily, and we provide a service. We think it is reasonable they pay a minimal amount of $25 a day.’ I think some of them charge $26 a day. That sounded reasonable, so that is how we came to this conclusion and decided to include it in the bill. I know some people will never accept it and felt it was draconian or – what was the word they used?
Mr GUNNER: Dickensian.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Dickensian, that is it.
Mr GUNNER: That is a good word. I know you do not like this bill being compared to anything in the corrections area, but if you are in prison you get access to free medical and dental care; it is only when you are working that you pay. Yet in this situation people are being made to pay. It seems illogical.
Mrs LAMBLEY: They will only be paying for board, not medical services. That could end up in the thousands and it is a medical service, so there is no expectation whatsoever that they pay for their medical treatment.
Mr GUNNER: The clause says ‘including medication’.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Most would be eligible for free medication. It is not an issue. I would think that all of them would be on some type of social security; but I will not assume that so let us say most.
The $25 a day is really food and perhaps basic toiletries or something. My view is reflected here. Why should they not contribute? That is, obviously, rather contentious.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 70, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 71 agreed to.
Clause 72:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.31 standing in my name. This is ‘offence to be absent from the treatment centres’. This amendment replaces the existing offence for absconding from a treatment centre with a new offence.
As I indicated publicly, the government is committed to ensuring the bill is fair and targeted at treating people with chronic drinking problems, rather than criminalising problem drinkers. I have taken on board concerns from community, human rights, and legal groups in relation to the offence in clause 72 which makes it an offence for a person to abscond from a treatment centre. I have now moved to amend this offence such that it is only an offence if a person has intentionally absconded three times from a treatment centre, other than in accordance with the act.
Mr GUNNER: You touched upon this earlier, minister. While we are on this clause, could you explain why it is not an offence to abscond from an assessment centre? Obviously we are not interested in criminalising the bill, but for consistency could you explain why it is an offence to abscond from a treatment centre but not an offence to abscond from an assessment centre?
Mrs LAMBLEY: When someone is in an assessment centre they have not been deemed suitable for mandatory alcohol treatment at that point so they are under no compulsion to be detained for 12 weeks of mandatory treatment.
However, if they are in a treatment centre they are, and they are required to stay for the 12 weeks. Absconding from an assessment centre will not be an offence; they will just be returned by the police. If they abscond from a treatment centre once they will be returned by the police, the second time they will be returned by the police and, on the third time it will become an offence.
Mr GUNNER: Why is it not an offence to fail to comply with a community mandatory treatment order?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Say it again. Why is it not an offence …
Mr GUNNER: This talks about the mandatory residential treatment order but not community treatment orders.
Mrs LAMBLEY: It is about security. The community treatment facilities will not be as secure. Their security is at a much lower level. Two different types of facilities will be providing similar services, or basically the same services, but one mandatory, one community.
Mr GUNNER: Essentially, if someone is sent to the community treatment centre, or receives a community mandatory treatment order, in making that decision you are deciding you trust that person to leave the premises. It is only when they go to a residential treatment centre that they have to be secured and, therefore, the penalty exists?
Mrs LAMBLEY: The community treatment centres will cater for the needs of people who are working, for example, who will come to the treatment centre at night or on the weekends. I guess people who go to the community treatment centres will be treated differently, with a lower level of security.
Mr GUNNER: The community treatment order obviously still has conditions. They are still meant to do certain things, but …
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes, if you do not turn up when you are …
Mr GUNNER: Then there is no penalty.
Mrs LAMBLEY: … required to be there, then you bring it back for review by the tribunal. Then they could be placed on a mandatory treatment order within a mandatory treatment facility.
Mr GUNNER: There is a power in the bill for the community treatment order to be revoked, and for the tribunal to then make it a residential treatment order?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes.
Mr WOOD: That answered another question. I was getting a bit worried what conditions would be in place there.
If a person is put in a mandatory residential facility - I thought the word ‘mandatory’ meant you would build a facility that is extremely difficult to leave. Will these facilities be secure? In other words, people will find it extremely difficult to leave?
Mrs LAMBLEY: All these facilities will have a level of security and people will be dissuaded from absconding. Will they be like a maximum security prison? No. Will they be like any type of prison? No. There will be no barbed wire or security to the level of a prison. People will be locked into the facility; there will be CCTV cameras and high fences. They will be informed, probably on a daily basis, of the consequences of absconding. It is in line with our philosophy that we are not criminalising drunks. We need to keep them there, but we are not going to lock them in as they would be in a prison.
The other thing we were told during the consultation process with the residential rehabilitation providers was if people want to get out, they can get out; they will do extraordinary things to jump the fence and get away. That is a reality of residential rehabilitation. There is involuntary rehabilitation in existence now and people escape and are brought back by the police. That is where we are at.
We will review that. If it means every other person who comes into mandatory rehab is absconding, then we have a big problem, and we will address that.
Mr WOOD: That is good. One of the reasons I said I would not vote is because I agree, you are trying not to have people go to prison for being drunk but, in a circuitous way, you are if the facility has poor security, you know someone wants to get out, and it is relatively easy to get out.
I have the plans for CAAAPU. They said they did not want a big, high fence, they wanted one like they have now. I believe even I could get over that one without too much help, so it does not give you the impression of security. You are saying you do not want rolls of barbed wire. You can have similar things occur at the secure care centres where it does not look too bad, but it is secure. My concern is if you do not make it secure enough, they will end up in prison.
I understand where you are coming from. I have to be convinced; I am a bit of a doubting Thomas. I might be convinced as you build them. My original problem was that I believe we should have built them and then put the legislation in. If I agree with you, I am to some extent approving some facilities which I do not believe are adequate. I am not saying they will be permanent but, at the present time, I do not believe they are adequate. My concern is if the facilities are not good enough, we will end up with people in prison. I will leave it at that. We could argue all night – oh, hang on, we are going all night.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, can we stick to the clauses and the amendments now? We are not even halfway through. I believe everyone is getting a little weary; so could we drive this a bit quicker?
Ms WALKER: Madam Deputy Chair, we have questions about clauses which are not necessarily in relation to amendments. This is what this process is about; it is the only opportunity we have. It is 1.45 am, but this is very important legislation and the opposition would like the opportunity to place on the record and raise concerns we have about various clauses of this bill, whether or not there is a committee stage amendment attached to it.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 72, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 73 to 78, by leave, taken together:
Ms WALKER: Madam Deputy Chair, I have some questions. Clause 74 is in relation to the administration of medication, and provides that a medical practitioner, or other qualified person acting on their direction can administer medication to a person in an assessment facility or treatment centre without their consent in the following circumstances: if it necessary to prevent a risk of imminent harm to the person or others, and it is the least restrictive intervention available to address that risk.
It also stipulates that the Chief Executive Officer may issue directions and guidelines about the administration of medication under this clause.
Given that today is Friday and this legislation will commence next Monday, what guidelines and directions have been prepared by the Chief Executive Officer in relation to the administration of medication? Is it possible to get a copy of these guidelines?
Mrs LAMBLEY: They have definitely been developed - not by the CEO, but they will be signed off by the CEO - in time for the assent of the bill.
Ms WALKER: Is it possible to obtain a copy of them, minister, when they are available?
Mrs LAMBLEY: When they are available, yes. There is no reason why you cannot have a copy.
Ms WALKER: Not just for us, but others would be interested in seeing them.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes, sure.
Ms WALKER: Does this section around administration of medication extend to the administration of chemical restraints - medications of a sedative nature?
Mrs LAMBLEY: No, the guideline does not allow for that.
Ms WALKER: I have another question in relation to clause 75. I have questions on clauses 75, 77 and 78.
Clause 75 is about the use of reasonable force. Again, it is around guidelines. What guidelines apply to the declaration of authorised persons by the CEO? Is it possible to get a copy of those guidelines as well?
Mrs LAMBLEY: The guidelines have been developed around what is already in use within the Department of Health around the use of force, and they can be provided also.
Ms WALKER: Thanks, minister. Why has this provision not been drafted to reflect the safeguards that exist in other legislations such as those contained in Part IIA of the Criminal Code Act?
Mrs LAMBLEY: I am not familiar with Part IIA of the Criminal Code Act. I have been advised that what we have here is consistent with the Part IIA of the Criminal Code Act regarding the authorised officers.
Ms WALKER: Thanks, minister. I have a question for you in relation to clause 77 which is in relation to power to search persons. This clause allows for a police officer, or authorised officer as appointed under clause 126, to search a person in an assessment facility or treatment centre.
While there is a requirement to keep a record of the exercise of the search power, there is no requirement to record the nature and quantity of any items which have been seized as a result of that search. Do you think it is good practice to allow searches to be conducted with potentially dangerous items, including drugs seized, but no requirement to record this?
Mrs LAMBLEY: There is a requirement to record what is seized in the operational guidelines. Given they had already been searched by the police before coming to an assessment facility or treatment centre, it is unlikely too much would be found. However, in the event things are seized they are recorded.
Ms WALKER: That is contained within the guidelines not the legislation itself?
Mrs LAMBLEY: That is correct.
Ms WALKER: Thank you.
I have one question around clause 78 dealing with search and seizure generally. The clause defines a frisk search and an ordinary search as defined in clause 69. It also requires that a search officer, in clause 70, be a person of the same sex and provides for how search officers can deal with seized items.
What advice has been provided by police on the development of these powers and what protocols or arrangements have been developed with police to ensure the safe custody of seized things?
Mrs LAMBLEY: These powers are consistent with other legislation including the …
Ms WALKER: There is then provision, even though it does not appear apparent …
Mrs LAMBLEY: Apparently, we have taken it from other acts so it is consistent.
Ms WALKER: And it is within guidelines, not within the act itself?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes.
Ms WALKER: Thank you, minister.
Clauses 73 to 78 agreed to.
Clause 79:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.32 standing in my name. This amendment is to fix a typographical error and place a full stop at the end of clause 79(3)(b) as clause 79(3)(c) is to be deleted in the next amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.33 to delete clause 79(3)(c) and remove the possibility for a person to be called upon to assist a police officer or authorised officer in the apprehension of a person under the act. This amendment is consistent with the government’s position that only police and authorised officers who hold certain qualifications and training should be able to apprehend people.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 79, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 80 to 89, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 90:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.34. This amendment removes a requirement for community visitors to visit assessment facilities and treatment centres at a reasonable time without notice, and allows them to now visit at any time.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 90, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 91 to 97, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 98:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.35 standing in my name. This amendment to clause 98(2)(a) is another example of a consequential amendment which flows from the changes to clauses 11(1)(a) and 12(b) whereby mandatory treatment orders are now expressed in active language to require the person to ‘participate in’ treatment rather than ‘receive’ treatment.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 98, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 99 to 119, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 120:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.36. This clause corrects a minor technical oversight in clause 120(1)(b) to ensure that not only is the secretary of the Department of Human Services given notice of both extensions of income management orders and reductions in their period of operation, it was always the intent that these orders should be reduced and extended based on the person’s individual circumstances.
It is noted that regardless of extensions, the maximum period for an income management order remains 12 months.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 120, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 121 to 122, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 123:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.37. Clause 123 currently creates two offences: to intentionally publish or broadcast the name of an affected person in a proceeding, or to intentionally publish or broadcast anything that may identify the affected person. The offences are punishable by up to 12 months imprisonment or 200 penalty units.
The amendment inserts new clause 123(4) which makes it clear that an affected person can give consent to a publication or broadcast and not be committing an offence by doing so.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 123, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 124 to 132, by leave, taken together:
Mr GUNNER: I have questions to 126, 127, 128, 129 and 130, but they all boil down to essentially the same question. Can I have a copy of the guidelines, the criteria, or the forms? I thought it might be easy if I made a bulk request for the guidelines, criteria, and forms in those clauses.
Mr WOOD: I was also going to ask a question on clause 127, the assessment facilities. Have you seen those assessment guidelines already?
Mrs LAMBLEY: No, I have not seen them.
Mr WOOD: This is the area that really concerns me. When a person goes into an assessment, they are in withdrawal. It is the first seven to 10 days that is the danger time, I gather, from talking to a doctor. I imagine there is a fair bit of risk if you are holding a person in this facility at that stage. They will need to be checked all the time. This is one of the facilities which has to be purpose built so people will not harm themselves because they are going through this withdrawal stage. Do you know if, in the guidelines, there are some rules that highlight how this facility must be built?
Mrs LAMBLEY: The clinicians have to be satisfied that the risks within a facility are minimal or, preferably, non-existent. You would not specify that within the building requirements. It is up to the clinicians to be directive in that way, I am advised.
Mr WOOD: I gather cells in watch houses are now designed in such a way as to reduce the chance of a death in custody?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes.
Mr WOOD: You are holding a person in custody who is withdrawing from an addiction. Will this facility be built with similar guidelines as if you held someone in a watch house cell? In other words, is it designed to reduce, as much as possible, the chances of a death in custody?
Mrs LAMBLEY: The purpose-built facilities will be completely designed and built to minimise harm. The department has gone through the medi-hotel and minimised any risk to people. For example, all of the rooms had two manholes in them. They no longer exist.
That is our priority; we do not want these people to hurt themselves. We want them to be safe, get through the detoxification period and start reaping the benefits of this opportunity.
I can reassure you, member for Nelson, we are on the same page. The new purpose-built facilities will be just right for this purpose.
Mr WOOD: I understand that, but my concern was they are not there now. We will be taking people into facilities which, if not built correctly, could put them at risk. Having spoken to a doctor who gave me some papers on this and explained that period of seven to 10 weeks is the dangerous period, I hope those facilities, even now, do not have that risk.
Mrs LAMBLEY: I have been assured of that, because that is our priority too. It has been an issue raised with us by many people. Of course, the Department of Health is extremely committed to safety within all their facilities, and these will be no different.
The Nhulunbuy facility – you described dongas being unsuitable or not desirable …
Mr Wood: Which one?
Mrs LAMBLEY: The CAAAPU dongas; that they are not particularly good. The Nhulunbuy facility is essentially a group of dongas and it has been quite serviceable and …
Ms WALKER: They are not dongas.
Mrs LAMBLEY: They are demountables, aren’t they? Demountables - some of them are.
Mr WOOD: This is mandatory, not voluntary; that is the reason I am concerned.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Maybe I imagined that. Anyway, the message is we are minimising harm at every point.
Clauses 124 to 132 agreed to.
Clause 133:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.38. This amendment removes the ability of senior treatment clinicians to delegate their powers. There might be a person who acts as a senior treatment clinician in their absence; they are not able to delegate their powers to others while operating in their role.
This amendment comes from concerns raised by the legal sector about the importance of ensuring serious statutory powers held by senior treatment clinicians do not become delegated and that the powers and responsibilities of a senior treatment clinician not be devolved. This is consistent with the structure of the provisions relating to senior assessment clinicians. We believe this is a sensible amendment consistent with the expectations of the position.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 133, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 134 agreed to.
Clause 135:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.39. This amendment replaces clause 135(3) with a new provision that has come about as a result of consultation with the legal sector and other groups. The legal sector suggested that in order to improve probity in the appointment of authorised officers, the Chief Executive requirements of authorised officers be published. I also sought that the CE be required to publish other information he considered appropriate for the performance of authorised officers’ functions.
Amendment agreed to.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.40. As mentioned, this amendment inserts a new clause 135(5). This new clause 135(5) will require the Chief Executive Officer to issue directions and specify the qualifications, training, and other appropriate performance requirements for authorised officers in the exercise of their functions.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 135, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 136 to 149, by leave, taken together, and agreed to.
New clauses 149A and 149B:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 6.41. This amendment inserts a new Division 1A with clauses 149A and 149B in Part 9 of the act which deals with consequential amendments.
The new clauses 149A and 149B amend the Coroners Act. They amend the definition of a person held in care in section 12(1) under the Coroners Act to include a person being assessed or treated under a residential treatment order under this act.
The effect of this is to make the death of such a person an automatic reportable death to the Coroner under the definition of a reportable death, paragraph (a)(vii), in section 12(1).
This amendment means that deaths that occur in a mandatory assessment or a secure residential treatment centre are reported to the Coroner in the same way as patients in custody under the Mental Health and Related Services Act
Mr GUNNER: My understanding of this amendment – and, obviously, we all hope this does not happen, but just for clarification - is it means it is a reportable death to the Coroner but it will not be considered a death in custody. It moves out of the death in custody category but still is reportable to the Coroner and dealt with.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes.
Amendment agreed to.
New clauses 149A and 149B agreed to.
Clauses 150 to 164, by leave, taken together:
Mr GUNNER: I have some comments to clause 157. Clause 157 removes the SMART Court order and the BAT orders but keeps in place the ID and scanning systems. It means the power still exists in this act for there to be an ID system at the point of sale.
Mrs LAMBLEY: You are right, member for Fannie Bay. The draft bill includes provisions for repeal of the SMART Court and the Alcohol Reform (Prevention of Alcohol-Related Crime and Substance Misuse) Act as follows.
The Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Bill repeals the requirement in sections 31A(2)(a) and (ab) of the Liquor Act and for the minister to establish an identification system to check whether a person is subject to a SMART Court order or notice or order under the Alcohol Reform (Prevention of Alcohol-Related Crime and Substance Misuse) Act. This formally repeals the identification system knows as the Banned Drinker Register.
Mr GUNNER: That is where we might disagree. If most people were asked to define the Banned Drinker Register, they would say at the point of sale …
Mrs LAMBLEY: No, hold on …
Mr GUNNER: … you have to show ID. My understanding is while you are repealing the SMART Court orders and the BAT orders, you are still leaving in place the ID system.
Mrs LAMBLEY: I will continue. The bill leaves in place the other provisions of section 31A of the Liquor Act which gives a minister the discretion to establish an identification system for other purposes, including to check if a person is prohibited from purchasing alcohol as a part of their sentence, bail, parole or other orders. This allows some flexibility into the future for the government to re-establish the identification system for other purposes.
In permit towns such as Nhulunbuy, identification systems have been developed as an administrative tool used for identity confirmation and permit management. They have been established through the alcohol management plan process, and existed before the creation of the Banned Drinker Register. Nothing in the bill changes the ability for these arrangements to be used as part of identity checking or permit management. Licensees can also be required, through licence conditions, to establish appropriate identification systems.
We wanted to leave this in place. It was an initiative that came about prior to the Banned Drinker Register and we see it as a continuing tool we want to keep in our tool bag for other circumstances that will evolve through the development of alcohol management plans and the continuing implementation of alcohol management plans.
Mr GUNNER: We welcome the retention of the ID system, and that it remains a viable option in the bill. On our side, we guess it is only a matter of time before the APOs become tied to the ID system. This is a question of politics and a name game but, essentially, the Banned Drinker Register will come back under a different name.
People’s understanding of the Banned Drinker Register is that at the point of sale you show ID to purchase alcohol, and the bill leaves those powers in place. We welcome retention of the ID system in the bill.
Ms WALKER: Madam Deputy Chair, I add to what my colleague, the member for Fannie Bay has said in that regard. Let us not call it a BDR; let us find another name for it but recognise it as an incredibly effective tool.
During my contribution to debate I spoke about recognising 70% of all alcohol sales in the Northern Territory are through takeaway liquor outlets. They are uncontrolled in that people can buy two or three cartons, or bottles and bottles to consume. Compared with licensed premises where people are drinking in a controlled environment, that is somewhat different. I welcome the fact this most effective tool - the most effective tool in the tool box, according to police in dealing with alcohol-related issues - remains. It is a positive.
Clauses 150 to 164 agreed to.
Clause 165:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendments 6.42 and 6.43. This is to insert new section 128A into the Police Administration Act. The amendments circulated replace section 128A(1)(d) in the Police Administration Act. The amendments make the protective custody trigger absolutely clear. Consultation with NT Police raised questions as to whether the clause, as originally drafted in the bill, was sufficiently clear and non-ambiguous in relation to the number of protective custody incidents required to form the trigger.
I have taken on board the comments of NT Police. The clause has been redrafted to remove any confusion that it is three protective custody incidents which leads to the trigger for entry. In doing so, the officer of Parliamentary Counsel found a way to incorporate the definition of the prescribed period within which the trigger must be met. That has led to the consequential change to section 128A(8).
Mr WOOD: My question is not so much about that, although I do not particularly support the clause. We were discussing earlier what would happen if a police officer was picking up people at the beginning of this process, but there was no facility for that to happen. Am I right in saying, under proposed new section 128A - which is clause 165 of the bill – if I read section 128A(7) correctly it says:
If either of the following apply, the person must be dealt with in accordance with this Division:
Proposed new section 128A(7)(b) says:
- ... there is no capacity at a suitable assessment facility for the person to be assessed or at a suitable treatment centre for the person to be treated.
The part I cannot quite understand is where it says:
- … the person must be dealt with in accordance with this Division:
Somewhere it explains that proposed new section 128A(7)(b) means you cannot hold the person. Is it the Division of the Police Administration Act? Can you tell us what, in the Police Administration Act, lines it up with proposed section 128A(7)(b)?
Mrs LAMBLEY: The Police Administration Act describes how a protective custody order would finish in the usual way it finishes, which is the person is detained until such time they are deemed as in a state they are no longer a threat to themselves or anyone else.
Mr WOOD: At that point they would let them go?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Correct.
Mr WOOD: Okay, that is fine. That is the part I did not understand.
Amendments agreed to.
Clause 165, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Deputy Chair, I take this opportunity to thank the committee for their indulgence in incorporating these amendments to the bill. I have undertaken wide consultation with various stakeholders, both before and after its introduction, through written submissions and face-to-face discussions with a range of organisations across the Territory.
I understand this is significant legislation for the parliament. Our government has a mandate from the Northern Territory people to take decisive action to treat those who are in most need of treatment impact on their abuse of alcohol.
In this government’s view, this legislation is necessary if we are serious about putting in place a circuit breaker for those people who are chronic and public abusers of alcohol.
Bill to be reported with amendments.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the report be adopted.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 14 Noes 7
Ms Anderson Ms Fyles
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Conlan Ms Lawrie
Mr Elferink Mr McCarthy
Ms Finocchiaro Ms Manison
Mr Giles Mr Vatskalis
Mr Kurrupuwu Ms Walker
Mrs Lambley
Ms Lee
Mr Mills
Mrs Price
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Alcohol Rehabilitation): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
PENALTIES AMENDMENT (MISCELLANEOUS) BILL
(Serial 32)
Continued from 15 May 2013.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, members will be very pleased to hear that we will be in and out of this one very quickly. The Penalties Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2013 is legislation that continues the reforms to penalty arrangements that were started by the previous Labor government.
The main purpose of the bill is to convert the remaining dollar-based penalties to penalty units. This is, of course, common sense, and recognises the inefficiency involved with continually amending legislation to increase dollar values to deal with inflation. Essentially, these changes will bring our system in line with best practice, making our approach consistent with the arrangements in many other jurisdictions. These changes will impact across the statute book and comprehensively amend penalties as listed in the bill. The bill also makes allowance for penalty increases.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, the opposition supports this bill.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice) (by leave): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time
SENTENCING AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 34)
(Serial 34)
Continued from 16 May 2013.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, unlike the previous bill, the Sentencing Amendment Bill was something of a debacle. The Attorney-General bungled his original sentencing legislation and has had to come back into parliament today to fix his mistakes.
The legal profession, including judges and magistrates, told the Attorney-General his legislation was faulty, but he ignored them. They were right, he was wrong. In his second reading speech he said:
- I am grateful these issues have been ventilated by the court.
The bungled legislation passed in February this year. In January, the Attorney-General was trying to silence the Chief Magistrate, saying she should not be commenting on policy. This quote from the Attorney-General was published in a national newspaper:
- If the Chief Magistrate wishes to influence policy she has the opportunity to stand for parliament.
Perhaps he should have focused less on silencing her and more on listening to her and her colleagues. This issue highlights a point everyone in the legal profession has been making: this government does not listen. The amendment we have before us this evening proves not listening means you get it wrong and have to fix your errors.
However, the government has not learnt, as we have seen with the alcohol bill that has just passed through this House where the critics were dismissed as whingers. There was no consultation with the legal community before the alcohol bill was introduced into parliament. The result was 43 amendments, with the legal community saying it is still flawed. The government has ignored them yet again.
I am tipping that the Minister for Alcohol Rehabilitation will face the same humiliation as the Attorney-General and have to run back into parliament in the coming months with a, ‘we got it wrong amendment bill’ such as the one before us right now.
The essence of the Attorney-General’s bungling is he got it wrong on previous convictions in relation to mandatory sentences. The Attorney-General’s second reading speech outlined his bungling. The amendments change the act so the court must take into account previous convictions no matter whether they occurred before or after the commencement of this legislation.
The opposition does not support the original bill. We stated our reasons during that debate in February. Our position has not changed, hence, we will not be supporting amendments to a bill we do not support.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the legal community for pointing out to the Attorney-General that he got it wrong. While the approach to the alcohol bill proves the government has not learnt from its mistakes, I encourage the legal community to continue to scrutinise the legislation this government passes, even though it continues to refuse to listen to them. I am sure our legal community will continue to do so. As much as the Attorney-General may plead for them to stay quiet, they will not be silenced.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, too cute by half. The quote she is attributing to the magistrate had nothing to do with this legislation, if memory serves me. She keeps saying I am trying to silence the Chief Magistrate - I cannot and could not if I wanted to - in the same way I am accused of trying to gag the Auditor-General. I cannot; it cannot be done because of the way the structures work. This is fanciful stuff.
What the lower court highlighted for this government was a possibility to interpret the language in a certain way. This bill does nothing more than tighten up the language. They raised that possibility as a result of McMillan v Pryce, Northern Territory Supreme Court Reports 1997 at 83. They made reference to a decision which was a 2:1 majority, the majority being Justices Martin and Mildren, with Angel in dissent in that case. It dealt with how you read down this type of legislation. It is a matter of refined legal argument.
I note that with all the advice the opposition received in relation to this they did not mention this issue once during debate. If I got it wrong, equally they got it wrong in the same fashion. However, we understand the politics ...
Ms Walker: No, you are the Attorney-General, it is your responsibility.
Mr ELFERINK: You are the one getting all the legal advice from people. The legal advice you are getting is, by the way, often wrong.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, as far as we, on this side of the House, are concerned, this is dealing with a remote issue. We are more than happy to make these adjustments so we can make the mandatory sentencing of offenders who commit serious assaults a matter of course in the Northern Territory.
Before I sit down, if the opposition objected to this legislation why did they not vote against it? Because you did not want to be seen as weak in the public domain. As usual, the each-way bet.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice) (by leave): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 13 Noes 7
Ms Anderson Ms Fyles
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Conlan Ms Lawrie
Mr Elferink Ms McCarthy
Ms Finocchiaro Ms Manison
Mr Giles Mr Vatskalis
Mr Kurrupuwu Ms Walker
Mrs Lambley
Ms Lee
Mr Mills
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
Motion agreed to.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016