2013-03-26
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received the following Commonwealth Day Message 2013 from Her Majesty the Queen dated 10 March 2013:
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received from Her Honour the Administrator message No 5 notifying assent to bills passed in the February sittings of the Assembly.
Madam SPEAKER: I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of very bright, exceptional Year 5/6 students from Humpty Doo Primary School, accompanied by Ms Katie Jensen and Ms Wendy Tate. Also, there are equally bright and delightful Year 5/6 students from Jingili Primary School accompanied by Ms Vivienne Chellew. Welcome, on behalf of honourable members, and I hope you enjoy your time at Parliament House.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I table a copy of the Administrative Arrangements Order signed by Her Honour the Administrator on 20 March 2013. I advise the Assembly that on 20 March 2013 Her Honour the Administrator made the following appointment of ministers of the Northern Territory of Australia:
Adam Graham Giles - Chief Minister; Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services; Minister for Corporate and Information Services; Minister for Trade; Minister for Economic Development (Major Projects); Minister for Asian Engagement; and Minister for Transport.
David William Tollner – Treasurer; Minister for Business; Minister for Employment and Training; and Minister for Defence Liaison and Defence Industry Support.
Johan Wessel Elferink - Attorney-General and Minister for Justice; Minister for Public Employment; Minister for Correctional Services; and Minister for Statehood.
Robyn Jane Lambley - Minister for Health; and Minister for Alcohol Rehabilitation.
Peter Glen Chandler - Minister for Education; Minister for Housing; and Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment.
Willem Rudolf Westra van Holthe - Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries; Minister for Mines and Energy; Minister for Land Resource Management; and Minister for Essential Services.
Alison Anderson - Minister for Children and Families; Minister for Regional Development; Minister for Local Government; and Minister for Women’s Policy.
Matthew Escott Conlan - Minister for Central Australia; Minister for Tourism and Major Events; Minister for Sport and Recreation; Minister for Racing; Minister for Parks and Wildlife; and Minister for Arts and Museums.
Peter Donald Styles - Minister for Infrastructure; Minister for Multicultural Affairs; Minister for Senior Territorians; and Minister for Young Territorians.
I further advise that the member for Port Darwin remains the Leader of Government Business. The Government Whip is the member for Drysdale, Ms Finocchiaro.
Madam Speaker, I table the arrangements order.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the member for Sanderson, Mr Styles, be discharged from the Public Accounts Committee and that the member for Stuart, Mrs Price, be appointed to the committee in his stead.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the routine of business for the Assembly be reordered in the following manner:
(1) Prayers
(2) Questions
(3) Ministerial Statements
(4) Government Business – Notices and Orders of the Day
(5) Notices
(6) Petitions
(7) Government Business - Notices and Orders of the Day
(8) Papers
(9) Consideration of committee reports and government responses and Auditor-General’s report
(10) Discussion pursuant to Standing Order 92 (Matter of Public Importance)
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I seek leave of absence for the member for Stuart for later today, tomorrow and Thursday for personal reasons.
Leave granted.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I seek leave of absence for the member for Fannie Bay for today, tomorrow, and Thursday for personal reasons. I advise the House that the acting Opposition Whip will be the member for Casuarina who, accordingly, will take that location in the Chamber.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I advise the acting Whip we will organise a pair for the members absent.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, as you can see, I have allowed the ABC television crew into parliament to film the beginning of today’s proceedings, but they will not be here for Question Time.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent this Assembly from censuring the Chief Minister for:
his cowardly knifing of the former Chief Minister, Terry Mills, while he was overseas representing the Territory
becoming an illegitimate Chief Minister by ignoring that Territorians voted for Terry Mills as Chief Minister only seven months ago
the damage to the reputation of the Northern Territory caused by his actions
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, the government will reluctantly be accepting this censure motion because it is one of the most serious motions that can be brought before a House. However, could we ensure, at least on this occasion, it is properly drafted and signed?
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, Leader of Government Business. Opposition Leader.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, yes, it is written, signed and will be distributed. I recall many occasions in this Chamber the opposition writing as they were talking. It is normal, but not in your world, is it, John? We will get on with the censure motion ...
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition Leader, please …
Ms LAWRIE: Member for Port Darwin.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Motion agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move censure of the Chief Minister for:
his cowardly knifing of the former Chief Minister, Terry Mills, while he was overseas representing the Territory
becoming an illegitimate Chief Minister by ignoring that Territorians voted for Terry Mills as Chief Minister only seven months ago
the damage to the reputation of the Northern Territory caused by his actions
the damage he has been done to the business community in the Northern Territory, and
the lies that have led to lost job opportunities for Territorians.
Madam Speaker, I now speak on the motion. It is being distributed to the attendant right now. I will pass the signed motion. If I can have a copy passed back to me it would be great.
Mr Conlan: Forgot to keep a copy.
Ms LAWRIE: No, I did not forget. They want the signed motion. Thank you, Matt; it is good to see you back from your junket.
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: Sorry, it was the grub, not you.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: You will be forever defined by what you said to a woman at the mobile polling booths, just as the member for Braitling will be forever defined by his actions in knifing Terry Mills, the elected Chief Minister of the Northern Territory for seven months. This is unprecedented. This cowardly and despicable act has not occurred in any other Australian parliament.
You have gone quiet over there. Perhaps you feel the sense of shame you have brought upon yourselves and the Northern Territory by your actions. Perhaps you do not want to listen to this, but it is what the people of the Northern Territory are saying. They find it despicable. Whether someone liked or agreed with Terry Mills to a person they have found your actions, member for Braitling, the illegitimate Chief Minister, cowardly and despicable …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The terms of a censure motion are clear. She is making allegations in relation to conduct. There is nothing in the censure motion about the Chief Minister’s legitimacy, therefore, she should be …
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, it says ‘becoming an illegitimate Chief Minister’.
Mr Elferink: Okay, yes there is, look at that.
Ms LAWRIE: And the word ‘cowardly’ is in there as well.
Mr Elferink: I saw that.
Ms LAWRIE: Member for Port Darwin, if you want me to repeat it I will because you, obviously, have difficulty with it. I will go through it again.
The cowardly knifing of the former Chief Minister, Terry Mills, while he was overseas representing the Territory, becoming an illegitimate Chief Minister by ignoring Territorians voted for Terry Mills as Chief Minister only seven months ago. Also, the damage to the reputation of the Northern Territory caused by his actions, the damage he has done to the business community in the Northern Territory, and the lies that have led to lost job opportunities for Territorians.
I was talking about the cowardly and despicable act and actions of the member for Braitling. I was pointing out that regardless of what people felt and thought about Terry Mills as Chief Minister, his reign of seven months and the pain being inflicted on Territorians to a person - they find the actions cowardly and despicable. Why could this egomaniac not temper his ego and ambition for a few more days, put it in the box, hold it down and deal with it as a party wing when Terry Mills was back on Northern Territory turf so we did not heap insult onto one of our most dear and respected relationships - the nation of Japan and the company which has invested $32bn in our nation’s second largest major project in the Northern Territory?
Why do companies invest $32bn? They did so because the Northern Territory, in those days, provided an environment of certainty. Go back to just over a year ago when chairman Kuroda was asked by media, on the announcement of the final investment decision on the Ichthys project, why they made the decision to bring the project to Darwin and invest $32bn. His answer, in his inimitable style, was clear - certainty.
We have displayed the opposite of certainty under the Country Liberal Party and the way it has behaved in seven months. It has been seven months of infighting and brawling - public brawls that spill over to disgusting behaviour and descriptions of each other. Alison Anderson described the member for Braitling as ‘a little boy’ and went on a rant about ‘the little boys’ in the party wing. Those little boys now lead the Northern Territory - unelected, illegitimate, but now leading the Northern Territory.
If you look at their actions of just a week, you shudder. There is the three gigalitre water licence grant to their mate, the CLP candidate for Lingiari. There is the action of sacking the Chief Executive Officer of Power and Water and the entire Power and Water board - a board made up of independent industry and business experts - and installing their old mate, John Baskerville, and some bureaucrats.
These actions will define the style of leadership, and hurt Territorians in time to come. They like to pretend they are a united team and it is okay Alison Anderson described the Chief Minister as ‘a little boy’; they are good mates and friends. Somehow, Peter Chandler sitting behind Adam Giles, who has been a staunch supporter of Terry Mills from get go, is in this parliament because of the support of Terry Mills and sitting behind Adam Giles is okay. We have the great mates, Dave Tollner and Adam Giles, the team that has been undermining Terry Mills’ leadership for years. They admitted as much on the 7.30 Report when interviewed by Leigh Sales. Adam Giles admitted on the 7.30 Report he had been unhappy for years with the leadership of Terry Mills. Those of us in politics, in this very small Chamber of 25 people, have heard, watched, and seen the clear and calculating way Adam Giles and Dave Tollner have been undermining Terry Mills for years.
However, it did not quite work out the way they wanted or planned. And herein lies the rub; the problem they have going forward. The plan had been that big Dave would be Chief Minister and ‘the little boy’, his mate, would be deputy. That had been the plan - that is the way it has always been. To their mates in the old guard of the CLP, that had been the plan. However, something changed.
Those of us who watch politics carefully can pretty well pinpoint the time it changed. That was with that final straw of bad behaviour - Dave throwing the Cabinet books at Terry Mills’ head inside the Cabinet room for Budget Cabinet. That was a moment in the CLP when his own colleagues wondered if they could trust a leadership position to someone who behaves in such a violent and aggressive manner as that. There was word the police were going to be called to that Budget Cabinet. That was a moment of change. However, it does not change the person, does it? It does not change the unbridled leadership yearning of Dave Tollner. Even on the weekend after his mate became Chief Minister - the job he coveted and had set up over a few years - big Dave was at the footy telling people, ‘Do not worry, mate, I will be the Chief Minister’. I was gobsmacked when person after person told me what you were saying. I thought, ‘Can’t this man contain himself even the weekend after?’ Unbelievable!
That is why the instability will continue. Apart from the fact there are still clear divisions and factions within the members opposite, they have deep irreconcilable differences which can be seen after a seven-hour meeting of tearing each other apart; and by all accounts, shouting and threats being made. Accounts have come leaking from many of them. Several leak information. It is unbelievable! You get a pretty detailed description of what goes on.
These actions define people. The knifing of Terry Mills while in Japan, cowardly and despicable, will define Adam Giles forever because the majority of people do not know who he is. How often am I asked, ‘Adam who? Who is he? What has he done? What is he like? What is he going to be like as Chief Minister?’ People do not know him. You had to run an advertisement during the Wanguri election to explain his name and title. You knew he did not have the recognition. However, he is there, ‘the little boy’ as described by the member for Namatjira, Alison Anderson …
Ms Lee: Nobody knows you either.
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection from the member in hiding. Member for Arnhem, come out of hiding. Give an interview to the media today. Clear your name of the allegations of corruption that are hanging over your head. Why do you not go further and clear the name of your brother, Preston Lee, who you have publicly stepped away from …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We are aware of the Leader of the Opposition’s penchant for using this House as a cover for slander and liable. However, nothing in this censure motion refers in any way to a member other than the Chief Minister. I ask that she be restrained from her slanderous and libellous comments and stick to the matter before the House.
Ms Lawrie: It is a censure motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition Leader, if you could direct your comments through the Chair as well, please.
Mr Elferink: Where does it say ‘member for Arnhem’ in this?
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I was picking up on an interjection by the member for Arnhem. She brought herself into the debate so became part of the debate. This is a House of debate.
Member for Port Darwin, I know you will spend your entire parliamentary career trying to shut down the opposition in any way you can. Member for Port Darwin, this is a democracy; this is not the world in which you would like us to operate. You have not quite got your way in guillotining the estimates of the parliament, but I know you are still pursuing it …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Leader of the Opposition is so clearly ill-prepared for this debate she is finding any rabbit warren to run down to make up the 20 minutes. Make out your argument and sit down!
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Ms LAWRIE: The truth hurts, member for Port Darwin.
When referring to the continued instability of the members opposite and the fact you have members who are irreconcilably divided - they cannot come together after seven deep, long hours of insults, shouting and swearing. What type of behaviour is that for a government?
Putting that to one side, who do we have? We still have the member for Port Darwin, who will not set aside his own ambitions to be Chief Minister. We still have the member for Fong Lim, who will not put aside his ambitions to be Chief Minister. We have the friends - the only ones who can say, hand on heart, are the friends - of Terry Mills who are not going to forgive quickly, easily or lightly because friends do not forgive when something so despicable and cowardly has been done to their friend.
I could not believe it when Adam Giles, after having knifed Terry Mills while the Chief Minister was in Japan, publicly said in one of the first statements, ‘Terry Mills is my friend’. Why would you start your career lying? Why would the first thing you say to the public be so patently a lie? Could you not even pretend to say something people could believe? Could you not, with a shred of honesty, say,’ I made no secret of the fact I did not like the style of leadership. I challenged last week and have challenged again and succeeded’. To lie and describe Terry Mills as a friend - the public can see through these lies because they are so blatant.
In the notion of mates, you on the other side would probably struggle given your internal relationships. Mates do not treat their friends like that. Mates do not knife their friend when they are overseas on business representing the Northern Territory. If you were even slightly a friend you would have given the man a shred of dignity and let him return to the Northern Territory and be on Territory soil. If he was your friend or mate, you would have shown him the names you were gathering. Do not gather the complete list - you knew you had the numbers. Pull that truck up, but you did not. You were so blinded by your ego and ambition you did not care what you did, who you did it to, and who felt the impact of your folly.
Territory businesses - the same businesses Terry Mills was representing in the meeting and talking about local business and local jobs - are shaking their head. They are very concerned at the behaviour of this government, the instability of the past seven months, the uncertainty this environment has created in the Northern Territory, and the shifting, changing and moving of ministerial posts. Seven months, four ministerial reshuffles, three Treasurers - and you have the unmitigated gall to blame the delay of the budget on the previous Labor government?
The figures in your statement today, Treasurer, are the same figures that appeared in the pre-election fiscal outlook. You have known those figures since August. They are a slight improvement on the published May budget figures of 2012, yet you have the gall to blame delay of the budget on the previous Labor government.
Grasp that people are sick and tired of being lied to - at least understand that about the way you are governing. Grasp they can see through the lies and are sick and tired of it. Regardless of their politics, Territorians are disgusted with the behaviour of the CLP government. CLP card-carrying members are disgusted with the behaviour of their own government. You wonder why I say this. They tell me.
Business people are appalled. Whether they are small, medium or large businesses, they are appalled at the behaviour of this government. They are desperate for certainty and for the pain to be stemmed. Businesses are downsizing or running smaller shifts to stay afloat - it is very real out there. You have taken the fastest growing economy in the nation and gone about crippling the domestic activity of the economy. It is an insane way to begin a four-year government.
They rant and rave about doing all these things - increasing power and water tariffs because of debt, which they did without evidence. They increased power and water prices without a shred of evidence. There was no report in the public domain about why you needed a 30% increase in power. Then they changed it to 20% and expected us to be delighted. Well, 20% for a family is still a $1200 increase that year, and then you add 5% year-on-year after that. That ends up being about $130 more than the $2000 people were going to be stung with. You have made it worse. Work that out, Dave. You will need someone to help you with it, but work that one out. Unbelievable!
Then, insult on injury, you will scrap the one thing everyone says works for the Territory: the concession scheme for our seniors, pensioners and carers. You will scrap it and means test it.
That was introduced by a previous CLP government for a good reason; we wanted to recognise our seniors and keep them in the Territory because they are a vast and valuable investment for the Territory. They provide so many countless hours of voluntary work which keeps the fabric of our society humming and vibrant. They pass on their wisdom and knowledge to the youth of the Territory. A society without our valued seniors is a sad indictment of a society. Through your meanness you want to drive them out because they cannot afford to live here. Those concessions are keeping our seniors in the Territory, even though you have been busy driving up the cost of living.
We have always had our cost of living impact upon society. Tyranny of distance and cost of freight are the realities - people understand that - but government is there to find the ways and means to ease the burden or ease the squeeze, to use your words. You have been squeezing the hell out of Territorians since coming to government, and continue to do so …
Mr Tollner: Push it on to the next generation and their kids. You are disgusting!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Fong Lim, who believes the way to win a debate is to be the person who shouts the loudest. Big Dave, bring it on. Spend the next however long you are in that chair shouting at me. I am not going anywhere and will be here to tell you how wrong you are getting it. On behalf of Territorians, the voice of opposition will not be silenced no matter how difficult and uncomfortable that makes you.
When you talk about the debt - Delia’s debt, unsustainable debt - suddenly, because of the knifing of Terry Mills, the government could afford 20% in one year instead of 30% it said it must put on power and water price hikes otherwise we would be bankrupt. Where is the justification for the change in figures? Nothing. The old boys they paid $1m for six months have gone. How much did their accommodation come to? Was it $1000 a week in high-rise apartments on the Esplanade?
Do not worry, even with the changes to the Estimates process - ripping out the democratic Estimates process we have - you will get these as written questions on notice and will have to answer. You will have to pretend to be accountable and transparent even though you make decisions like giving your mate, Tina MacFarlane, three gigalitres of water without plan, without due process, and after she lost a court battle.
You got the numbers while Terry Mills was overseas. People have asked me, ‘What was the change?’ I said, ‘Well, they tested the numbers over seven hours and got down to who was with who’. You do not spend seven hours locked in a room shouting at each other without really knowing who the swingers are. The NT News was pretty accurate in it description - they wanted to break up the bush coalition numbers and a couple of swingers.
You heard what happened to the swinger. He punished Lia. In the end, he did not need Lia. Six days in Cabinet and the member for Drysdale was unceremoniously dumped from Cabinet. How humiliating for her. Did you really need to do that? Did you need to be quite so harsh on her? You have no core decency in the way you go about business. It is vengeful the way you approach your work, and we see the marks of vengeance right through your government’s behaviour. Territorians see it and do not like it.
We have seen three Treasurers. When is the member for Port Darwin going to understand they really do not want him to be Treasurer because three times now he has been dumped as Treasury spokesperson? When are you going to get it, member for Port Darwin? They do not want you in that role. You have been dumped three times. You were dumped for the member for Katherine, in opposition. You were dumped for the member for Araluen - with very little experience to put it nicely - and you were dumped for the member for Fong Lim after six days of your own personal, private joy gone. Where were you when it happened? Interstate.
They did not treat you with any decency yet you will rant, rave and shout on their behalf because you are still ambitious. You still want to be Chief Minister and can see, by the behaviour of the Chief Minister today, he is a man without substance. An opportunity for him to deliver vision and substance became his own normal bully-boy theatrics of shouting and denigration.
The disloyalty shown was incredible. Regardless of what people felt about the way the government was behaving, Terry Mills was someone most people found fairly inoffensive. They did not like the decisions he led in government. You were all very happy to let him take the blame or - I have not spent any time dwelling on this person in the sad and sorry saga - the Deputy Chief Minister and Treasurer, who finally found enough was enough and walked out on Cabinet on the Monday. She had copping the blame to the teeth. The member for Araluen had done the yards and was sick and tired of copping the blame and getting nothing in return. The member for Araluen walked. She was kept inside the tent with a Cabinet post. She knows too much, she could spill too much.
One wonders when Terry Mills will tell his side of the story. It has not happened yet. It will be a very uncomfortable period for the CLP should Territorians hear what Terry Mills has to say about the seven inglorious months of back stabbing. How long did he get before you started undermining him? Was it the victory night? Was it that weekend?
For those of us so closely immersed in politics, what became patently evident very early in the CLP government was he was being set up. I will call him the fall guy. This is the tale; this is what I have seen unfold and where the mess comes back to. Member for Braitling, you and your unbridled ambition have much to answer for. You ran around the remote regions of the Northern Territory – the bush - promising everyone everything to win votes, seats, to win government - everything to everyone. If it was the Port Keats Road, ‘Do not worry, we will seal that’. If it was a new hospital in Katherine, ‘Do not worry, we will build that’.
Those contracts signed by Terry Mills with each community contain billions of dollars in unfunded election commitments. They were promises made not by Terry; he came in to sign the contracts - he was the fall guy in front of the camera to sign the contract. The contracts were drafted on promises made by the member for Braitling - billions of dollars of promises in the bush going to infrastructure and recurrent funding. They did not appear on the costings submitted to Treasury in the election campaign. A total of $400m in CLP promises were submitted to Treasury as opposed to the more conservative $200m from the ALP. However, evidently we are terrible financial managers. We held our promises down to $200m and you came in double that at $400m. Add another couple of billion dollars on top of that in what was not written on the list submitted to Treasury. What sat in the former Chief Minister’s office are the signed contracts with the remote communities. People have not forgotten because they voted for that. They voted for the promise because they believed they would be delivered.
You have to find the funding for that so the fall guy, the member for Blain, was set up by the Col Fuller/Barry Coulter old guard - wheeled in old boys who have now departed the Territory. They set him up and raided the budgets of the Northern Territory, cutting education by 10% and slashing child protection.
You have $375m sitting in the coffers now with the cuts so you can start spending your way out of the corner you were painted into by the member for Braitling with his unfunded promises in the bush. Businesses are screaming saying, ‘You are hurting us too much, start releasing that money now. Do not wait for the budget’. Yet, what do you do? You delay the budget because of your infighting and incompetence. After three Treasurers in seven months, you could not meet your budget deadlines.
This government, led by the member for Braitling, is defined. You are cowardly and despicable. He could not even muster himself today to answer the questions in Question Time. He just went on a rant. You two will continue to rant about Delia’s debt, but $5.5bn was sitting in the books in May and you knew about every cent of it. It is manageable debt, taking just 8% of income to manage. Most people like to pay 8% of their income on their mortgage ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Her time has expired.
Madam SPEAKER: My apologies, Opposition Leader, your time has expired.
Ms LAWRIE: I have finished.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, one could be forgiven, when listening to a debate of this nature, for hearing somebody take the moral high ground and say, ‘We are so clean on this side of the House. We are as pure as the driven snow and nothing can touch us. We can start using words like “illegitimate” and “cowardly”, things designed to insult’. I find those words insulting, and believe many people listening in the public galleries will find them insulting. You have to be careful how you use those words and ensure you can support your allegations of cowardice and illegitimacy with the quality of the argument you bring before the House. I listened for the quality of the argument but we had a loosely connected, loosely joined up series of thoughts and ramblings which did not support the allegations and assertions being made in the motion circulated to honourable members.
As a consequence, I find it difficult to imagine how you could support this motion. If there was a true demonstrable argument to support some of the assertions made in this motion, perhaps honourable members could be drawn to that place. However, this is not about censuring the Northern Territory government, this is about highlighting what the Leader of the Opposition will continue trying to highlight into the future, which is an attack on the integrity and person of the Chief Minister.
I can already see, over the next few years, how this will roll out. The Leader of the Opposition, in her angst and lack of preparation to demonstrate this, immediately strayed into areas not covered by the censure motion. She picked on the member for Arnhem, and had a crack at me and nearly every person on this side of the House. She does that because she has form. This is what she does; this is how she conducts herself.
l listened carefully to the questions asked of the Chief Minister by this side of the House and those asked by the Leader of the Opposition during Question Time. The Chief Minister talked about the fiscal position of the Northern Territory, developing infrastructure, building a future, and trying to create something noble for the people of the Northern Territory. I listened to the questions asked and they were all about gossip, rumour and innuendo. This is how the Leader of the Opposition operates.
She started on the first day with a personal and scurrilous attack on the member for Daly by using the anonymous words of a person to make the most egregious allegations against the member for Daly which were, ultimately, disproved. I point out to the Leader of the Opposition a continuing barrage of slanderous nature against the member for Daly she made which she refuses to repeat outside this House. She could be rightly and justifiably sued for defamation were she to utter it anywhere other than this House.
She made great play of the Australian Human Rights Commission complaint of the anonymous complainant which came to her. Despite the fact we placed on the record five signed statutory declarations and statements from people who said the allegations made against the member for Daly did not occur, she continued to trot it out and said. ‘Wait for the Australian Human Rights Commission to respond’. A letter dated 4 March 2013 addressed to Mr Gary John Higgins MLA, Parliament House, Darwin:
It went on and, inter alia, said:
Every time the Leader of the Opposition makes a complaint in this House, or repeats someone else’s complaint about the conduct of other people in this House, she does so under the cover of this House - the rare privilege we enjoy because there are times such privilege is necessary. However, she abuses that privilege and engages in personal and spiteful attacks. This is why we find the words ‘cowardly’ and ‘illegitimate’ in this censure motion - then all we heard was a 30-minute diatribe based on personal attacks. Compare that to a Chief Minister who said in Question Time, ‘This is about the future of the Northern Territory’.
I am unsure if everyone heard the prayer this morning. We say two prayers - the Lord’s Prayer – but, immediately prior to that, we ask for the guidance of the Good Lord. Putting the religious component of that aside, we finish the prayer with, ‘for the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory’. Honourable members, think about this: a Chief Minister talking about infrastructure development, budgetary management, race relations, governing for all people in the Northern Territory, Asian engagement, and a Leader of the Opposition engaged in innuendo and gossip.
If the honourable Leader of the Opposition was so clean she could stand on Mount Olympus and pass judgment on us all. What was her role when Mr Henderson took the job? We stand on top of Mount Olympus and pass judgment on all but, as any reader of the Greek classics would know, many of the gods on Mount Olympus were not covered in honour, glory and moral righteousness. The Leader of the Opposition, in this case, is hardly an exception. I would prefer to deal with a Chief Minister who cares about the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory rather than someone who, by instinct, cannot drag themselves out of the gutter. I imagine sometimes -no, that would be seen as a personal attack and we should be better than that. I will not say what I was going to. This is about the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory.
If I look at the Labor Party on a national scale, if the Leader of the Opposition was so incensed by backroom deals and the horribleness of politics, not only would she have chastised herself and her own party members for the transition from Chief Minister Martin to Chief Minister Henderson, but she would have loudly and resoundingly chastised the people surrounding the Prime Minister and some of her senior Cabinet colleagues if we look at what has occurred there over the last few days. Do I hear criticism of the Australian Labor Party resonating off these walls? It is quite silent on that.
In one breath she wants to attack a conservative government on the grounds we have undergone a change of leadership, but utter silence is all we hear when the Leader of the Opposition talks about her side of politics.
To say, ‘I am the moral judge of you all’, but only do it in a select way does not position her well for the argument. This Leader of the Opposition did not position herself well in the argument and this is now exposed for what it is - a political exercise: see some weakness in the government and try to drive wedges. The Leader of the Opposition fabricates the bits she does not know - most of it. If I was a librarian I would place that Parliamentary Record in my library using the Dewey Decimal System under the heading science fiction because that is what it was.
While we have a duty to tell the truth in this House there are, from time to time, members who fill in the blanks in an effort to create an argument. Unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition plays scrabble with nothing but blanks - fills them in and makes wonderful words. I play scrabble with my six-year-old daughter and she makes some remarkable words. I am defeated every time because she can use letters the way she does. In the real world, my six-year-old daughter may not be playing by the rules. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to play by the rules and start thinking about how she presents herself to the people of the Northern Territory.
We are, and continue to be, a stable government for the people of the Northern Territory. It will be a government focused on the things described by the Chief Minister. Yes, there has been a period of instability - you do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. Everybody has realised there has been a period of instability.
I remember a period of instability where the government of the Northern Territory was held in a vacuum for two weeks whilst the member for Nelson decided which side he would come down on because of internal politics in the Labor Party. Not a word was uttered in relation to that episode by the Leader of the Opposition, yet she was immersed in it as though she was in the deep end of the swimming pool. Whilst swimming to the other end of the talent pool - the shallow end - they held the Territory in suspended animation for weeks whilst that leadership matter was sorted out. They then formed a stable government under Chief Minister Paul Henderson. Unfortunately, it was an ineffective government which insulted many people in the electorate. What happened in that process? Democracy. In that democratic process, the people of the Northern Territory opted for a change.
The Westminster system we have enables changes of leadership outside the electoral cycle. We do not have the presidential system of the United States which, when you elect a president, the only way to remove them is by impeachment or assassination. That is a flaw in the American system because it does not enable leadership change. The Westminster system, which has evolved over 800 years since the signing of the Magna Carta, allows leadership change without having to draw the whole body politic - the people of the jurisdiction - into a changed environment. That is exactly what the Labor Party did when they changed from Martin to Henderson and is the nature of our parliamentary democracy. It is precisely what has been attempted on a number of occasions at the federal level. It has happened on the Liberal side of politics, and on the Labor side of politics. It has happened in the past, it happened here recently, and will continue to happen into the future; it is part of our system.
To run the argument the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory is ‘illegitimate’ is to misunderstand, or worse still, misrepresent to the people of the Northern Territory how our system works. Our system works because the parliament elects a leader - including both sides of the House - who enjoys the substantive majority of the party they represent. That is the position the current Chief Minister has found himself in, and was the position of the former Chief Minister, Terry Mills, until it changed. It was the position of Mr Henderson and Ms Martin. It was the position of Mr Burke, Mr Stone - I can go all the way back to self-government - pre-Stone, Perron; pre-Perron, Tuxworth; pre-Tuxworth, Hatton; pre-Hatton, Everingham; pre-Everingham, Goff Letts. That takes us back to the first fully-elected council in 1974.
If you look at the British system, you can start at David Cameron and work all the way back to Robert Walpole ...
Mr McCarthy: You mixed up Hatton and Tuxworth there, John.
Mr ELFERINK: Perhaps I did. My point is none of those Chief Ministers was ‘illegitimate’. An illegitimate Chief Minister would be someone who waltzes into the parliament and dissolves it. That has not happened since Cromwell was around.
This is part of the process of using language to erode credibility rather than criticising and critiquing government at a policy level which will, ultimately and hopefully, lead to better outcomes for the people of the Northern Territory.
I cannot recall a single question today from the other side asking the government about policy. It rested entirely on the suggestions of cowardice, illegitimacy, dishonesty, and those types of things. If you roll that out day in, day out, and show no more depth than the desire to use a personal attack as a political weapon, the punters will, ultimately, see through it.
The current Chief Minister - and he will be the Chief Minister from now until the next election - will continue to work for the people of the Northern Territory. He will do so with intelligence, passion, drive, and substance. Those are all qualities the public will get to see. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that not everyone is certain what the Chief Minister stands for or who he is. That is true of anyone who comes into politics, whether at a Chief Minister level or a local member level. No one knew much about me when I was elected member for Macdonnell or, for that matter, as member for Port Darwin. No one knows much about any of us, but how we conduct ourselves in this House is the measure by which the public will judge us at the next Territory election, in part. If we conduct ourselves with drive, passion, desire, and one eye, if not two, firmly fixed on the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory, that is the reputation this Chief Minister will build for himself over time. I believe that is precisely what he will do.
If, however, a member has an eye, or both eyes, firmly fixed on personal attack, innuendo, gossip, libel or slander, they will saddle themselves with that as they lead to the next election - whether it is an individual member or the leader of a party in this House.
There are three-and-a-half years to go until the next Territory election. There is enough time for people in this House to either enhance or decay their reputations in accordance with their conduct. I am certain the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory will continue to demonstrate what I saw in the first question in Question Time today: concern for the budgetary management of the Northern Territory; care for the economic development of the Northern Territory; and a desire to see all Territorians treated on who they are as people, not what racial group or gender they are. These are noble and upright qualities worth supporting. I will continue to support those qualities in the Chief Minister.
The nature of this censure motion means we cannot support it. We should expunge what the Leader of the Opposition has tried to do in this House today.
Madam Speaker, I move that the motion be amended by deleting all words after ‘as would’ and replacing them with ‘prevent this House from censuring the now Leader of the Opposition for her calamitous mismanagement of the Northern Territory budget while she was Treasurer’.
I picked up on the words from the Chief Minister during Question Time and the consistent theme was a $5.5bn debt. I heard the Leader of the Opposition say, ‘That was not written anywhere’. Hogwash! Go to Budget Paper No 2 and the Uniform Presentation Framework, one of the last chapters. Go to the Non Financial Public Sector Balance Sheet and you will see an entry of $5.5bn worth of debt.
The previous government, at the time the GST windfalls were pouring into the jurisdiction, could have eliminated all debt in the Northern Territory. We could have had savings. We could have entered the GFC with savings. Did we enter the GFC with savings? No, we did not. We entered the GFC with a slightly reduced debt and a situation where, all of a sudden, we had to start borrowing because of the challenges we were faced with. That was a calamitous failure.
Is it possible other governments could have moved to expunge their debt? Yes, Mr Howard, the former Prime Minister of Australia - debt for the Australian government when the Labor Party took over at the federal level was zero. In fact, they had money in the bank. I congratulate the Labor Gallop government in Western Australia for expunging its debt off the books. They had exactly the same opportunities as the Northern Territory. Our former Treasurer went on a spending spree and her projections into the future were writ large in the last budget she delivered to this House: a $5.5bn debt up from about $1.2bn where it currently is.
Talk about a spending spree! The commitments she made included employing people when there was no money in the budget. In the important area of child protection, one I do not seek to diminish, they were putting people in jobs without any money in the budget. They were employing people on the credit card. There is no other way to describe what has happened to the Northern Territory’s budgetary situation other than call it calamitous, which is why I placed it in the amendment to this motion.
This House should censure the former Treasurer for her calamitous failure and for allowing the Northern Territory’s fiscal position to decay, particularly when the economy was doing well. You have to make the important distinction that the fiscal position of the Northern Territory government is very similar to other governments because we are so dependent on the GST - and GST revenues, as we all know, are shrinking.
The economy of the Northern Territory is doing reasonably well. We know about the investments in the area, so there will be pressure on a tight fiscal environment because of an economy making demands on it. Did we see any planning for that environment as it rolled out? No, we did not. We saw a shift to reckless expenditure unsupported by the income projections of the Northern Territory. It was reckless and has induced a state of decay this government has been forced to respond to with decisions we, reluctantly, made.
Unfortunately, the position of the Cabinet under the new Chief Minister is such that we had to revisit those decisions; that means the pain will be there for longer in relation to our fiscal situation. That is a legacy directly handed to us by an incompetent Treasurer who did not care about the bottom line. This is the Greece, Italy, Cyprus and Ireland approach to fiscal management - out of control.
That is why I recommend this amendment to the motion before the House. The Leader of the Opposition, for her calamitous failures, should be censured. I hope honourable members in this House will understand the necessity to censure the former Treasurer because of the legacy she has left.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am tired of hearing personal attacks as a vehicle for political gain in this House. The Leader of the Opposition is a past master; a virtuoso of the personal attack. We have seen it in the past, seen it again today, and will see it in the future. I am not interested in gossip. I will not condescend to rebut some of the absurd nonsense she has articulated. If this was a personal relationship I would be seriously considering a stalking order.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, the only thing missing from the member for Port Darwin’s performance today was a wig and gown. He has tried to defend the indefensible. The censure motion is very clear. It is of Shakespearean proportions, and starts with a coup, a plot, and a knifing. Then he said this has damaged the Territory’s reputation. This has embarrassed the Territory internationally and, importantly, it has hurt Territory business.
It is very clear the member for Port Darwin, the eminent solicitor, is trying to run interference through this censure motion to get off the topic and away from the indefensible. He has gone from principal law officer prosecuting in the Northern Territory to Rumpole of the Bailey defending the indefensible.
The member for Port Darwin based his argument on gossip, rumour and innuendo. He talked about the truth of the matter. I have been shocked and disgusted from the first day I set foot in this House because the gossip, innuendo and rumours come from the CLP via text messages. It is from your own members. In the electorate I tell the story of what politics is really about and say, ‘Whatever you think, you have to make the decision on a tight team - the Henderson government team now the Delia Lawrie opposition team, or a team that leaks like a sieve, back stabs each other and sends text messages as the coup is unfolding’. It is disgraceful. How dare you talk about gossip and innuendo when the only information the opposition receives to represent Territorians comes from you guys. Look at each other - who is it? Who is sending text messages? Who is sending information to the opposition? Who is the one playing games …
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Is the member for Barkly speaking on the original motion or the amended motion?
Mr McCARTHY: Mr Deputy Speaker, I am speaking on the original motion and it is unfortunate the oral comprehension of the member for Katherine is lacking. I am speaking on the censure motion and will continue to do so.
I want to get it straight from the start regarding gossip, rumour and innuendo - I am disgusted. As I share the stories of political life, the constituency is also disgusted. We talk about the member for Port Darwin’s insults. Let us talk about cultural insults because this censure rolls off the back of a cultural insult of major proportions.
Before I go to the relationship with the great nation of Japan and tell the House about the work I was doing with Japan when we created the Defence of Darwin Experience commemorating the Bombing of Darwin - a very sensitive issue with extreme protocols necessary around it - I will go to the cultural insult of calling somebody ‘a little boy’. I explained to my colleagues in the Territory there is a word juga. You can call somebody juga, which means ‘little boy’. It is a colloquial term adopted by many linguistic groups across the Territory. If you wanted to pick a fight you would call a grown man juga to insult that person ...
Ms Anderson: What rubbish.
Mr McCARTHY: Juga is okay. At school and amongst friends we use it; it is a colloquial term. However, if you want to insult somebody culturally that is what you use; you call them a little boy. I have been working and living amongst Indigenous people for 35 years, but the member for Namatjira forbids me to speak about Aboriginality. When I heard those comments on ABC radio I was disgusted. I thought the Chief Minister would show real leadership in the Northern Territory by doing one thing for Territorians - sacking the member for Namatjira and putting her on the backbench. He chose to keep her in the gang that leaks like a sieve, sends text messages to the opposition, and shares stories about their colleagues so the media can get the true story about what is going on with that instability.
Let us talk about cultural insults and the way the Japan coup unfolded. That was unnecessary and the Chief Minister of the day, the member for Braitling, said, ‘I did not really mean that, I did not really want that to happen’. What rubbish!
The text messages, innuendo and gossip the member for Port Darwin mentioned in this House was running rife four years ago. It was destabilising the CLP as an opposition and has destabilised the CLP as a government. Today we are asking, ‘Chief Minister, come clean, tell the Territory the story and put it to rest. No more innuendo, no more rumour, no more he said that she said that you said. Tell the truth’. That is what this is about.
I had the privilege to be Minister for Arts and Museums and Minister for Construction and, in those two portfolios, the previous Chief Minister of the Northern Territory delegated a very important job to deliver the Defence of Darwin Experience for the Northern Territory, but really for Australia. I worked with senior Japanese diplomats personally and through correspondence. We were also working with the Embassy of the United States and the United Kingdom High Commission and showed respect for cultural protocols. The Defence of Darwin story is when the Japanese Imperial Forces invaded Australia. Out of the commemoration of those activities, Territorians and Australians who lost their lives - by commemorating this as a major event in history we reached a point where it can also become an important element of reconciliation between two great nations. When you include the Americans and British, you include four great nations. That work was occurring.
I was also privileged to see a dynamic government team delivering the biggest construction project in the history of the Northern Territory - the Ichthys project. I was privileged to be part of that work and be led by experienced ministers who were delivering 40 years of prosperity to the Northern Territory.
I will tell the member for Port Darwin about assessment of us and the important work and cultural protocols. They were not just looking at the government, member for Port Darwin, they were also looking at you guys. One of the basic reasons for Ichthys coming to Darwin was a stable government with support structures to get their project out of the ground and deliver important energy reserves for the future and incredible prosperity for the Northern Territory. They were looking at all of us. I do not know what they assessed the opposition as, but opposition members attended functions and briefings and followed the lead of the Henderson government. I was privileged to sit with Terry Mills, the member for Blain, the former Chief Minister and former Leader of the Opposition, at a function where we discussed this in a bipartisan way. We spoke about how this was going to benefit all Territorians.
The CLP members in government then pulled a coup and stabbed the Chief Minister in the back while he was in Japan at high-level meetings. The outfall of that is in this censure motion: it has damaged our reputation and credibility, and is now damaging business confidence.
The Leader of the Opposition said clearly in Question Time and in this debate - solve it! When are you going to Japan? When are you going to put this right? When are you going to be a grown man and face up to your responsibilities to put this right? As an opposition, we have a clear point of reference. We will debate you on what you do, your values, and on what you say. We will also offer alternatives. The alternative in this censure is very simple: make this right because it is still an open wound and we are being assessed. Unfortunately, you guys are in the saddle and have let the Territory down. Solve it! Do the work, eat the humble pie and ensure this issue is resolved as soon as possible.
When we talk about building bridges and roads, as the Chief Minister said, of course the opposition supports it. However, at the moment, the CLP is claiming the glory for the previous government’s infrastructure. Media release after media release were issued. I say, ‘That is rubbish; that was our work’. They get to cut the ribbons and talk about it in the media. We know the truth. We support bridges and roads, and believe in a fiscal stimulus approach and building the regions.
What is new from the CLP? Let us talk about what is new in your building the regions. We have not heard anything yet. We want to hear what the CLP is bringing to the table. The Chief Minister of the Northern Territory has made big promises in the bush and people are waiting to see that translate into real action. There are other bridges to build, Chief Minister, and one is the bridge back to the great nation of Japan to ensure confidence is restored, to iron out the rocky diplomacy which occurred because of your illegitimacy and the way you conducted your underhanded business, and to ensure business in the Territory benefits totally from the Ichthys project.
It is interesting when talking about trust. The Chief Minister in Question Time said, ‘We are making the right decisions’. Knifing the member for Blain, the Chief Minister, in the back while he was in Japan attending high-level meetings and representing the Territory was not a good decision. Make it right. Do it and be seen as straight up and down because, where I come from, if you pick a fight you go toe to toe and you look eye to eye.
If the member for Port Darwin wants to compare leadership challenges in politics let him, because he will have to admit that is the way they are done in the party room. They are done with diplomacy. They are done to continue the role of government or the wing to ensure there are no hiccups, momentum is not lost, and everything moves forward.
This coup was not done in the party room and not done honourably. This coup was out of control, as the Chief Minister said. He did not really want it to happen like it did, yet he has been planning it for the last four years. He was assisted by members on that side who kept us abreast of it throughout the circus of the CLP government since August 2012.
The Chief Minister said, ‘We want to send the message that we are united’. That message has to be sent to Japan, juga. You have to build that bridge and make that peace. We are all about sending united messages. Unfortunately, the CLP is saying, ‘Trust us’. The member for Port Darwin looks at track records and says it is sorted. Drop the talk and let us see the actions because actions speak louder than words. To add to the member for Port Darwin’s contribution, I will be biblical: what you sow you shall reap.
Over the last four-and-a-half years, I have seen dishonesty and deceit from CLP members. I have seen nothing but ambition ride over the top of good dynamics and good governance. I have seen profits put before people. We are starting to see the backflip. As the Leader of the Opposition said, one day it is doom and gloom, but the next day you are able to backflip and change the fiscal strategy dramatically. That raises questions for Territorians which need answers.
This censure motion is straightforward. It rests on the trust of Territorians, our international business partners, and of Australians who are watching this CLP circus unfold before their eyes with the 24-hour media cycle.
I have called the member for Braitling many things in this House, always trying to be honourable. I said to the member for Braitling once, ‘I will never call you a liar; you are consistently careless with the truth’. I have also pulled up the member for Braitling on various aspects of his contributions in this House, such as when he called the member for Nelson a dog. I went through that disgraceful episode painstakingly to point out to that young man what calling a person a dog really means.
Today, the Chief Minister spoke about a dirty port. I would like to correct that for the Parliamentary Record and Territorians. What the Chief Minister is talking about is a bulk commodities port, which the previous government was already planning. I can see the Greater Darwin Region Land Use Plan is being used by this government. That is one smart thing you are doing because that planning was well under way. We do not refer to it as a dirty port. The Chief Minister will have to, as the member for Namatjira alluded to, grow up in some respects and get the language right, rise to the occasion as a minister, and drop the despicable backstabbing.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we reject the amendment, it is shallow and pathetic. The government will use the numbers, which reflects what a hollow and paranoid group they are.
Debate suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it is with deep regret I advise of the death on 3 March 2013 of Mr Colin Firmin, a former member of the Legislative Assembly for the electorate of Ludmilla from 1983 to 1990.
I acknowledge the presence in the gallery for the condolence motion for the late Mr Colin Firmin of the Deputy Lord Mayor of Darwin, Mr Gary Haslett, Mr Grant Tambling, Mr Mick Palmer, Mr Rick Setter, Mr Earl James and Mrs Wendy James, Mr Terry Flowers and Mrs Maravon Flowers, Mr John Hardy and Mrs Marie Hardy, Mr Peter Allen, Ms Alison Maynard, Mr Bob Bradley, Mr Peter Bracken and Robyn Bracken, Mr Michael Savage and Mrs Sally Savage, Mr Jack Hamilton, and also friends and family of Mr Colin Firmin and apologies from Dr Jan Hills.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly express its deep regret at the death of Colin Firmin, the former member for Ludmilla.
Today I recognise the life and service of Colin Charles Firmin, member of the Legislative Assembly for the Division of Ludmilla from December 1983 until October 1990.
Colin Firmin passed away on 3 March this year aged nearly 73 years. I acknowledge his wife, Anna, children Nikki and Michael, their partners Tim and Jennifer, and his six grandchildren Andrew, Chris, Jessie, Alana, Billy-Jack and Samantha, and extend my condolences in relation to their loss.
I did not know Colin during his time in the Territory or after he served in parliament. However, as a member of the Country Liberal Party, he was present during some of the best and visionary years of the government, a time of hope for the future and capitalising on opportunities that were on the way.
Colin originally came from Western Australia. He was born in 1940 just as the war began - something that influenced his life in later years. Leaving school at the early age 15 to work in the insurance industry, it was soon after that he first served the community.
An active interest in the RAAF saw Col first join the RAAF Cadets and, subsequently, like many his age, he was drafted into the national service with the 16th Battalion, Royal Western Australian Regiment, the Cameron Highlanders. Perhaps he had no inkling at the time, but the Cameron Highlanders served in the defence of Darwin during 1943, the first links to the Territory for Col. He served the necessary two years and could have moved on to a professional career in the Army. Instead, he went back to insurance.
In 1966, Col took up a position in the Northern Territory as an insurance inspector. Through the 1970s and 1980s he was a self-employed insurance broker.
In 1968 he married Anna, who was by his side for the next 45 years. His interest in public service saw him moving into politics in 1976 as an alderman with the Darwin City Council, and into the Legislative Assembly in 1983, which was a big year in the Territory legislature. The House was expanded from 19 seats to 25 and, while the seat of Ludmilla continued in name, Roger Steele, the incumbent member and Speaker of the House, moved to contest the seat of Elsey creating the opportunity for Col to stand for parliament.
It is nearly 30 years since Col Firmin took his place in this Assembly. While some of the issues he first noticed and commented on have changed with the nature and character of the area, some remain with us today. It is important to acknowledge even in the early 1980s environmental factors were at the forefront of mind for the Country Liberal member for Ludmilla. Noise disruption, disturbance, smell, mosquito problems, traffic and pedestrian problems are just some of the issues the members for Fannie Bay and Fong Lim probably hear about from their constituents today, and are about some of the cornerstone aspects of the Ludmilla electorate as it was then - the Turf Club, the sewerage works, and living under the flight path.
Col also recognised there were opportunities such as the redevelopment of the 2 Mile Works Depot - has it been 30 years since that was first transformed? It must have been as Col spoke of it way back then. There was also the closure of the drive-in on Dick Ward Drive, now a part of the suburb of Nightcliff, including the shopping precinct, the Sunset Cove development allowing commercial infill in the area between Bagot Road and Dick Ward Drive, perhaps soon to become a reality, and he even went so far as to call for a new international airport - a terminal to serve the tourism industry, done and delivered. I think that Col would have continued looking for a vision for the future of the Turf Club and the operation of the Ludmilla Wastewater Treatment Plant.
I can only suggest that, as a member of the Darwin Town Planning Authority from 1978 to 1983, the strategic planning issues of the day drove him to consider the best ways to resolve these. Let us agree, in 30 years we will have developed some solutions for those local issues.
Going over some of Col’s contributions to the House, he would have been a great supporter of the new government’s three-hub economy. He spoke about support for the tourism industry, the mining sector, investment in infrastructure like the railway, the gas industry and pipeline networks, and the sustainability of our fisheries. While a member of the House, he applied his passion for and love of the sea to the management of Darwin Harbour, another chapter in the story of looking and planning for the future.
It was here Col filled some key roles in the government of the day. While not reaching a ministerial office, he was Government Whip for three years and Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees. Col last served in the Assembly in 1990. He was defeated at the election that year as an Independent candidate for the seat of Brennan, having lost the endorsement of the party. In 1990, the seat would have looked much different from what it does today under the current member - perhaps a bit more like the Fong Lim electorate in design - but he was still keen to have a go.
Throughout his time in Darwin, Col was an active member of many community organisations. He was Chairman of the Anti-Cancer Council, a member of the Isolated Children’s Parents’ Association, patron of the Darwin Golf Club, President of the Darwin Apex Club and a founding member of the Arafura Apex Club. Col also spent many years in various roles relating to road safety and town planning.
Col managed to find time for recreational interests which he pursued through active membership of the Darwin Sailing Club. His impressive range of qualifications for this role included those of a master sailor, an instructor and a celestial navigator. Col was a qualified scuba diving instructor and in his spare time played golf, tennis, and ran with the Casuarina Hash House Harriers.
Col took his interest in sailing into his post-parliamentary life. He worked in tourism at Seven Spirit Bay where he had charge of the resort’s vessels, and on Darwin Harbour where he skippered Billy J for the Northern Frontier Group.
In September 1994, Col and Anna departed for Cooktown in Queensland, via all the good fishing spots en route. They purchased their own yacht, competed in the inaugural Brisbane to Solomon Islands Yacht Race and spent six months cruising around the Solomon Islands. Col and Anna continued to pursue their shared interest in sailing with journeys to New Caledonia, Vanuatu and again to the Solomon Islands. During 2001-02, they sailed to Darwin, across to the west and up to East Timor, which they left just ahead of the conflict.
In recent years, Col came to enjoy cruising when someone else was in charge while he and Anna enjoyed Malaysia, Hawaii, Canada, Alaska and New Zealand.
Col’s service to the community continued in Queensland where he became very involved in Legacy as a legatee with 37 widows to look after. In his spare time, Col cared for his classic cars and a large collection of orchids.
Col’s final year was a challenging one for him and his family. He faced the challenges bravely in the wonderful caring hands of Anna, the love of his life. Col friends saw him as a remarkable man. He is remembered as a brother to many of his friends and those who knew him well.
Madam Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to move this motion of condolence to Colin Charles Firmin. I commend the motion to the House.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, a commitment to public service is very much the common theme of today’s condolence motion for Col Firmin. On behalf of the opposition, I acknowledge and recognise the contribution Col made to the Territory, whether as an active member of our community, a Darwin City Council Alderman, or a member of this parliament.
On 3 March 2013 we lost a former colleague who served the people of Ludmilla, both as a member of the CLP and as an Independent, from 1983 until 1990. As you have heard, he has left behind his wife, Anna, along with their children, Nikki and Michael, and six grandchildren who can all look back with pride at the significant contribution Col made to Territory politics and community life in the 1980s.
Col was born in Perth in 1940. He was a Legacy ward and maintained an active role in support of Legacy and countless other organisations, including Apex and the NT Anti-Cancer Foundation. His sporting activities were many and varied – sailing, golf, tenpin bowling and tennis were among his interests. He was even a qualified scuba diving instructor.
Col was elected to the Darwin City Council in 1976 and continued to serve until he ran for Ludmilla. He worked in a variety of roles in the insurance industry before he entered parliament. As an alderman he was on a number of committees including the Darwin Town Planning Committee, the Darwin City Council Works Committee and the Road Safety Committee as well as its successor, the NT Road Safety Council.
After being elected to parliament Col was active on parliamentary committees including the Privileges Committee and the Constitutional Development Committee, as well as a range of select committees and working parties. As you have heard, he also served as the government Whip before becoming Deputy Speaker.
Following his defeat by the CLP in the 1990 election, Col continued to make a contribution to our community and worked in tourism.
When he moved to Queensland in 1994 he began his role as a legatee looking after the welfare of bereaved service families. He also became active in the National Servicemen’s Association. Inspiring for those of us still in this House, he managed to have plenty of adventures following his political career, finding the perfect yacht and sailing extensively in the Pacific, north Australia and up to Timor-Leste.
On behalf of the opposition, I extend our deepest sympathy to Col’s wife, Anna, his children, Nikki and Michael, their partners, his grandchildren, the extended family, and the many friends who have gathered here today.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for bringing this condolence motion on. Thank you for the kind words from the Leader of the Opposition.
I knew Colin Firmin reasonably well. I admit I knew his wife, Anna, much better - Anna and I worked together in the early 1990s. I was in my very early 20s and, at the time, was selling insurance for a range of different insurance companies and Anna was in the general insurance business. We worked out of the same office, side by side. So, I had quite a bit to do with Anna over those few years. Shortly after working with Anna, I got to know their daughter, Nikki, very well. Nikki is a similar age to me and we enjoyed many social events together.
Col, at that time, was a bit inaccessible to me. Of course, he was a member of this parliament then and, as members know, life becomes very busy when you are an elected member of parliament. Spending time with family and friends will generally fall to the wayside to some extent, and Col was no different; he had an enormous capacity for work. As has already been said, he also had an enormous capacity for community service and civic duty. He was on a range of community organisations and sporting groups, was a dead keen scuba diver, and later became very interested in sailing. What stood out about Col was his sheer commitment to the Northern Territory. Unfortunately, that commitment took its toll.
Being a member of parliament was a very difficult job which took him away from family and friends. Politics, as we know, can, at times, be quite a brutal game. Unfortunately, Col became caught in some of that toward the end of his parliamentary career. That took a toll on his family. It was a hard thing for them to swallow and they were all very upset. He battled through that and, like a true Territorian, bounced back almost instantly; got back on the horse and continued his service to the community.
I enjoyed my time with the Firmin family. He was, at that time, everything I aspired to be. He was an elected member of parliament - I was 23 or 24 years old - one thing that probably makes me different from most people is I have always had a big interest in the political system and how laws are made. I have always been a keen observer of the parliamentary process and I saw Col as a part of that, which he, indeed, was. I aspired, at that early age, to be part of it.
Being able to sit with Anna and talk politics and about the future of the Territory and the world was, for me, a very precious time in my life. Nikki was a good friend of mine; Michael, Col’s son, I knew reasonably well, but we all got along well together. I am sure parliamentarians who have been in the Territory for a while treasure those times in the 1980s and 1990s. It was a very different place from today - not to say things are not good now. We loved our times back then. The Firmins were certainly a part of the community and I was very upset to hear of Col’s passing. He was a great Territorian; his heart was always in the Territory, but eventually sailing and that boat took him away. Both Anna and Col loved their time on the water and they had to spread their wings and head further afield.
Madam Speaker, I am thrilled to offer these words in relation to Col Firmin. He was a good bloke, had his heart in the Territory and did everything he could to serve the Northern Territory. I extend my condolences to Anna and the family. It has been a hard time for everybody. It is a close knit-family and you can hold your heads high. Your father and husband, was a great man who did much for the Territory and that is evident by the calibre of the people we have in the gallery today listening to this condolence motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I also wish to pay my respects to the late Colin Firmin and extend my sympathies and sincere thoughts to Anna and the children, Nikki and Michael. I remember Colin as a true gentleman. He was always exceptionally friendly and polite, and was only too happy when I would come to Parliament House to visit my mother to come forward, say hello and have a chat.
I also knew him to be an avid sailor and keen golfer. He was the type of fellow who would extend himself and assist anyone or put a hand out. When the America’s Cup was in Perth in 1987, the NT police boat, the Salloo, was to guard the waters and keep an eye on the riff-raff who attend those races. I was in Perth at the time and he said, ‘If you are in Perth I will arrange a visit for you and your family on the Salloo’. That is the type of fellow Colin Firmin was. So, we did. My sister-in-law and I, and one of my brothers, went on the boat. It was an incredibly rough day and the race was cancelled. I was fine but the rest of my family spent much time leaning overboard. Col was fine too, of course. Being a sailor, he did not get seasick at all.
I found him to be a delightful person and I was very sad to hear of his passing. I extend my sympathies to Anna, who I also knew well and liked as she is a charming woman. To Nikki and Mike and their children - his grandchildren - and all his friends and family here today, my sincere condolences on behalf of the Northern Territory parliament. Please stand now for one minute’s silence as a mark of respect.
Members stood for a minute’s silence as a mark of respect.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: I thank honourable members for their contribution to the condolence motion. I invite the family and friends of the late Mr Colin Firmin to afternoon tea in the Main Hall.
RESPONSES TO PETITIONS
Petition Nos 6, 8, and 9
The CLERK: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform honourable members that responses to petition Nos 6, 8, and 9 have been received and circulated to members. The text of the responses will be placed on the Legislative Assembly website. A copy of the responses has been provided to the members who tabled the petition for distribution to petitioners.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I support the amended censure put forward by the Attorney-General. The Opposition Leader deserves censure. What she has done to the Northern Territory is beyond the pale. She has set the Northern Territory up for a record $5.5bn worth of debt. With 230 000 people in the Northern Territory, $5.5bn equates to almost $24 000 for every man, woman and child. Babies born today at Royal Darwin Hospital, Alice Springs Hospital, or at any other location in the Territory are instantly assuming a debt of some $24 000, which is appalling.
What is even more appalling is, every time this government tries to curb spending and bring us back into a fiscally responsible position, the former Treasurer screams and says, ‘No, no, no, that cannot happen’. The fact is, the deficit the former Treasurer left the Territory is forecast this year to be $867m for 230 000 people. That is spending of more than $867 000 above what it would take to break even. It is not hard to see how the debt was accumulating. It has been said in this House before that debt is not a bad thing. I totally agree with that, provided that debt is used to finance things of material value.
However, the previous government was spending for the sake of spending. The former Treasurer took a leaf out of Kevin Rudd’s book and said, ‘We have to spend because it keeps the economy growing’. There was no concern at all for the mountain of debt being created, the financial burden it placed on future Territorians, or for any balanced fiscal responsibility.
The forward estimates were showing the budget deficit would grow to almost $1200m in the 2013-14 financial year. Again, this is in a jurisdiction of 230 000 people. We are not talking about the New South Wales budget, the Queensland budget, or the Australian government budget deficit. The little old Northern Territory has a budget blowout, a budget deficit, of almost $1200m - $1.2bn. It is interesting the Opposition Leader will say, ‘We have been building up to this’. Yes, we have been since the Leader of the Opposition took over as Treasurer. When that happened the Territory had about $1.2bn in debt. That is about to be our deficit in the budget. That was the debt she took over.
I remember at the time criticising Clare Martin and the then Treasurer, Syd Stirling, for the way they were managing the Northern Territory budget. In hindsight, those guys were economic geniuses in comparison to the former Labor Treasurer, the member for Karama. The member for Karama has taken that $1.2bn of debt from around 2008 and it is projected to be $5.5bn by 2015 - a trebling of debt in such a short period of time. She now wonders why there is a censure motion coming her way. She came into this House this morning, decided to deflect scrutiny of her job and time in government by running a censure motion on the Chief Minister, and is surprised to find herself the victim of such a censure motion. That is where the blame for our financial situation needs to be placed.
I will go through some of the legacy items the former Treasurer left the new government. We have been left with a legacy of expenditure commitments - costs estimated by agencies of over $600m for the forward estimates period. That is over $600m of unfunded legacy items left to us by the former Treasurer. Some of those items we cannot back away from, such as the Alice Springs Hospital emergency department; we need that to operate. However, the cost of that operation was never factored into the forward estimates by the previous Treasurer. No cost at all was factored into the budget by the previous Treasurer.
Nothing stands out more than in the Office of Children and Families where the Chief Executive advised she was instructed by the then minister to hire over 90 staff in the last month of the 2011-12 financial year despite there being no provision in the 2012-13 budget - over 90 staff were hired outside budget.
There are many other areas where the former Treasurer put the Territory into a state of serious risk. One area we have had some numbers on is police infrastructure. The shortfall in repairs and maintenance assessed by that agency across the forward estimates period is $48m. However, nothing was seen in the budget to cover these necessary expenses. Coming into government following the poor fiscal management by the previous Treasurer, we knew we had $5.5bn worth of debt looming and the budget was almost $900m in deficit, but we did not know there was almost $600m of unfunded legacy items bequeathed to us by the former Treasurer.
When the former Treasurer talked about responsibility and relevance - I heard her in Question Time today banging on about relevance. Nothing is more relevant to Territorians at this point than the level of debt created by the former Treasurer. The former Treasurer, the Opposition Leader, needs to hang her head in shame. She needs to explain to Territorians exactly what her motivation was in putting the Northern Territory into this parlous financial state.
As an aside, I recall when I was member for Solomon and the member for Karama was Treasurer she was talking about the ‘disgusting’ surpluses being posted by Howard and Costello in government. She said it was wrong, the Northern Territory was struggling, and the federal Treasurer, Peter Costello, was being a miser meanie by not releasing the purse strings; Peter Costello had done the wrong thing by Australia by not going into deficit.
Goodness me, how things have changed! The state of the finances Howard and Costello left the Australian nation in were pretty good. They had plenty of money in the bank, $60m sitting in the Future Fund, a similar amount sitting in the Higher Education Endowment Fund, and similar money sitting in the Communications Fund. It had all been hived away slowly over years by a prudent Treasurer who knew exactly what he was doing. Kevin Rudd came on to the scene, the global financial crisis hit, and it seemed to be manna from heaven for Labor Treasurers all over Australia because they had the perfect excuse to do what they do best - spend money.
Kevin Rudd was mailing cheques to dead people and people who had never set foot in Australia. We saw the waste with the school halls fiasco and the Pink Batts fiasco where people died, all to get money out the door as quickly as possible. They allocated $10bn for spending initiatives to kick-start the retail industry because it was withering on the vine - $10bn Kevin Rudd allocated in cash payments to the community and he had a $386m bounce in retail spending. What a wonderful way to spend $10bn - get a $360m bounce in retail spending. It was madness and the same was applied in the Northern Territory.
The former Treasurer cannot help herself, she said, ‘We saved the Northern Territory. We spent money and continued to spend’. That time is over. The spending is over and we have to focus on the legacy of that spending. That legacy will grow to $5.5bn for 230 000 Territorians - $24 000 per man, woman and child. It is outrageous and hard to contemplate how a Treasurer could be so wrong and make things so bad in such a short time.
Madam Speaker, I support the amended motion put by the Attorney-General and now move that the motion be put.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I seek clarification of whether the government understood the Independent wanted to speak on the censure motion.
Madam SPEAKER: This is a motion that the amendment be put.
Ms LAWRIE: Is the government going to move directly to guillotining and putting the motion in its entirety, or will it allow the Independent to speak?
Mr ELFERINK: The motion is that the amendment be put and we will deal with that question shortly.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 13 Noes 8
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, it is a little confusing what I am speaking on here, but I gather …
Mr Tollner: The motion!
Mr WOOD: On the censure motion brought forward to cancel another motion. Of course, the reason for this motion is to avoid a reasonable debate. It has occurred and is on the minds of many people. I was in West Lane a short time ago and the lady I was speaking to could not believe what happened to the previous Chief Minister. The reason the government has brought in this amendment is to avoid that debate. Many people would like a better understanding. From my point of view, we can talk about the budget because it will be the subject of a statement today. It also avoids what needs to be said about what has happened in the last few weeks.
I have looked at it from the point of loyalty. I have known the member for Blain since being in parliament and he is the longest-serving member of parliament. I regard him as a friend. I remember him speaking to me some time ago when we had some difficulties. Much of that is to do with the politics of this House. I am not quoting him but, basically, he was asking whether we would still be friends at the end. I said, ‘Of course’. We have gone through some very rough times; however, I am still his friend. Loyalty is a very important thing to believe in. That is the one thing missing in the government because, without loyalty, you cannot have stability.
This man came into parliament in government, went straight into opposition after the government was defeated, became leader, and decided it was too much for him. He was replaced. He then had another go at it when there were only four CLP members in parliament. The Independents were 50% the size of the opposition. That was pretty tough times because every member of the opposition had an enormous workload as shadow minister for many portfolios …
Mr Conlan: Fifteen.
Mr WOOD: It was a tough time for them. The member for Blain took the CLP from a position of near total wipe-out to where they are today, in government. What happened to him is the ultimate case of disloyalty. The dictionary says loyal means -this is what it means in the context of this parliament – ‘steadfast in allegiance’. In the Westminster system which relies so much on party loyalty, that is something members of parliament who belong to a party would uphold and keep dear to their heart. Loyalty means you are not in it for yourself; you are in it for the party that nominated you to represent it and the people of the Northern Territory. You represent the people of the Northern Territory by creating a stable government.
In the last few weeks and months, unfortunately, there has been disloyalty to the member for Blain even though people claimed, on the surface, they were loyal to him. Behind his back, while he was in Japan, they showed their disloyalty. That is an un-Australian thing to do to a man who not only brought the CLP into government, but took the brunt of the criticism. I criticised; I have many issues with the government. He was the leader of a government that, with the support of his Cabinet, made some very unpopular decisions. When I hear people saying how terrible those decisions were, I would not mind if they said, ‘We made a mistake as the government, as the Cabinet’, not as Terry Mills, and they recognise many of the decisions made by this government were made by a collective group of people. Please do not say, ‘They were bad decisions’, which makes it look like Terry Mills will take the blame for it. Of course, he was the person out the front, that is what leaders are about, but he could not make those decisions without support from the Cabinet ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, can I interrupt to welcome some visitors in the gallery? I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of St Philip’s College students from Alice Springs who are in Darwin for the NT Rock Climbing Championships. On behalf of honourable members, I extend you a warm welcome and hope you enjoy your time at Parliament House and in Darwin.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr WOOD: A fine school too.
Madam Speaker, people need to understand this was a low act. I have compared it with Julius Caesar and Brutus. It is Easter; I can nearly compare it with two other people. Unfortunately, one person had a death much worse than being knifed in the back.
I had hoped the government would be much more humble and given the member for Blain more recognition. It will be hard for me to look at some of the people in this party who wrapped their arms around the former Chief Minister, who spoke publicly about their loyalty to the former Chief Minister, and could not be loyal enough to wait for him to return from Japan and put to him they were going to have a spill and wanted to take a vote on the leadership.
If you want loyalty in a football team you expect people to work together. If you want loyalty in a committee you want people to stick together, and you would hope if you want loyalty in a party you would do things the right way. This was done the wrong way.
I have been through some ups and downs with the former Chief Minister. I have had my share of difficulties in this job with some of the pain the CLP has put me through because of decisions I made some years ago. I know Terry was not happy with those decisions and understand why. I do not mind him criticising me for those decisions, but would never have stabbed him in the back because of it. I may have told him I did not agree with him. I have always believed, through all the ups and downs, Terry Mills to be a good man and I would say that to his face any time.
In fact, I doubt people realise how much hurt they have caused out there, regardless of all the problems the government has had.
I was at a garden club recently and a women said, ‘Will you pass a message to Terry?’ I said, ‘Yes, that will be okay,’ and she said, ‘Our little group of people have been praying for you’. I thought that was great. It was not about the CLP or politics, they wanted to support Terry Mills the man because they knew he was going through some difficult times. I wonder if people understand the actions of the government have disappointed so many people.
You have every right to change your leader - we do not live in an American presidential system - but it is the way you have done it that has upset your supporters and many ordinary Territorians.
We should take into account the member for Blain, regardless of whether we agree with him or not, did his best for the Territory. Unfortunately, while he was trying to do his best in Japan we were made to look like the laughing stock, both nationally and internationally. In fact, I understand he was at a ceremony with the Prime Minister and the Emperor of Japan and was the only international delegate to speak. The next day, while at a JGC meeting, he was told he did not have the job. What dishonour does that bring to the Territory?
When I had to decide who I would support in the balance of power issue a businessman said to me, ‘The Japanese do not like unstable government’. That is, Japanese business people do not like unstable governments. To a large extent, we have now shown we are unstable. I know the Chief Minister avoided answering when he will go to Japan, but it needs to be quite soon to try to repair the damage done.
The Chamber of Commerce had concerns about the way the member for Blain was sacked while in Japan. In the meantime, the government has to mend the fences it has broken. I do not know if it is as bad as the federal government and its ban on live cattle, but it is certainly something the Japanese will not forget because they strongly believe in loyalty and honour. In this case, the CLP has been disloyal to its leader.
You have every right to change your leader; that is the privilege and business of the party, but the people who elected the CLP with Terry Mills as its leader would have expected this be done in a fair way where the member for Blain could put his case if he wished to stay on as leader.
I understand why the government has brought forward this censure motion. I have not seen this done for quite some time - back to the old days of the CLP when they would try to turn things around by bringing in amendments. There is certainly room for debate about the Northern Territory budget and, obviously, we will have that debate with a statement today, but this makes you look silly.
The way you dismissed your Chief Minister then avoided debate by trying to bring a censure motion on the Leader of the Opposition – which is fair enough - it would have been better to use this opportunity to express support for the work he did as Chief Minister and show some gratitude to a person who took the hits. If anyone read the text messages and Letters to the Editor, some were very abusive. I imagine he received quite a few abusive e-mails and telephone calls. I went through some of that last year and know how hurtful and debilitating it is. This is an opportunity to thank him for the work he did. I did not agree with everything the former Chief Minister did but he acted as a leader, did what he thought was in the best interests of the Territory, and was loyal to the Territory. We somehow get the politics mixed up with loyalty and, unfortunately, Terry Mills is now on the backbench considering his future.
I do not vote on censure motions so this gives me an opportunity to express my thoughts. This was a cowardly act of Shakespearian proportions and, if the CLP had used this motion, it may have accepted it was not the right way to do things. The new Chief Minister said he would have preferred it not to have happened. This was an opportunity, while the previous Chief Minister was here, to explain that to the public and recognise the good things he has done. It is easy for people to pretend they are doing good things by reducing the cost of electricity and water - still quite high. Some people take praise for removing the $20 MVR fee on the day it was coming forward as a motion - General Business Day. It is good to take the praise, but you also have to accept and recognise the previous Chief Minister did much of the hard work. Some people are now pulling away from that even though they were part of the poor decisions because they were part of Cabinet.
Madam Speaker, I do not support the censure motion, amended or otherwise. Terry Mills is a decent fellow who worked hard for the Northern Territory. As in all politics, we do not always agree but that does mean he is not a good bloke, should be recognised as a good bloke, and the CLP should have been loyal to him.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The ministerial statement before the parliament today is the one circulated by the Treasurer?
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, this was discussed with the acting Whip this morning and advice given that the Chief Minister would be making a statement at this point. No issue was raised by the acting Whip and I remind honourable members a ministerial statement can be brought on by a minister but the convention of providing a pre-written copy is a convention only.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, the Chief Minister would need to seek leave to lead the statement. The ministerial statement on the Notice Paper is the statement by the Treasurer, unless you made a mistake last night.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Speaking to the point of order, no notice has been given of the Treasurer’s ministerial statement. A copy was circulated last night as part of convention. It is a convention only. There is no requirement in standing orders for it. I am astonished you would not want to talk to the Chief Minister’s ministerial statement. For goodness sake, if the Leader of the Opposition is so frightened of the Chief Minister she does not want to hear what he has to say, it is a pretty poor effort on her part.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I too was not notified about these changes until I received a piece of paper stating how it was going to work for the day. I asked if the Orders of the Day would come on this morning. I was told they were going to come on after lunch and knew Question Time only went to 11 am. Why was I not told the Serious Sex Offenders Bill was …
Mr Elferink: Because the planet does not orbit around you.
Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated, member for Port Darwin.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, that is a sign of arrogance ...
Mr Elferink: It is not.
Mr WOOD: It is, because good manners are not something – it is like when you sent me a copy of the letter to the Leader of the Opposition about changes to the Estimates Committee. You could not even be bothered sending me a copy. I am part of the Estimates Committee, I am a member of the parliament; it would be nice to know what is going on …
Mr Elferink: Ring and ask. When was the last time you …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, you do not have the call.
Mr WOOD: You have a Whip who could at least tell me what is going on. It seems you operate in a vacuum. You are not willing to be …
Mr Elferink: You were spoiled by the former government.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Elferink: Comrade, you know.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, you do not have the call.
Mr WOOD: No, please, do not be silly. All I am asking for is a fair go …
Ms Lawrie: Kick him out.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Karama, you are on a warning.
Mr WOOD: I am asking for some politeness. It would be polite for the government to advise the order of work so I know whether to bring down a big heap of papers for legislation or something else. That is not too much to ask …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! He is speaking to a point of order. We can truncate this and get on with the business of the day.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, Leader of Government Business. Member for Nelson, have you finished your point of order?
Mr WOOD: No, Madam Speaker. This reflects the manner in which they are trying to run this House.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr WOOD: I am speaking …
Mr ELFERINK: He has made no reference to a standing order. Could he direct us to the standing order to which this diatribe is being launched.
Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated, Leader of Government Business. Member for Nelson, what is your point of order?
Mr WOOD: That we are not notified of these changes. That would be the proper thing for the government to do.
Madam SPEAKER: That is not in standing orders, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: It is in decency, Madam Speaker, and good manners.
Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated, member for Nelson.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Speaking to the point of order, he was advised this morning, through a motion in the House. He should have been listening.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, please be seated. Member for Nelson, I suggest in future it needs to be a two-way street. Talk to government as government talks to you. Also, the Whips should be talking to each other, as the leaders of business should be talking to each other.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I seek clarification. The ministerial statement circulated was the Treasurer’s ministerial statement. If the Chief Minister wants an indulgence and comes before the House to seek such indulgence, you would have thought he seek leave to make a statement. I seek advice because he would need to seek leave. This is not the ministerial statement as advised to the House.
Madam SPEAKER: I will seek advice from the Clerk.
The Chief Minister can have the call as long as copies of his statement are circulated to members before you start or whilst you are talking, Chief Minister.
Mr ELFERINK: We can do that, Madam Speaker. At the outset, the opposition was advised of this, this morning …
Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. You can discuss this with the opposition out of the Chamber.
Chief Minister, you have the call. Can you get a copy of the statement to the members of parliament, please?
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I seek to afford the opportunity for the Opposition Leader to respond in a similar time frame.
On 14 March 2013, it was my privilege to be sworn in as Chief Minister of the Northern Territory of Australia. I stated at the time it would be a new order, a new form of government.
The tenor of the conversation between government and the people of the Northern Territory changed for the better on 14 March. We are a party for all Territorians. We have listened to and engaged with all regions. We will support all Territorians regardless of where they live. My ministers will be thoughtful in responses and compassionate in government. Policies will be implemented which encourage and reflect the aspirations of Territorians.
As Chief Minister, I want to do much more than cut ribbons and manage issues; I want to make a difference to people’s lives. Yes, I have a vision for the Territory. Articulating that vision, however, is only part of what I will do today. I will outline how I, along with my colleagues, can deliver better, tangible outcomes for our fellow Territorians.
A criticism often levelled at politicians is they think more about the present than the future ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Again, on the terms of ministerial statements; the requirement that it be printed. We still have not received a printed copy of the ministerial statement.
Madam SPEAKER: I understand, Opposition Leader, the statement is coming as soon as possible.
Ms LAWRIE: Could we get some advice as to how long it will take? I am going by the standing orders.
Madam SPEAKER: If it could be expeditiously brought to the Chamber that would be appreciated. Chief Minister.
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, it is a criticism that can be levelled at the former Labor government. Good governments must do both: look at the present and what can be done simply and efficiently, and carefully plan for what must be done into the future.
I am a Chief Minister for today and the future, make no mistake. We, as Territorians, must face the future together to address the debt left by Labor as a result of mismanagement and the former Treasurer.
When you owe money you have an obligation to pay. A common mantra from the current opposition, led by the former Treasurer, has been it is normal to carry that level of debt. Debt on the scale left to us by Labor is not normal, it is high-risk debt. It has placed considerable strain on the people of the Northern Territory.
High levels of public debt impact directly on the opportunities for growth. The most negative growth effects of high debt are a dangerous way to govern any territory, state or nation. The potential impacts were ignored by Labor and must be addressed by me and my government. Under Labor, the purse strings were opened to their widest extent, and the Labor Party was blind to the detrimental effect overall.
Paying off Labor’s debt is critical to our future. Debt reduction strategies now will enable us to be better placed to provide services to those in need and provide the range of services Territorians expect from a competent government. Governments, like individuals, must live within their means.
There has to be a thoughtful analysis of competing priorities and interests. The bottom line is we are a can-do jurisdiction. We are young, vibrant and live in a resource-rich land, but a huge percentage of this land has been sidelined.
There are opportunities for many but not all. I am a Chief Minister for all Territorians. Much has been made of the fact I am the first Indigenous territory or state leader. I am an Australian and a Territorian. In the same way, our Indigenous communities are Australian and Territorian. I have decided not to have an Indigenous affairs portfolio because Indigenous affairs permeate all aspects of federal, state and territory government. This belief does not denigrate anybody or overlook any member of our community; instead it emphasises equality and makes Indigenous affairs everybody’s business. No longer will there be a minority department focusing on a minority government. Instead, all aspects of government will be for all Territorians.
Jobs are critical because I have always proclaimed our future in the Northern Territory is about jobs, jobs, jobs not welfare, welfare, welfare. That is the Country Liberal way not the Labor way. If you do not have a job chronic disadvantage can result. Children do not see the point in school attendance if they cannot see a future through a real job. Parents stare at the daily reality of no work, only welfare. Sit-down money is simply unsustainable.
Instead, my government’s approach is to create jobs so income is from work, not welfare. In order to break the cycle it must be clearly recognised good government means governing for everybody.
Public service: in order to govern well my government has a clear policy focus where there is a great deal to achieve. We need educated debate leading to evidence-based decisions and solutions which are developed and made with confidence. Coordination across government is vital, as is drawing on the expertise of our hard-working, highly-skilled public service. I repeat, highly-skilled. Territory public servants have years of experience which equate to huge value and benefit for the Northern Territory.
Every conversation across our departments must, therefore, be open, honest, realistic and informative. When experienced public servants have a voice, delivery and implementation will work, and there is a great deal to be done.
Local government: local government reform must be continued. The hard work and effort of the majority who work in local government is recognised. Changes must be made to find the balance between financial viability, cultural governance and local voice.
In this regard, the Regional Governance Working Group is a key element. The leadership of minister Anderson, bringing together Regional Development and Local Government, ensures a knowledgeable overview of the big picture. Her portfolios of Children and Families and Women’s Policy are another crucial partnership.
Health: minister Lambley will continue the roll out of the new service framework and I look forward to working with her on that. This will see the devolution of decision-making from upper bureaucratic echelons to the grassroots. The reform will establish new statutory service provider organisations. The Top End and Central Australian Health and Hospital Services will operate independent of the Department of Health, and will have their own boards of management. Legislation surrounding these changes will be introduced into parliament soon.
Structural healthcare reform processes will continue. We have to better integrate services between the private, the primary care and the hospital sectors ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 259(1) - the statement be printed. We have still not received it.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, Standing Order 92:
We are in the process of getting that statement printed out and sent to you.
Mr VATSKALIS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It is clear from Standing Order 258 the member opposite can present at any time when there is no question before the Assembly. However, this order clearly says provided copies of the statement are available for distribution when the minister commences his statement. The minister has already commenced and we have yet to see the printed statement.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker! Why did you not ask this morning when I told you about this? This morning the acting Whip was told about this, did not raise any objection, did not ask for anything, did not say anything other than, ‘Yes, that is fine’. Now, all of a sudden, they are trying to make an issue of this. They talk about protocol - why raise this as an issue unless they are trying to make politics out of it? They have had their fun; the printers are running at the moment, they will be down …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I was going to point out we have just received a copy. Speaking to what the member for Port Darwin …
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, Opposition Leader, there is no point of order. Please be seated, member for Karama.
Mr Elferink: The next time I explain something to the Opposition Whip they can object before this happens.
Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated, Leader of Government Business. The Chief Minister has the call.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise again ...
Ms Lawrie: You are hopeless. No wonder they dumped you.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Members interjecting.
Mr GILES: Efficient private practice specialist clinics will be encouraged. An active private sector working in concert with our current systems will free up services for those in greater need. Choice of and ready access …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: The Chief Minister is making a statement to the House. I ask members on both sides not to interfere or comment. Standing Order 51:
Chief Minister, you have the call.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is important I go back to where I started.
Efficient private practice specialist clinics will be encouraged. An active private sector working in concert with our current systems will free up services for those in greater need. Choice of and ready access to a wide range of specialist medical services will benefit Territorians.
Minister Lambley’s portfolio combination of Health and Alcohol Rehabilitation go hand-in-hand. A continued focus on supply management and reduction is important, but we need and have to understand and tackle the reasons for demand. Until we do, nothing is going to change except the type of substance being abused. The damage done to personal health, both mental and physical, due to alcohol abuse cannot be underestimated and reaches right across our society. The negative repercussions on every facet of life can be alleviated, and the plan is to get alcohol rehabilitation up and running as soon as possible once legislative frameworks are right. I have encouraged the member for Arafura to work with minister Lambley to ensure alcohol rehabilitation continues on a steady path.
Education - education has to be focused on the best outcomes for children. All children have a right to be well-prepared for their future, and my personal story proves anything is possible if you are prepared to work hard at it. Minister Chandler is continuing the task of improving educational outcomes in the Northern Territory, and the member for Stuart will draw upon her deep knowledge base and focus on getting Indigenous children to school for a real education based on real standards leading to real jobs.
Community sector - in strengthening our community, my government will engage with the community sector to develop new ways of supporting key service providers.
Arts - arts policy is a consideration for my government. For example, the Museum and Art Galleries of the Northern Territory is currently under review for the best model for the future. The minister responsible, minister Conlan, has wide-ranging portfolios, including Central Australia, and can ensure the Northern Territory as a whole receives a balanced focus.
Housing and land release - housing and land release are vital elements to support economic development and population stability. The Real Housing for Growth initiative is under way. The first round of the audit of Crown land in urban areas is complete.
People will recall land release in the Northern Territory was derailed by the former Labor government causing critical shortages. Labor’s inertia caused pain to families they still face today as they try to afford a place in the ownership or rental market.
However, establishment of the Planning Commission is a critical part of this government’s strategy to provide land for development and housing for Territorians. The government, with minister Chandler holding the Lands, Planning and the Environment portfolio, will look at stronger partnerships with the private sector, stimulating the construction market, furthering opportunities - public and private - housing, and also commercial.
Work is also being done in regard to private ownership of housing for Indigenous people, a reality urgently needed. Land tenure reforms under the Commonwealth’s Stronger Futures legislation are also a subject for discussion.
Power and Water - a healthy Power and Water Corporation is critical for the development of the Northern Territory. A review identified a change in leadership and structure was needed to support the reforms required, therefore, a new managing director has been appointed. Meanwhile, recommendations from the review will be considered by an interim board. This change in leadership places a renewed focus on business and development. Minister Westra van Holthe is the Essential Services Minister and will bring the same serious application to this portfolio as he displayed in his other ministries, including Mines and Energy.
Business and development - the government will support the aims and priorities of local business and business of northern Australia as a whole. Attracting the next INPEX, the next global company, to the Northern Territory is a key priority, including value-adding the downstream processing. However, let me stress, we must continue our strong environmental credentials.
This government is not about digging up and shipping out; we want to add value. Best practice and sustainable and robust legislation are critical. Yes, economic development is a must, but there is no point trumpeting we are the new frontier if there is no infrastructure in place. We must get the structures correct, which is one of the reasons Deputy Chief Minister Tollner holds the portfolios for Business and for Treasury - both sides of the equation which will be clearly defined and understood.
Current federal government rhetoric places north Australia at the forefront of opportunities for the Asian century. National reform will surely follow in support of this objective, but the federal government needs to work with us now on projects that include roads, rails, bridges and telecommunications that include our remote communities, unlike NBN’s current mismanaged plans leading to a fiasco.
There is an urgent need for an industrial harbour - a 24-hour port. Minister Styles is charged with the Infrastructure portfolio and has a clear understanding of the requirement for infrastructure projects and the need to plan properly in order to facilitate business opportunities.
If you do not build the economic infrastructure you will not build the Territory. If investment is made in the Territory’s framework, businesses will benefit in the long run. There will be economic advancement, and creation of jobs is a common theme of this government.
Tourism needs to flourish, unlike under Labor which saw continual downgrades in international tourist numbers. Tourism was in need of urgent action and minister Conlan is working hard to put solid foundations in place, particularly with the start of the Tourism Commission. Tiger Airways is back in Alice Springs, and I met with SilkAir on Sunday and look forward to the day when their flights between Darwin and Singapore run on a daily basis.
Law and order - everybody visiting and living in the Northern Territory wants to and deserves to feel safe. Under this government, those who deserve punishment will receive it and those who will benefit from other interventions will be so directed. The work undertaken by the Attorney-General in this regard is totally supported. Minister Elferink is not only continuing in his position as Attorney-General, he is also Leader of Government Business. It is pleasing to note on this side of the House we have someone so dedicated to the role. Minister Elferink’s passion about being sentenced to a job is absolutely fantastic and something I am really proud to be part of.
Treasury - last but not least, Treasury is charged with working towards balancing the budget - definitely a significant challenge - complicated by less GST income being received from Canberra and the relief given on power and water prices whereby, from 1 May, consumers’ bills will reflect the reduction and appropriate credit. I remind you of a fact we cannot hide. The Northern Territory government runs on a total of $5.5bn a year, yet the former Labor government left a debt tracking towards $5.5bn. That is an uncomfortable perspective, a debt the size of our entire budget - a Labor debt which has to be paid back.
As I said earlier today, the cycle continues. When Labor is in government, no matter which jurisdiction it is, debt and deficits escalate. When the conservatives or the Country Liberals come in, it is left to us to clean up the mess - to remove the deficit and pay back the debt.
In summary, I am proud to be the first Chief Minister whose home is in Central Australia. I will be spending the majority of my time in Darwin, and this is tough on relationships. I thank my wife, Tamara, and my daughter, Tahlia, for their support.
This government will seek to have the budget back in the black by 2017-18. Savings will be made wherever possible, and we will be fiscally responsible, with clearly articulated, united policy visions, evidence-based solutions, pragmatic and compassionate decision-making in an environment which inspires confidence in the Northern Territory and a clarity of purpose that will not be deflected by the toxic political posturing of the Labor opposition which seeks to detract and attack.
There is a great deal to be done, and under my leadership we will get it done. I want to elevate the level of debate in this Chamber. I want us to remember who we are and where we are. We are here representing Territorians in our jurisdictions, and we have to provide leadership to the youth, the future leaders of tomorrow, such as the people sitting in the gallery now. It can be a rewarding journey as a politician, as each of us strives to improve the lives of Territorians who have elected us.
I invite the opposition to join me on this journey to raise the level of debate, hold us to account for policy and programs, and drag the debate out of the gutter and get the Northern Territory parliament up to the standard and beyond of other jurisdictions in Australia, and to sensibly debate the issues which affect us. For my part, I will be focused and decisive, but also thoughtful and considerate. I invite the opposition to hold me and my ministers to account. Territorians expect and deserve them to do their job, just as they expect and deserve me to do mine.
John F Kennedy’s famous comment, ‘To those whom much is given, much is expected’, inspires. The expectations of Territorians are high and we must meet them.
I will ensure the government delivers better, tangible outcomes for Territorians. I say to the Opposition Leader and Labor opposite, game on.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, he ended with a comment which truly reflects him. To quote JFK, a leader who did not take leadership by cowardly knifing his leader in the back, is truly delusional. He ad-libbed a couple of times in the statement. It is interesting; we have the ‘address’ not the ministerial statement - clearly, a complete breach of standing orders.
That being said, so be it. We will debate this shallow and pathetic attempt by the Chief Minister to rewrite history - to pretend. There is not one mention in the statement of the fact he knifed the former Chief Minister when he was representing the Northern Territory on a trip to Japan. No apology, not an inkling of the fact he might be humbled; no indication of humility, or any recognition of the damage he has done to our relationship with Japan - no recognition of the jeopardy he has placed Territory businesses in which are chasing those all-important lucrative contracts coming out of Japan.
This is a shallow attempt to rewrite history - a denial of the facts. On no occasion in the Chamber today has he chosen to step up, be a man, and admit to his actions. Instead, we see the little boy with his address, ‘It is all about me; it is all about what I want to do and where I will take things’. There are shallow cursory glances at some of the ministerial responsibilities, and it speaks volumes for what is missing from this ministerial statement. I will touch on some of the aspects he mentioned in a moment.
You cannot expect us to take you seriously when you will not address the elephant in the room; the fact you headed a leadership coup against the elected Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Terry Mills. At no stage today have you ’fessed up to that, dealt with it in any way, shown any humility, any recognition - as the member for Nelson pointed out - to the work done by the former Chief Minister, the member for Blain. No, it has all been about rewriting history and pretending it was not a grubby, cowardly, despicable and illegitimate way the member for Braitling became Chief Minister.
The Chief Minister’s address does not go to the heart of any of the reasons why he would take on leadership. He was happy to explain to Leigh Sales on the 7.30 Report, ‘Well, you know, I have been dissatisfied for a while about the direction of the government, the direction of the leadership’. However, at no stage in his address did he deal with where that dissatisfaction lay, what was wrong, and which CLP policies he is seeking to tear up and move away from.
It is unbelievable and a very shallow address wanting to rewrite history and ignore the fact he knifed the Chief Minister, his own colleague, when he was in Japan representing the Northern Territory. Instead, he talked about a new order - he will deal with the present and carefully plan for the future. He wants to pretend that in dealing with the present he cannot deal with the very present and real questions people are asking as to how he could get it so terribly wrong when taking leadership. What massive error of judgment, what strong vein of disloyalty or dishonour has been mined in the member for Braitling when he could get it so terribly wrong as to humiliate the Chief Minister while on a formal delegation to Japan and - as the member for Nelson so aptly put it - make the Northern Territory a laughing stock? The little boy opposite, as described by one of his own colleagues, now simply steps past that, steps into his own denial and writes history the way he wants to present it.
He banged on about debt and the impact of debt. I will go to that when we get around to debating the Treasurer’s ministerial statement. The Chief Minister said, ‘High debt impacts directly on opportunities for growth’. You have to wonder where he is coming from trying to spin that, somehow, the actions of Labor have damaged the opportunity for growth in the Northern Territory. In 2001, when Labor was elected to government for the first time in the history of the Northern Territory, economic growth was at 0%. Labor had eight surplus budgets in a row. We wrote down debt by $582m and took the economy to the fastest growing in the nation. Deloitte Access, and now the state reports by CommSec, recognise how rapidly this economy is growing.
We went after the opportunities, secured them and, most critically and importantly, the major one, the Ichthys project - the $32bn investment. In the background, pursuit of that project was providing a government of stability and certainty, and providing a business environment where you could have certainty in investment because of the strength of the relationships. I stress the word ‘relationships’ between the senior leaders of government - Clare Martin when she was Chief Minister, Paul Henderson when he was Chief Minister, and their deputies and the team around them, the ministerial Cabinet - there was a relationship. There is no relationship between the pretender, the member for Braitling, and the key, critically important people to the economic growth of the Territory. Investors are wondering what is next because they have seen so much turmoil in the Northern Territory since the CLP took government.
To say high debt somehow impacts on economic opportunity is absolute nonsense. Quite the opposite has occurred. We were creating surplus budgets and writing down debt to the tune of $582m. Then the global financial crisis hit. You will never hear that mentioned by the CLP because it is a fact they do not like anyone to understand. When the Chief Minister said he is all about jobs, jobs, jobs, during the global financial crisis the Labor government, through doubling the infrastructure spend, created 13 000 jobs.
We hear the shallow rhetoric of the current Chief Minister - jobs, job, jobs – but, in reality, if they had their way - as they called for constantly in opposition - we would not have had that all-important infrastructure spend creating the 13 000 jobs through the hardest years of the global financial crisis, supporting the construction sector and the small- and medium-size businesses of the Territory and gearing them up for the economic opportunities flowing out of the major project. Business and industry understands it, and that is why they are appalled with the behaviour of the current government, which is sending them in the opposite direction.
The Chief Minister’s statement talked about abolishing Indigenous affairs and how it is everybody’s business. Labor says that is a terrible mistake. You need an agency to scrutinise the actions of all agencies of government to ensure they are addressing the most significantly disadvantaged Territorians. The need by Indigenous Territorians across any of the indicators - health, or housing - is fundamental. To abolish an agency which has a central, coordinated role to close the gap on disadvantage as rapidly as possible is a terrible mistake - one, I might add, the Liberal leader in Canberra is at odds with.
Tony Abbott has announced he will assume responsibility for Indigenous Affairs and will task - if they win government - Nigel Scullion with Indigenous Affairs. At the same time as Tony Abbott is in Canberra saying he will have a dedicated focus on it, the Chief Minister is abolishing that focus. From a policy perspective, how at odds could they be?
Jobs, jobs, jobs. Do yourself a big favour, Chief Minister, and engage immediately with the training organisations of the Northern Territory. I have yet to find a training organisation in the Territory that is not in absolute despair about the funding cuts by the Northern Territory government. It is having a very real impact on getting Indigenous Territorians into jobs. You say one thing and the actions of your government are the exact opposite. The Chief Minister spoke about the importance of education. How do you then explain the 10% cut to education? How do you explain the change to the equity funding which has seen teacher positions in remote schools lost?
How do you match your rhetoric with actions? You have turned your back on and are disadvantaging our most needy. Across our education system, children of the Northern Territory in remote schools are suffering from the actions of your government through your change in equity funding for Territory schools. Chief Minister, you have the gall to say it is about jobs, ignoring the cuts to training, and it is all about education, ignoring the cuts to the education budget.
You talk about the importance of health and alcohol rehabilitation and how that has been put into the hands of the member for Araluen. This is the same person you were quite happy to see exit the leadership team of Terry Mills. You were happy to set her up for the work done in the first seven months and make her as loathed, if not more loathed, than the member for Blain, publicly taking the hits for the team.
In health and alcohol rehabilitation, what has been done? Rhetoric and inaction. The only action taken so far has been to dismantle the Enough is Enough alcohol reforms - the BDR et al - and the results are drunks on the streets. We have businesses, cafes, restaurants and tourism operators despairing, arming themselves to deal with the drunks on the streets in Darwin, Palmerston, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. The very proud, ‘I am from Central Australia Chief Minister’, can announce additional police, but they cannot be on every street corner. You can make them stand in front of every bottle shop, but they cannot be in front of every business in Alice Springs. After a few days last week, loud and clear coming from the community and businesses is crime is spiralling out of control under the CLP and the response is, ‘I will put extra police out there’.
Ignoring the grog-related violence as you are, you cannot get your legislation up; you have no legislation before the House to deal with problem drunks. Where is the legislation for the habitual drunks’ policy? You have handballed it from one minister to another; it is now with its third minister. It started with the member for Port Darwin who handballed it to the member for Fong Lim, who has now handballed it to the member for Araluen. I am waiting for the next handball. Meanwhile, people suffer because you have failed to deliver that 100-day promise to immediately rid the streets of drunks.
In health, my goodness, what a debacle - $135m of Commonwealth health funding rejected. It was handed back to Canberra for other jurisdictions to pick up and use. The CLP scrapping Palmerston hospital is unbelievable. This is the same party that campaigned and promised to build the hospital and you are scrapping it. The site is ready, the funding was there - an agreement between the Commonwealth and Northern Territory governments - and you are tearing it up and walking away! The people of Palmerston need and were getting a hospital and you are scrapping it. While scrapping the Palmerston hospital, you are threatening to mothball then scrap Royal Darwin Hospital.
It does not get much worse in mishandling the health portfolio. People are gobsmacked at how bad you are at consideration of the health policy and delivery of health services. I have not even touched on renal services or medi-hotel - $135m handed back and you have the gall to complain about federal health funding which, by the way, was slashed when Tony Abbott was Health minister.
You talked about land tenure, Chief Minister, in this address. That is code - no doubt about it - for a Liberal/CLP attack on the land councils. Your intention to dismantle the land councils is writ large in the rhetoric of this address. It is despicable! You will go after the areas you received support to get into government and break down their rights. I do not understand how you can hold your head high. You are taking away their water rights and you want to take away their land rights. Land tenure - code for dismantling the land councils ...
Mr Tollner: Are you all there? Just keep feeding them welfare, Delia? That is your view.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Fong Lim!
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Fong Lim, ‘Just keep feeding them welfare’. If you understand anything about land rights and the work of the land councils, it is not about welfare. That is the weird, ideological bubble in which you live, member for Fong Lim.
The communities sector in the address got one paragraph:
The key service providers had a 5% cut to their funding - that is the action versus the rhetoric of the CLP. The community sector has seen your actions. The Northern Territory Council of Social Service had a 50% cut to its funding. Is this the new order the Chief Minister described? Are we expecting, in the budget, a 50% restoration to the NTCOSS budget? Is the new order going to bring back the 5% already cut from the community sector and, in fact, see growth go into it? What is happening in the community sector because you are not engaging with them, even though in this statement you say you will and there will be new ways of supporting them? Everyone is waiting with bated breath because your actions have shown the opposite.
The Arts policy is under consideration. I am sure the arts and museums sector would love a funding injection immediately equivalent to the two-week junket to Europe taken by the minister. Add that up and inject it into the arts and museum sector immediately instead of the self-indulgent two-week junket Matt Conlan went on. Unbelievable!
Mr Tollner: You are just criminal!
Ms LAWRIE: Do not worry; there will be more to come on that.
Mr McCarthy: That really hit a nerve.
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, they are firing up on that.
Power and Water - here we go. They want a healthy corporation. How is dismantling a corporation healthy? I would like to see them explain that. They have sacked the managing director and the board made up of industry and business experts undertaking a rebuild of the Power and Water Corporation because it had been run down by the previous CLP government. We had to, in the mid-2000s, commit to the $1.2bn build to deal with the rundown assets and build new assets required to meet demanding growth. Now we have the Baskerville hatchet job being applied to Power and Water to dismantle it and prepare it for sell-off. You have form; you have been there before, seen it before; and is why you were voted out of power before.
If you believe there are Territorians who do not have a crystal clear recollection of the actions of the ailing CLP in the 1990s, you are deluded. Everyone is saying they can see it going back to the 1990s with these actions ...
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Can we get an orderly in here with a box of tissues for the Leader of the Opposition’s crocodile tears?
Madam SPEAKER: Sit down, member for Fong Lim! There is no point or order. Sit down. Opposition Leader, you have the call.
Mr Tollner: She looks like she is going to break down.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member for Fong Lim cannot help himself. You have to throw the sexist remark in. ‘Oh, it is a woman and she looks like she is going to break down. Get her some tissues’. Dave, do you understand that is why people cannot stand the idea you are in that role? You are this big sexist bully.
In business and development they want to value add with downstream processing. Why not come out and say what you mean? Why not say, ‘We want to have discussions with Dow Chemicals about where we can put the plant’. We know they were interested years ago. We know the government of the day did not want it at Middle Arm, but we are serious about this. Why do you not name the downstreaming, because at some stage you will have to? You cannot keep hinting at things when you are in government. You did it in opposition, but you are in government and will be held to account for what you say and what you mean. You do not like that level of scrutiny, but that is the reality. When you say, ‘value add with downstream processing’, call it out; say you are genuinely interested in meeting with Dow Chemicals and you are going to look at where the plant will be.
Will it be at Gunn Point? Will it be at Middle Arm? You say you are looking at a second port. Where? Will you put a second port at Gunn Point, or are you going back to Glyde Point where you originally intended it to be? Start saying what you mean rather than hint because you will be asked these questions. People value a government that is a little more up-front than you have been - a small tip for you.
I will never forget the interim report of the Renewal Management Board. One of the most laughable aspects of that report - apart from the fact the only facts and figures in it were a repeat of the pre-election fiscal outlook - was the attack on the Marine Supply Base. If you want to talk about value-adding of the broader services and supply to the oil and gas industry, you cannot go past the Marine Supply Base. Yes, that Labor initiative the CLP old boys - the Renewal Management Board - found to be not viable. One wonders at what point they will sell the equity in the Marine Supply Base.
The Chief Minister went on to say, ‘with our strong environmental credentials’. That is an extraordinary statement to make. I ask, Chief Minister, if you are going to change the legislation surrounding the Environment Protection Authority and truly make it independent as had been originally promised, or are you just pretending to have strong environmental credentials? If you say there is a new order - erase the last seven months and he will not be accountable for actions there because there is a new order - is the new order a truly independent EPA? We will look forward to the amendments to the legislation coming forward and to an independent chair of the EPA, otherwise this is shallow rhetoric.
The Chief Minister spoke about the role of his mate, big Dave, as Treasurer. There is much to be said about that and many people have many comments. I will save my comments for my response to the Treasurer’s first statement. Suffice to say, many people are extremely concerned the member for Fong Lim has been appointed Treasurer.
In tourism, he tipped his hat and acknowledged Tiger Airways is back in Alice and he is delighted with that. We welcome that and acknowledge he was with SilkAir on Sunday evening. I, too, was at that function. What he failed to acknowledge is it was a joint effort between the Labor government and the tourism and hospitality industry working together that convinced SilkAir to fly to Darwin with those all-important business class seats. The economic drivers from the INPEX project - again Labor-delivered work - will see SilkAir increase its flights to what could be daily flights. He did not mention the Philippine Airlines announcement of what are colloquially referred to as ‘FIFO flights’ because that seemed to take the government by surprise.
He went on to praise the Attorney-General but did not mention any of justice reform or legislative change in the new order. His summary was he is a good bloke, he is going to change the tone of debate, he is going to set a higher bar and we should all come on the journey with him. For anyone in Question Time this morning, it was Adam of old. It was Adam Giles being a bit of a buffoon, the little boy, romping around - quite the theatre. It was not even remotely a statesmanlike appearance of a new Chief Minister. If that is the tone, Chief Minister, if that is the new bar you are setting for the parliament, one wonders just how low a view you have of this parliament.
I know changes have been flagged, there will be a new order, and what we see today is part of that new order in the way the parliament has been treated with complete disrespect - disrespect to the member for Nelson, an Independent. Like it or not, he is not a member of a party in this Chamber and needs to be afforded the normal courtesies anyone is afforded regarding advice of the business of the House.
When we are provided with advice on the business of the House at 9.30 am on a sitting day, that is not normal; that is not convention. When we are advised the Chief Minister will have an indulgence statement - a term used in the Commonwealth parliament - we saw it for what it was: he was going to seek leave for his indulgence. Instead, they dressed it up and presented it as a ministerial statement. No. Even the paper on which it is printed says, ‘Chief Minister’s Address’. It was not a ministerial statement; it was pure indulgence of the member for Braitling, the illegitimate Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, who knifed the Chief Minister while he was representing the Territory in Japan. He is such a little boy he cannot even recognise in the Chamber today, in the many opportunities he has had - cannot bring himself to acknowledge in his speech the years of work and commitment his colleague, the member for Blain, contributed as Leader of the Opposition, winning the election, and then as Chief Minister. It is just all about his new order.
Debate adjourned.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, the government inherited a fiscal problem from its predecessor. Territory finances were running a large annual deficit, and the Territory’s level of debt relative to income was set to be the highest among the states and territories. This situation was clearly unsustainable. This government inherited a projected $5.5bn debt from the former government. Furthermore, due to its fiscal mismanagement, the budget will be in deficit by $800m this financial year alone, and the situation is not better in the outer years.
In order to fund this overrun in expenditure, the government will be forced to borrow more which will result in increased interest repayments. To put this into context for the mums and dads in the community, this is the same as them overspending their weekly wages, racking up a credit card debt, getting another credit card or, in extreme circumstances, refinancing their home to maintain the same standard of living ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ring the bells.
A quorum is present.
Mr TOLLNER: Mr Deputy Speaker, to put the Territory’s level of debt into context for the mums and dads in the community, what the former Treasurer did is the same as them overspending their weekly wages, racking up a credit card debt, then getting another credit card or, in extreme circumstances, refinancing their home to maintain the same standard of living.
In its initial months in office, the government acted to get its finances in order quickly by implementing some strong and difficult revenue measures. We raised power and water tariffs to be more cost reflective. PWC tariffs had fallen to almost the lowest among the states which was threatening PWC’s financial viability. Clearly, PWC had been selling power at a cheaper price than producing it. We lifted some taxes and government charges to bring them into line with other jurisdictions. Independent calculations show the Territory level of taxation effort had fallen to about three-quarters of that of the other states, on average.
We also started a process of expenditure review and the mini-budget saw a range of savings measures introduced. I will not deny the emphasis to date has been on revenue-raising measures rather than expenditure-reducing measures. We understand the various revenue-raising measures have impacted directly on Territory households and businesses. We have listened and acted.
First, as announced recently by the Chief Minister, we have taken steps to reduce the impact of the necessary increase in utility tariffs. The 30% increase to power prices announced in November last year has been reduced to 20%. Water prices have dropped from their original 40% rise to 30%, and sewerage prices have dropped from 25% to 15%. Furthermore, these changes will be retrospectively applied to 1 January this year with customers credited for any additional amounts paid. The remaining and necessary 10% increase will now be phased in over time so Territorians can better manage the financial impact. A 5% increase will come into effect on 1 January 2014, and another 5% increase will be applied on 1 January 2015.
Second, we are pursuing deficit reduction in a sustainable way so as not to cause an economic downturn. The government has refined its fiscal strategy to target a return to fiscal balance in six years rather than four years and alleviating some pain for households and businesses. This will see our fiscal deficit eliminated by 2017-18.
Third, we are committed to shifting the focus of our debt reduction efforts squarely towards expenditure reduction. Some have said the government, to date, has been content to shift its own problems on to others by focusing on revenue-increasing adjustment measures rather than putting its own house in order first by focusing on expenditure-reduction methods. The government, like everyone else, has to live within its own means. It is not financially sustainable or fiscally responsible to be running up debt to the degree projected when we assumed office. It had to stop. The evidence was undeniable: subsidised utility prices and a low revenue-raising effort were significant contributors to the downward spiral in Territory finances.
I recognise we cannot expect Territory households and businesses to bear the fiscal adjustment burden alone. In tackling our fiscal target, we continue to honour our election commitments made in the lead-up to the 2012 election and, as announced in the mini-budget, have already incorporated them into our budget for the current and forward years. These total $97m ongoing from 2015-16 with key commitments including: funding for 100 additional police officers across the Northern Territory to be fully implemented by July 2014; enhanced cardiac outreach and rehabilitation services and the commencement of low-risk angioplasty services; an additional 400 elective surgeries per annum; an increase to school vouchers from $75 per student to $150 per student; and funding to improve housing properties in homelands and outstations.
As such, I confirm the first phase of fiscal adjustment has ended. As a government, we will now turn our focus to tightening our own belt. Details of the further expenditure reductions we intend to make will be announced in the Territory’s budget which will be handed down on 14 May instead of 30 April. Make no mistake, this will be a tough budget but one that is necessary to put the Northern Territory back on the right path. The Territory has traditionally had a May budget, and the revised budget date still provides adequate time to pass the budget before the end of the financial year.
The Territory takes a GST revenue hit. At this stage, I can confirm our budgetary task has been made more challenging by the volatility in the Territory’s largest revenue source - our share of the GST. The composition of the Territory’s revenue is very different from other states. About 80% of the Territory’s revenue is sourced from the Commonwealth compared to about 50%, on average, in other jurisdictions. The Territory’s reliance on Commonwealth funding means our fiscal position is highly dependent on the vagaries of Commonwealth decisions and policies. This is evident in relation to GST, which represents the largest component of the Territory’s revenue.
When the GST was introduced in July 2000, it was intended to provide a revenue windfall for the states. Prior to the GFC, the GST pool grew, on average, by 8.2% per annum. However, following the global financial crisis, average annual growth in the GST pool has fallen to 2.1%. The slower growth in the GST pool reflects changes in consumer spending patterns and an increasing propensity for households to save. The slower growth in GST revenue has been compounded by risk to the Territory’s share of the GST pool.
Earlier this month, the Commonwealth Grants Commission released its 2013 update which recommended a decrease in the Territory’s GST relativity. If accepted by the Gillard government, this cut in our GST relativity will result in the Territory’s share of the GST pool falling from 5.7% in 2012-13 to 5.4% in 2013-14. In dollar terms, this will result in an ongoing $100m-plus decrease in the Territory’s GST’s share. That is the equivalent of ripping $3.7bn from New South Wales or $2.4bn from Victoria. Such cuts would not happen in either of those southern states.
While the GST relativities fluctuate each year, we are disappointed with the Commonwealth Grants Commission’s 2013 update recommendations. The main reason given by the Commonwealth Grants Commission was a fall in the Territory’s share of the national Indigenous population between the 2006 and 2011 Census. Between the 2006 and 2011 Census, the Territory’s Indigenous population increased by 8% compared to 30% nationally. In Victoria and the ACT, the Indigenous population increased by over 40%, largely because more people in these states identified themselves as being Indigenous for the first time in the 2011 Census.
The application of preliminary 2011 Census-based Indigenous population estimates alone decrease the Territory’s GST revenue by $121m. Effectively, the Grants Commission is suggesting the Territory could spend $121m less per annum on services to Indigenous Territorians and still be able to provide an average level of services. This is grossly inaccurate and does not reflect the Territory’s circumstances. You cannot compare the circumstances of an Indigenous person living at Yuendumu with someone living in Sydney or Melbourne.
I will be attending a Standing Council on Federal Financial Relations meeting next month to discuss the Grants Commission’s 2013 update. I will take this opportunity to raise my objections to the Grants Commission’s recommendations. It is likely, however, my plea will fall on deaf ears in Canberra. If so, we will need to focus to an even greater extent on improving the efficacy with which the government provides services and infrastructure, as well as ensuring the outputs delivered by government agencies remain appropriate and effective. Government inefficiency and waste must be eliminated.
Turning to the previous government’s lack of budgetary discipline, the issues we intend to tackle can be illustrated by the following statistics. When the current budget year, 2012-13, appeared in the forward estimates in the May 2009 budget, total expenses in the Territory’s general government sector for 2012-13 were projected to be around $4.3bn. By the time the election came around in August last year, the estimate of total expenses in the 2012-13 year had risen to about $4.8m, an incredible increase of $0.5bn or 12%. Over the same period, total revenue in the Territory’s general government sector in 2012-13 rose by only around 7% between its first projection in the May 2009 budget and the August 2012 pre-election fiscal outlook.
If growth in the 2012-13’s total expenses had been restrained to this growth evident in total revenue, which was around 7%, total expenses in 2012-13, when we assumed office, would have been around $200m less than projected.
Clearly, the previous government found it difficult to control expenditure, and if it continued on the path of overspending and increasing debt it would have resulted in even tougher economic decisions being required now. Furthermore, increasing debt servicing costs are a drag on the economy as they divert previous funds from programs and projects to pay interest. Clearly, the previous government cannot be trusted to manage the Territory’s finances.
I can illustrate this further. Since the May 2007 budget, just before the global financial crisis, the actual outcome for total expenses each year in the Territory’s general government sector has been some 4% higher than the amount budgeted for, for that year. This implies the average overrun each year in operating expenditure in the Territory’s general government sector, relative to the amount budgeted, has averaged around $170m annually.
Furthermore, coming into government we found the previous government left an unfunded legacy expenditure commitment with a cost estimated by agencies of over $600m over the forward estimates period. We considered them all in the context of our government’s priorities and made provision for over half of the commitments, which primarily relate to demand-driven services and are to be funded in the current year and over the forward estimates.
Some of the legacy commitments funded by this government include: over $50m for Police, Fire and Emergency Services; $115m for the Children and Families function; $21m for Correctional Services; and $59m for Health, including funding to operate a medi-hotel, the emergency department in Alice Springs, remote mobile breast screening and secure care facilities.
As I have said, the previous government, under the stewardship of the member for Karama, obviously found expenditure control very difficult. As a government, if we are not focused on responsible financial management, this will continue. The lack of fiscal rigour and economic mismanagement demonstrated by the former Labor Treasurer, the member for Karama, will not happen under my watch.
Turning to enhanced budget monitoring, the estimates of expenditure in the coming budget year 2013-14 will be announced when the budget is brought down on 14 May. We will adopt rigorous processes and procedures to ensure we come in at, or under, these budgeted amounts. Enhancing the existing budget monitoring system is critical as it will provide assurance that individual agencies are properly managing their budget allocations and any genuine emerging trends are identified as early as possible, thereby ensuring corrective action is planned and undertaken at the earliest opportunity. To date, monitoring of agency financial performance in the Northern Territory public service has been limited in its effectiveness. It is not involved in or been preceded by formal before-the-event scrutiny of business plans, let alone agreement on financial objectives and targets, and after-the-event monitoring has often been left until it is far too late - in the final months of the year. Accordingly, I announce an enhanced budget monitoring process will commence from 2013-14.
Key to this will be a Budget Management Committee, a subcommittee of Cabinet with a membership comprising the Chief Minister, Treasurer, and a nominated line agency minister. The Budget Management Committee will review Budget Cabinet submissions prior to progressing to the full Budget Cabinet with a view to ensuring submissions are consistent with the government’s overall priorities and are thoroughly costed, provide ongoing oversight, where appropriate, of the implementation of key budget decisions and of new policy initiatives with significant financial implications, and oversight a rolling program of review of agency corporate or strategic plans to ensure alignment with the government’s priorities and desired outcomes.
More generally, I expect the Budget Management Committee will scrutinise actual performance of each agency against agreed goals and targets on a quarterly basis in December, March, June and September, with greater scrutiny on those where corrective action is required. Furthermore, a mid-year budget review process will be undertaken in September of this year by the Departments of the Chief Minister and Treasury and Finance. This review will look at the resources allocated to agencies in the budget and forward estimates and the use of those resources and their alignment with government’s strategic direction. The review will provide options to redirect resources within whole-of-government existing resources, either within an agency or between agencies, to best meet government’s objectives. The outcome of the review will be provided to Cabinet for consideration in October/November 2013.
I wish to assure the House no more in the Northern Territory will there be unequivocal acceptance of one-off Commonwealth infrastructure grants without a Cabinet-approved appropriation for ongoing operational expenditure. We will work in partnership with the Commonwealth to ensure enhanced services are provided to Territorians in a coordinated manner.
I now turn my attention to the reform of the Power and Water Corporation. The government expects the Power and Water Corporation to tighten its belt by delivering on a range of efficiency measures. The government is committed to minimising the need for future tariff increases in excess of annual movements in the CPI. To this end, PWC has an intense change program ahead of it which requires new people and skills. To facilitate the reforms necessary, the government has moved quickly to appoint a new board and Managing Director in a transition/interim capacity to immediately commence implementation of the changed program. In coming months, the board will be expanded by the appointment of non-executive directors with the necessary mix of experience and skills to provide the ongoing leadership and vision for the new PWC. Refreshing the PWC Board and appointing a new Managing Director will materially assist implementation of necessary reforms within the Power and Water Corporation.
The Chief Minister, the Treasurer, and the Minister for Essential Services will oversight PWC’s reform program with the support of their agencies. Strong central coordination is essential to the reform process as is strong oversight of PWC. This coordination and oversight will centre on a reform road map to be agreed between the government and the PWC Board. As the shareholding minister, I will be holding the new PWC Board to account for delivering on the full range of efficiency measures identified.
Indeed, my expectation is the Power and Water Corporation Board will exceed the targets set without putting in jeopardy existing service reliability standards. The board will be charged with monitoring and enforcing management’s accountability for progress against objectives and targets set by the government as PWC’s owner.
In addition, the new board has been asked to consider the creation of stand-alone businesses …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ring the bells.
We have a quorum.
Mr TOLLNER: In addition, the new board has been asked to consider the creation of stand-alone businesses or, alternatively, the establishment of subsidiary entities within a holding company model. This would provide the opportunity to redefine executive roles within the corporation and introduce further new talent into the organisation.
All these changes are intended to ensure PWC continues to provide a high grade of service at the least possible cost. Privatisation is not on the agenda.
In conclusion, we inherited a projected $5.5bn debt from the former government. We implemented some painful but necessary revenue-raising strategies. We have listened to Territory people and businesses and lessened the immediate burden on them. We have revised our fiscal strategy to target a return of the budget to a fiscal balance by 2017-18, despite also having taken a further unwarranted slug in GST revenue from the Labor government in Canberra. We will tighten our belts and immediately implement rigorous and responsible processes and procedures to ensure government comes in on budget, and have taken action to refresh and reform the Power and Water Corporation. We have put the Territory back on a sustainable path which will provide long-term benefits for all Territorians.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the statement to the House and move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is certainly a terrible statement but not surprising given one of the first things the Treasurer said on taking up the important portfolio was it would be a terrible budget. He did not say it would be a tough budget, he said it would be a terrible budget. What an admission up-front from the incoming Treasurer. In relation to the CLP and fiscal management, we have had three Treasurers in seven months. Could you have got it more wrong? Labor was in government for just over 11 years and had two Treasurers …
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: That got them going; they arced up a bit. They are still a rabble, still shouting. They cannot help themselves. Still going. In your own time. Have you finished yet?
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: Do you want to call them again? In their own time.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: When we are ready, Treasurer.
Ms LAWRIE: Okay. So …
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: Really. Syd Stirling and I ...
Mr Tollner: Clare was the first.
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, I stand corrected. Clare did the mini-budget and very quickly handed it on to Syd Stirling and then, me - Treasurer for five years …
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: I was Treasurer for five years. John Elferink made six days. Is that a record? He was dumped after six days. That is a record, is it not? They took Lia out of Cabinet after six days too. That was a shocker. People are still talking about that. That was unnecessarily mean, but you get that.
It is a terrible statement but the Treasurer, early days, said it was going to be a terrible budget. He did not say it would be a tough budget; he said it would be terrible. That is because he does not know what he is doing.
The first point in your statement shows you do not know what you are doing because the financial position of the Territory is the same as that provided to the CLP in opposition prior to the election. The numbers you quoted are wrong. I will give you a tip - the member for Araluen got it wrong consistently. The fiscal imbalance is not the deficit. The deficit figures appear separately. The fiscal imbalance is the fiscal imbalance. If you want to quote the fiscal imbalance figures at $800m-plus, that is the fiscal imbalance. If you want to quote the deficit, it is around $380m-odd – a big difference. You are going to make yourself look like a buffoon if you keep getting it wrong.
The member for Araluen got it wrong consistently. She got it so wrong we stopped pulling her up on it because everyone knew it was embarrassing. I will pull you up in the early days when you confuse the deficit with the fiscal imbalance. You can either continue to do that and look like a buffoon or start understanding the books.
Presented in the Treasurer’s statement are exactly the same numbers for fiscal imbalance as appeared in the pre-election fiscal outlook. What the Treasurer likes to bang on about is, ‘We had to take remedial action and we recognise it has been on the side of revenue. Do not worry, we have shifted our focus in this new phase and it will be about us tightening our belts and ensuring we constrain expenditure’.
Let us look at the action of the CLP versus the rhetoric. They paid the Renewal Management Board over $1m in salary alone in just six months to assess the budget figures. The figures are exactly as they were in the pre-election fiscal outlook handed down by the Under Treasurer they sacked on coming to government.
They hiked up power and water prices by 30% then we had a mini-budget. We have had three Treasurers and, all along, with every action they have taken, the figures have been the same. They are exactly the same figures that appeared in the pre-election fiscal outlook.
They replaced the power and water price increases with a hike of 20% followed by a further 5% next year and 5% the year after. They then said the budget is delayed because they need more time to assess the position, yet the figures have not changed. The numbers are still exactly the same as they were seven months ago before the election.
All these claims about finding out the true state of the books are made up, and this statement proves it. The only thing they go to are the references in the Renewal Management Board progress report. I am still waiting for the final, but they have left the Territory. What a joke! If you are going to pay people $1m of taxpayers’ funds can they at least produce a final report before they leave the Territory? The numbers they refer to as ‘future liabilities’ - anyone who knows anything about agencies and budgets would understand that across repairs and maintenance and pressure points within budget growth and demand, there is always potential.
Ask the agencies every October for their bids and you will get in the vicinity of $700m to $800m worth. You could call every one future liabilities. They are all demand pressure points; they are all repairs and maintenance requirements. The point of a budget and a Budget Cabinet is to decide what the priorities are. This nonsense of future liabilities makes you a laughing stock to anyone who understands budgets. Talking to professors at different universities, they cannot believe anyone put their name to the Renewal Management Board’s progress report. Where is the final?
The same numbers appearing in the Treasurer’s statement appeared in the pre-election fiscal outlook. These were the numbers the CLP used to campaign on cutting the cost of living. They are using the same numbers as justification now for increasing the cost of living – the same figures the CLP was complaining about before the election saying power prices were too high. Let us not forget the media release where Terry Mills said, ‘Send your power bill to Paul Henderson to pay’. Using the same figures, they now say power prices were too low.
I am glad the Treasurer chose to put our financial position into the context of the mums and dads. How many mums and dads would love it if their entire mortgage and debt was only 66% of their combined annual income? That is our situation. A Territory family on a combined annual income of $100 000 would love to have a total mortgage and debt of only $66 000. How many mums and dads would love it if the interest payment on their mortgage was only 8% of their annual income? That is our situation, the same as it was in the 1990s when Barry Coulter and Mike Reed were describing our financial situation as sound.
The Treasurer is saying any mum or dad who has a debt of more than 66% of their annual income is financially irresponsible. He is calling tens of thousands of Territory families and businesses financially incompetent. The Treasurer’s analogy about getting a credit card to pay off the credit card is totally wrong. He must have stolen that from the Peter Chandler file.
A budget management committee is their fiscal strategy. This means Dave Tollner and Adam Giles, and a minister of their choice, will decide the budget, locking out the rest of Cabinet. I am curious to know if the other minister will be Alison Anderson. In the integrity of process, of course every government has a budget subcommittee. Every budget subcommittee overlooks any bid going to Cabinet with a financial request attached to it - that is normal. That happened under the Labor government and happens under governments around the nation.
One wonders why Dave is beating his chest about this new process of scrutinising corporate reports and business plans of agencies. That is exactly what the Territory 2030 subcommittee of Cabinet was doing. Of course, Territory 2030 is a forbidden term. No planning for the future under the CLP government; scrap that and take it down from the websites. Do not mention it and hope everyone forgets about it. How shallow do you believe Territorians are?
The Treasurer complained about losing $100m as a result of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. When it first occurred, in the relativities and indigeneity resets, he blamed Wayne Swan. In his rhetoric today he is blaming Julia Gillard, when neither is to blame. The relativities and definitions are defined by the Commonwealth Grants Commission not Julia Gillard or Wayne Swan.
You can attend the Standing Council on Federal Financial Relations ministerial meeting in Canberra and hear what Treasurers from around the states have heard from consecutive federal leaders, whether they be Liberal or Labor: the relativities set by the Commonwealth Grants Commission are noted not changed. Unless, of course, Tony Abbott sticks to his word and backs up his rhetoric if he ever becomes Prime Minister of our nation. The one person who has altered from that path - federal leadership - has been Tony Abbott. He has sided with the southern states, his Liberal mates, and says it should be done on a population carve-up. That would be catastrophic for the Northern Territory.
Put your ideological hatred of a Labor government in Canberra aside, Dave Tollner, and get a grip. The Commonwealth Grants Commission sets the relativities, not the federal government of the day - not Julia Gillard or Wayne Swan. When you get it so significantly wrong in your statement you really make a fool of yourself.
Every Territorian would agree our funding should not be cut. The Treasurer talked about the contraction in the GST pool. I heard members opposite berate me about losing money. When we talked about the contraction in the GST pool we seemed to be making it up. We lost $700m in GST as a result of the global financial crisis and contraction in the pool. Yet, all of a sudden it is acknowledged by the new Treasurer. The hypocrisy knows no bounds.
When in Canberra, I challenge the Treasurer of the Northern Territory to explain to his state colleagues why he gave up $135m in health and hospital capital funding. They would find that extraordinary. There would not be a Treasurer around the table who has not been presented with a capital funding opportunity by the Commonwealth which needed to find the recurrent for the program and funding. They do not turn their back on it.
We all take it because there is a dramatic need in our health systems across the nation. Dave, confess to your mates you knocked back $135m and watch how quickly they have a chat to the federal Treasurer of the day offering an opportunity to take that capital in health funding and put it to good use in their state or the ACT. You really are a laughing stock.
The government has suddenly broken the promise to return to surplus within four years. Willem Westra van Holthe broke that promise on a Sunday. Notably, he was not Treasurer; he had been dumped as Treasurer. The Treasurer at the time the promise was broken was the member for Fong Lim, Dave Tollner. However, popping up on our television news was the Primary Industry minister, Willem Westra van Holthe, explaining the government had looked at the figures again and will not be able to reach the fiscal balance in the time frame set - code for breaking the promise on returning to surplus. They made this promise on numbers that are still the same.
You say it will take six years. This statement commits to a surplus in 2017-18. Six years for a surplus - unbelievable. You really are on a spendathon. We will get to the bottom of it when we get to estimates, but stretching it out to 2017-18 - where is the money going? Roughly speaking, $370m has been stripped out of the capital and recurrent budgets already. Where is it going? There are many questions.
We will be enjoying ourselves in the estimates period ...
Mr Conlan: I do not think you will.
Ms LAWRIE: I have to pick up on the interjection from the member from Greatorex. Exactly how many days did you spend on the junket overseas in Europe? Sixteen days on a junket to Europe? That is a record. We will have to do some research on this, but I cannot recollect, even under the previous CLP government, a minister taking a 16-day junket to Europe.
It is extraordinary and unbelievable. Sending your media releases off, ‘Yes, here I am. I am in London with my friend, in Germany with my friend’. A 16-day junket and you expect Territorians to believe you are tightening your belt ...
Mr CONLAN: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! We need to pull up the ex-Treasurer for misleading parliament. It was nowhere near a 16-day trip. She should withdraw because it was not a 16-day trip. It was not a junket, but nevertheless, it was not 16 days.
Ms LAWRIE: You can give a personal explanation if you want, Matt. Off to Europe - we do not even know all the places you visited. By all means, make a ministerial statement explaining what you did on your junket to Europe and let us know how much you spent …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we get back on track, please.
Ms LAWRIE: Let us know how much taxpayers’ money you spent while the Treasurer is telling us you have listened to Territorians and are going to rein in expenditure. Do not worry about the junket the member for Greatorex took to Europe ...
Mr Conlan: I will be going plenty of times, mate.
Ms LAWRIE: It is all good and he tells us he is going again. That is fantastic - going plenty of times, he tells us ...
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Opposition Leader, can you please get to the point and continue. I have had enough of this banter back and forth so let us get to the point.
Ms LAWRIE: That is fine, but I am following Standing Order 51. If he interjects I will pick up on it because that way it gets into the Parliamentary Record and I can ensure it gets out to the relevant people who will be very interested in the comments he is making in this Chamber.
Someone asked me last week how much it cost government to get all the officials required for Budget Cabinet to Alice Springs in airfares and accommodation at the indulgence of the new Chief Minister. How much would that cost? How many different officials would be required to fly to Alice Springs and be put up for however many days? How long did they appear and how much value for money was it? They are genuine questions people ask and I can make rough assessments because, as a former Treasurer, I have an idea of how many officials you need to get to Budget Cabinet for questioning and to provide advice. You could do it on a tight team of six if you wanted to. You would need six return airfares and two or three days accommodation given the amount of time they would need to be there to support Budget Cabinet. That adds up; that is a fairly significant expenditure of taxpayers’ funds and an indulgence of the new Chief Minister. ‘Everyone can come to me, I am in Alice Springs. Everyone can come to me at a whim. I will decide Budget Cabinet will be in Alice Springs with no thought to what it would cost’.
We have a statement committing to a surplus in 2017-18, predicting the financial position in six years time. There is a reason why budgets only have a forward estimates across four years – no one can predict six years time. However, Dave Tollner, the new Treasurer, is resetting the financial predictions that can be made and is predicting out to six years time beyond the forward estimates, certainly beyond the life of this parliament. Go for it Dave; stay in your own zone, mate.
The statement said:
How blatantly untrue. We have power, water, sewerage, rego, bus fares - and the list goes on. There is increasing revenue everywhere. These are recurrent increases. They are not one-offs budget after budget; these increases in revenue are kicking into your coffers.
This is more head-in-the-sand stuff with the statement saying the CLP’s tax and price hikes are lower than the national average, completely ignoring the reality the cost of living here is much higher. How out of touch are you? Electricity price hikes mean people will be paying more than under the Mills scheme in just two years time.
The statement said:
Can you even remember what they are? Do us a favour, be transparent and accountable. Come into this Chamber at any stage and table your election commitments. Show the Territory public what you will honour in the 2012 election commitments. I challenge you to put them on the table in the parliament and be held accountable for them.
I will be looking for the $20m port on the Tiwi Islands, sealing of the road to Wadeye, and the Government Business Centre in Borroloola. I will be looking for the details in all the contracts across the remote communities signed by Terry Mills. Is it because they have Terry’s signature on them they are no longer valid? Table all of those commitments made to people with signed contracts. I challenge the CLP, under the new order of the member for Braitling, to table your election commitments. Come clean. You will not because the commitments you had on paper and submitted to Treasury are not the extent of the commitments - we all know that.
We have seen another promise broken. Suddenly, we no longer have an extra 120 police; it is down to 100 and they are still one-and-a-half years away. The statement is all about funding those all-important fairy-dust promises in the bush, trying to pay for your unfunded signed contracts with bush communities that contain roads, railways, schools, ports, and business centres - billions of dollars worth of promises and nothing costed. We are dealing with cuts across the budgets to pay for it.
Moving Royal Darwin Hospital - what a bizarre thing to say. You are beating the drum saying there are billions of dollars of debt, yet you come up with a pie-in-the-sky $3bn regional hospital - thought bubble from the new Treasurer. Where are you going to get $3bn from? Why would you scrap Royal Darwin Hospital in the first place? Why do that when the private hospital which sits alongside it requires it? You have the Menzies School of Health, the Alan Walker Cancer Care Centre, the hospice, and all the nurses and doctors accommodation there. What on earth was going through that man’s mind when he had the thought bubble about a $3bn hospital? The most expensive hospital we have been able to find around Australia has been $2bn. What on earth were you planning on building with the $3bn? Why are you walking away from and tearing up your commitment to the people of Palmerston to build the Palmerston hospital? There is $70m on the table from the Commonwealth and we will lose it unless you build it. It had better be in this budget or the people of Palmerston will be taking members opposite who represent them well and truly to account.
We know you have scrapped the medi-hotel and cut bush health services such as renal. Your statement talked about further efficiency measures for Power and Water. That is code for tearing it down and preparing it for sell-off. The sacking of the board was preparation for that. More power prices will be a result of privatisation. That has been the path trod; it is in your DNA. That is what Liberal governments do to utilities. The statement said they are ‘minimising the need for further tariff increases’ - weasel words clearly aimed at wriggle room for more increases.
The Chief Minister has been talking up the need for more transport infrastructure but it does not appear anywhere in the Treasurer’s statement. Will it be in the mid-year review? The mid-year review, for those not aware, already happens and is tabled every year in parliament.
It is pretty tough for the member for Port Darwin to have been dumped three times from the Treasury portfolio - twice in opposition and once in government. It was certainly bad enough to be dumped for Willem the first time, and Lambley the second time, but being dumped for Dave Tollner must be the ultimate embarrassment.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this was a terrible statement from a terrible Treasurer who has already admitted he will be handing down a terrible budget.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, once again, she could not help herself; there had to be personal attacks against the member for Brennan and other members in this House. It is like it is in her DNA and as necessary for her to insult as it is to breathe. That is a tragedy and I am not going to engage in it because this is not about her, Dave Tollner, the Treasurer, or me as the member for Port Darwin, it is about the future finances of the Northern Territory.
The Leader of the Opposition keeps talking about the nett debt to revenue position of 66% and gave us an example of how a Territory family, if they had $66 000 in a $100 000 income, would be in a good position. Here is a thought. It would be a much better position to be in zero debt, something she neglected to achieve in government when given the opportunity. The successful censure motion against her fiscal mismanagement this morning was richly and well deserved.
Let us also talk about the nett debt to revenue ratio she refers to. I draw honourable members’ attention to page 8 of the 2012-13 Budget, the last calamitous budget she brought down for the Northern Territory. Of course, it only refers to the general government sector and why that is important. I will return to that shortly. If you track it over the years between 2011 and 2015-16, the nett debt to revenue ratio is 35%, 48%, 66%, 71% and 74%. Goodness, that is debt going up and up and up!
It is also important to think about financial liabilities. Let us talk about financial liabilities rather than just the debt situation because I draw honourable members’ attention to the Leader of the Opposition’s last budget paper, Budget Paper No 2 page 8. The financial liabilities to revenue ratio was 113%; the following year, 2012-13, 127%; the following year, 140%; the following year, 144%; and the following year, 146%. There is a trend. If you graph that - you do not have to, I trust honourable members to understand what I am talking about - the nett debt to revenue ratio and the nett financial liabilities to revenue ratio are both tracking in the wrong direction. They are going up, which means every year for the forward projections we would be carrying more financial liabilities and more debt than the previous year. Unfortunately, that is what we have inherited from this government, which made spending commitments to positions throughout the public service which were not budgeted for. That means the only way they could pay those public servants was to rack it up on debt.
The member for Karama was critical of the Treasurer’s response to comments about using the credit card to pay the credit card. I invite honourable members to read the Northern Territory Treasury Corporation Annual Report. You will see government managed its debt by refinancing loans. Most are for the shorter term of about five years, if memory serves me correctly, which means we are constantly refinancing loans. We are not paying off debt; we are refinancing loans and taking out more loans. That was the path the former Treasurer set us on.
The former Treasurer does not like to talk about the non-financial public sector because that incorporated the Power and Water Corporation. She only talks in general government sector terms, which means she does not have to address the debt impost the Power and Water Corporation inflicts on the Northern Territory budget. When you do, you get some very serious anomalies in the Treasury position.
I draw honourable members’ attention to the uniform presentation framework for the general government sector, where she likes to hide every time she speaks. I compare the debt from 2011-12 to her projected debt in 2015-16 which goes from $1.68bn to $3.62bn. She says that is manageable because we have a wonderful income attached to it. However, if you add the Power and Water Corporation and a couple of other GOCs and GBDs, you suddenly run into the non-financial public sector balance sheet which shifts from $2.8bn to $5.6bn over the same period. Consequently, you end up with a much more serious fiscal position.
I heard what the member for Nelson said in relation to decisions taken by the new government regarding the Power and Water Corporation. I was part of and supported those decisions because they were necessary to help recover the debt situation which is ballooning out of control. We asked much of the Territory population. For the brief time I was Treasurer of the Northern Territory I was mindful of the challenges facing the budget.
The new Treasurer, new Chief Minister and Cabinet revisited the decisions and decided to push out the return to surplus by two years. That was not so much prompted by the situation around the Power and Water Corporation, but more the fall in the GST revenue by virtue of the reallocation surrounding indigeneity in the Grants Commission’s disabilities for the Northern Territory. That is a sad for us because it means we will lose, over the next forward estimates, well over $400m of revenue. That is a massive hit for the people of the Northern Territory. Consequently, you have to decide what to do.
The former Treasurer would talk about - you read it incessantly in the budget papers since the GFC - waiting for everything to return to normal and then start saving money again. I argued in opposition, and continue to argue now, that this environment is the new normal. I have seen no projection anywhere near as optimistic as saying we will return to the halcyon days of the international growth environment of early 2000.
The former government was showered in money from the GST. Not only did it receive extra money every year which was predicted, it also received extra money every year it did not - the windfall. This windfall fell into the coffers of the Northern Territory and it should have been reducing debt to zero over that time. I said it at the time and have been proved correct: the period of wealth accumulation is the period you make savings.
The previous government chose not to make savings but engage in fiscal conduct which was irresponsible at the time, and irresponsible in the sense it was competing directly with the private sector, thus heating up the economy of the Northern Territory at a time it was already growing independently of government expenditure. All the government had to do was save some of that money and it could have reduced our debt to zero.
Had it allowed the public service to increase by half the amount it did - that is not to reduce the public service or keep it at a static level – contain growth to 50% and, over the GST halcyon days, it would have succeeded in reducing the debt of the Northern Territory pretty much to zero. However, the previous government chose to spend it the moment it came in. Despite all that income, it managed to get the Territory population so far offside it determined Labor should no longer form the government of the Northern Territory. We were handed a budget which had spiralled out of control and needed to be contained.
The former Treasurer seeks to hide behind this set of numbers based on the general government sector balance sheet and say everything was sweetness and light. If you read Budget Paper No 2 from the period immediately prior to this financial year - if you go back over the financial years you can see how woefully inaccurate this Treasurer was when determining what would happen in the future. There were wild departures over the forward estimates from the predicted outcomes to actual outcomes. I invite any member of this House to go through the uniform presentation framework in Budget Paper No 2 and, for arguments sake, look at the year 2006-07 and compare the forward projection to what actually occurred. You will see how crazily optimistic the former government was in its budget projections and every single time it would say, ‘The future is rosy. Everything will be sweet; we do not have to reduce debt by too much, we can continue spending money’.
The dreadful, dastardly CLP opposition was always talking the economy down, talking the budget down and talking Territorians down. At that time it was doing nothing more than flagging the dire consequences of a government not making provision for the future. As a consequence of the failure to make provision for the future, the spend-at-all-costs philosophy, when finally a reckoning came in the size of the GST pool and a contraction, particularly in the retail sector nationally, we found ourselves exposed and, suddenly, it was the fault of the GFC. No, it was not. What occurred in the GFC was referred to on many occasions by me, and other people in this House, before it happened.
That is not to say I knew the GFC was coming, but when you have growth you also have cyclical contraction. It is as old as the hills. Whether you are a Keynesian economist or of the more classical schools of economics - both Keynes and other economists of yore would always describe a cyclical nature to the budget. In fact, Keynesian economics is largely based on the presumption of the cyclical nature of a budget and is why John Maynard Keynes had such an influence on the new deal environment in the United States in the 1930s.
However, the previous government chose to ignore the lessons of history, and those who ignore those lessons are condemned to repeat them. That is precisely what has occurred at this point. Despite people flagging caution, counselling caution, counselling restraint, the former government was utterly unrestrained in its approach and, as a consequence, we had to, unfortunately, deal with the legacy left behind.
I point out to honourable members the non-financial budget sector balance sheet projections for 2015-16 in the mini-budget reduced the forward projected debt of $5.5bn to an outcome, in 2015-16, of $4.3bn. That is concerning because the debt is still going up over that period. Of course, I am referring to the non-financial sector balance sheet rather than the general government sector balance sheet because it incorporates the effects of the Power and Water Corporation, a major contributor to our financial situation. You will see that is a reduction of about $1.3bn in the projected debt.
The decisions taken by Cabinet will affect that outcome somewhat, but we will still be $1.1bn or $1bn better off under a Country Liberals government in 2015-16 than under the Labor government. We will still be in a much better fiscal position because we have taken the necessary steps - not only external and asked people to shoulder the burden heaped upon them by the former government’s fiscal mismanagement, we have also looked inside.
We heard the Leader of the Opposition screeching about the dastardly Country Liberals and the decisions we have made. It is because she never had the intestinal fortitude to make them herself and, as a consequence, it was always about being Santa Claus. It was never about the credit card, always being Santa Claus; always trying to roll out the Labor Party message that everything was sweetness and light and do not look at the bank card.
We see the ultimate result of that fiscal conduct in Greece, Ireland, Portugal, and, more recently, Cyprus. These are not good outcomes for the people living there. We are trying, as a government, to avoid being in a situation where the implied fiscal underwriting of the Northern Territory by the federal government has to be relied upon. That is, essentially, what all those countries have - go to the central bank of Europe and look for bail-out packages.
I am dreading the idea, as Minister for Statehood, of having to say to Canberra, ‘Please give us statehood and, by the way, we need some more money to run the place’. We would be laughed out of the room. I am concerned that unless we control the fiscal irresponsibility of the former government, not only will we lose the opportunity of statehood in the future, but will face the unenviable position of a territory and have the Commonwealth try to take over financially because, as a jurisdiction, we are not showing the adequate restraint required. The Commonwealth could conceivably do that; it is within their powers to do so. In the most extreme expression of that management, they could repeal the Self-Government Act. This Chamber would make a nice library or something - perhaps an art gallery or museum. If we do not contain this, the implied underwriting of the Northern Territory’s debt by the Commonwealth is something the Commonwealth will use as a vehicle to intervene in the operations of the Northern Territory.
If we want to be taken seriously as a player on the national stage, as I do, we have to behave that way. We should not roll out the credit card and say we can do what we like in borrowings because we do not have to worry about the consequences. We, as a jurisdiction, may have to wear the consequences in ways we never predicted.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the statement by the Treasurer. I lament this Treasurer and this government have not been handed a budget in a sound condition. I lament the former government, the Northern Territory Labor Party, abandoned its fiscal responsibilities so completely that these tough decisions have to be made. I hope we could find our way through this, despite the challenges presented by the former government and, more recently, the Commonwealth Grants Commission.
Mr CONLAN (Central Australia): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I support this statement. You say it is a terrible statement. What is wrong with it?
Mr Styles: No interjections now.
Mr CONLAN: It is a big tick so it must be okay. It was delivered well. Dave speaks well. It was written well; the punctuation and grammar are good. He spoke well, he delivered it well. Perhaps the message from this statement is not so great. If that is what you mean by, ‘it is a terrible statement’, we all agree. It is a hard message to sell and talk about. The perilous state the Northern Territory budget is in, tracking to a $5.5bn debt an $800m deficit annually - that is before we have looked at the debt.
Yes, it is a rough statement. It is hard, as Treasurer of the Northern Territory when you have inherited such diabolical fiscal circumstances, to deliver good news. Yes, Dave, terrible statement, we all agree. It was beautifully written and delivered but boy, I feel for you. It is hard work to explain to Territorians there is some good news in the Territory coffers because there is not. We are tracking towards a $5.5bn debt if we continue the spending rate undertaken by the previous Labor government.
Thank goodness they are sitting over there and there is a government prepared to do whatever it takes to rein in spending and waste and, as the member for Port Darwin, the Attorney-General has highlighted, potentially save the sovereignty of the Northern Territory. The federal government will be saying, ‘You guys are hopeless. We gave you self-government 30-odd years ago as part of the push for self-governing colonies and territories. It is part of what we stand for. We gave it to you in 1978 and thought you would be able to handle it. You have turned the Northern Territory bank balance into a $5.5bn debt’. This may become a shrine when democracy in the Territory is dead. It might not become an art gallery; it might become a shrine to all things that were - the great belief and dream that was statehood, or at least self-government, destroyed by the Labor Party and those sitting opposite. Thank goodness we have people over here prepared to do the hard yards necessary to arrest this diabolical situation.
I agree; it is a tough statement. I would love it if he said, ‘We will have a wonderful cash splash on all types of things Territorians want and need’. I am sorry, we cannot do that.
We had a lecture in economics from the worst Treasurer of the Northern Territory, the fourth Treasurer in the Labor Party and easily the worst. I agree with the member for Fong Lim and have said before, sitting in opposition all those dark and lonely years - I wish the Labor Party a long stay in opposition because it will take us quite some time to get out of the hole you left. Nevertheless, we would look at your side of the parliament and see all the best players had gone. You lost Syd, lost Clare. How good do you guys make Syd, Clare and Jack Ah Kit look? Jack was pretty good. Compared to you guys, he was fantastic. Even good old Bungles Burns - he was one of the real solid blokes on your side. Hendo left. You could not count the member for Karama, clearly the worst Treasurer in the history of the Northern Territory who left us with the $5.5bn debt ...
Mr VATSKALIS: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Mr CONLAN: I am trying to pull a crowd.
Mr Vatskalis: Obviously, you are not that good.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ring the bells.
A quorum is present.
Mr CONLAN: I was commending the current Treasurer on having the intestinal fortitude to deliver bad news, look Territorians in the eye and say, ‘I am sorry, it is pretty rough’, as opposed to the former Treasurer who delivered a $5.5bn debt and an $800m annual deficit.
Team Labor, between 2001 and 2005, was pretty good because when I look at the current team and the team between 2008 and 2012 - what a mess. What a calamitous bunch. You had a team which made Clare Martin look fantastic and Syd Stirling look like a solid performer. Peter Toyne was a great member from Alice Springs who did a good job as Health minister. These were quality guys.
It was your best time, best era, and best days in the sun. You lost a big hitter in Chris Burns. Even Marion Scrymgour was okay for a while but went a little wayward. She walked away from the table, which was extraordinary. She was one of the most powerful women - an Indigenous woman if we are going down that path - in Australian politics - Deputy Chief Minister and she walked away from the table. In the lead-up to the 2012 election she retired then wanted to come back as a Senate candidate. She would have much more pull and much more to say - if she wanted to be part of the conversation, why did she retire in the first place? I could not get my head around that.
Marion, you had a seat in parliament. You were a minister and you walked away from it. Then you wanted to come back to the parliament. You wanted to come back to the conversation and debate via the Australian Senate. Why not stay where you were? Your voice was strong in the Northern Territory parliament. Many more people would be listening to you in the Northern Territory parliament than in the Australian Senate.
Today we have highlighted the $5.5bn debt we are tracking towards. This government is doing everything it can to ensure we eliminate the fiscal imbalance and the fiscal deficit by 2017-18. That is realistic. Why is everything a problem for you guys? There is always something. Crikey, you do not like too much. Talk about oppositions being a miserable lot – you take the cake.
Nevertheless, let us look at the last decade of Labor. This is how we reached the point of you sitting over there and us with a $5.5bn debt.
Law and order was probably one of the greatest failures of the Labor government apart from child protection, which was a shameful episode in Northern Territory and Australian political history. What happened with child protection under the Labor government - we all know; it is clear and was seared in the minds of all Australians how bad the Northern Territory Labor government was with child protection and how close we came to a national disaster, if not there already.
If we look at the first 10 years of the Labor government, crime rates in the Northern Territory were twice as high as the Australian average and, in most categories, significantly higher. The Police, Fire and Emergency Services Annual Report 2009-10 shows the rate of violent crime in the Territory continued to climb. There were 570 more crimes against the person in 2009-10 than in 2008-09. The rate of violent assaults rose by 80% during Labor’s decade of denial - and you are still in denial. In the last financial year previous - we are talking 2010-11 - there were 7296 crimes against the person in the Territory compared with 6226 in the previous financial year - an 8.5% increase in 12 months. On average, there were 18 crimes against the person in the Territory every single day under the Labor Party. That is why we have reached this point. Things were so out of control all they did was throw money at them.
I still hear it, it is still part of the Labor DNA, if you tune into any radio interview or television program with a Labor politician the answer is, ‘We have just put X billion dollars in. We are proud of the amount of money we put into this program’. You are so proud of the inputs but there are no outcomes. You are not proud of the outcomes because there are none. There are very few outcomes and it is, ‘We have put so many billions of dollars into such and such a program and we are very proud of it’. This is the status quo of Labor around Australia. ‘Let us put the money in and walk away from the problem. We can say we have put so much money in and have done our bit’. You have not done your bit and have come up very short.
I turn to tourism - so important. We are investing in tourism. We have seen a rapid decline - an industry which haemorrhaged under the Labor Party. Tourism is vitally important to the Northern Territory and, clearly, an industry underestimated, overlooked and not respected under the previous 11 years of Labor government. It is so much so that the Opposition Leader accuses people of junkets. Sixteen days is why our finances are in such a perilous state! I do not know how Thursday one week to Wednesday the next week equates to 16 days. Perhaps that is why we are in such a disastrous state with our finances - she cannot add up. Thursday of one week to Wednesday of the next week is somehow 16 days and equates to a junket! There will be many more trips.
The day the Minister for Tourism and Major Events of the Northern Territory, or any other minister, cannot conduct business, internationally, on behalf of the Northern Territory government is the day we pack up the books and go home because there is no hope. If we are not prepared to get on an aeroplane, go someone, and conduct business on behalf of the NT we are not helping ourselves.
You cannot do it from your desk. You tried and that is why we are in such a disastrous state. We have a disastrous state with gas to Gove, in our tourism industry, our cattle industry - the list is endless. The Montara oil spill is one of the great legacies left by the former Minister for Resources. It was a wonderful thing - the crowning glory of 10 years in government. It is disastrous. Everyone is too scared to get on an aeroplane because Nigel might write a column in the newspaper. I do not care about Nigel; I care about the Northern Territory. The work conducted on that 16-day trip, which was about six days, was …
Mr Chandler: That is how hard you worked – 16 days worth of work.
Mr CONLAN: That is what you must be confusing it with. Good point, Peter. What was undertaken felt like 16 days.
It is vitally important; we have one of the greatest products in the world. It is clear, and all you have to do is travel - if you guys bothered to leave your office, your Taj Mahal, and look at the rest of the country and the world you would see how important and valuable our asset is. Our tourism asset is, if not the best in the world, a hair from the best in the world. It is up there with the pyramids or the Amazon forest. Whatever it is, the Northern Territory and Australia is just as good. People love it. It is one of the most sought after destinations, if not the most sought after, anywhere in the world. They all want to come here, particularly Europeans.
Apparently I was lying on a banana lounge in subzero temperatures in London, having snow trickled on my head, in my speedos, for God’s sake. Yes, it was a wonderful holiday we had in freezing cold Europe.
We have the product. There is a marketing term I learnt from the guys I travel with, people from Tourism NT, a highly-qualified, highly-skilled bunch of people. We are in wonderful hands with our Tourism NT team at all levels across the board, headed by our Chief Executive Officer, Tony Mayell. The marketing term is below the line and above the line. This is probably a bit rudimentary, but is the way I understand it. Below the line is the product, which is what we have to offer. Our product is world-class. It does not get any better than the product in the Northern Territory and, broadly, in Australia. That is what everyone wants to see; everyone wants a piece of Australia. Above the line is how we get that out there - how we make our product known. You have to make some noise above the line is what the marketeers say. We need some bandwidth, some air time. It is all marketing lingo, but it is very important.
If we are not working hard showing off the Territory, marketing the Territory, this wonderful product will be underutilised. That is what we have experienced because no one bothered to get off their backside, get on an aeroplane and start making noise above the line. We do not have the budgets to compete with other countries. Singapore spent $1.2bn advertising their new casino into China - just into China. That is one country spending $1.2bn advertising their brand new casino into China. How do we compete with that? We cannot; not on a financial scale. We have to work harder and smarter.
That means getting on an aeroplane and start shaking hands with people, letting them know we exist. It is called making noise above the line, something Labor never did. That is why we have experienced this rapid decline in international tourist visitation. It is no coincidence in the last 10 years international visitation has declined. It has coincided with Labor’s failure to make some noise above the line! That is what you have to do. No one is making any noise. You were not creating the space, showing the flag, flying the flag; not showing off the Northern Territory.
Talk about junkets - there have been a few. There are some horror stories of previous Tourism ministers. Regent Street in London is a wonderful place to buy shoes. All this took place so I do not care what you say. Yes, I might grab some extra time ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, members.
I do not care what you say; it does not drag me down. I am trying to do a job on behalf of the Northern Territory and it is incumbent on all of us to do whatever it takes to bring visitors to the Northern Territory. Tourism is currently a $1.4bn industry to the Northern Territory. It is vitally important and is one of our three hubs.
We have a golden opportunity to reinvent ourselves as one of the great tourism destinations on the international market. They know about us and they love us. They do not know enough about us any longer. They are not sure. ‘How do we get there? What can we do there? Are there museums there? How big is the Northern Territory? How far is it from Darwin to Alice Springs?’ We might have a chuckle about this, but Europeans do not understand and need to know. Germany and the United Kingdom are our biggest markets. If you live through a European winter you will want to come here quick smart - it is not pleasant. It is freezing cold and you do not see the sun for six months. No wonder they want to come here and we have to ensure the lines are long.
As I was saying, it is no coincidence that decade of decline coincided with the time you guys were petrified of jumping on an aeroplane and going somewhere to do business, whether it was interstate or overseas, on behalf of the Northern Territory. You were afraid to spend a dollar to generate more. It is pathetic. How do you do business? It is like not having a telephone on your desk. The old days of, ‘Do not make any phone calls. Do not give him a telephone. He might make an international or an interstate call’. Give me a break! It is a vital tool. This is what we should all be doing and something this government is not afraid to do.
It is not about having holidays or having fun. You guys were very good at turning an international trip into a holiday. None of us who have travelled overseas have had two minutes to rub together - no time to ourselves. These things are worked pretty hard. Look at the diary of any minister who has travelled abroad or interstate and see what has been lined up for them. You will see this team, including me, like to get down to business and make every moment count.
Life is too short. This term is too short to be travelling overseas for the fun of it. I have a family as well. It takes two days to get home from Europe. It is not the most pleasant thing. I will be going to China, Hong Kong and the United States to deliver the same message. Do you know how many Northern Territory representatives we have in Europe? Does anyone know? Hello? Is that a tic? No one knows. Let the record note no one in opposition, including the former Tourism minister, has any idea how many Northern Territory representatives we have placed around the world.
It is frightening to think how little emphasis you place on this, yet you are the first to kick and scream when international visitation is down. The member for Johnston will be jumping up and down saying, ‘Conlan has been doing this for 12 months. Look at the figures, international visitation is still down. What a waste of time, what a hopeless minister Conlan is. Do not go overseas to drum up business, do not do that. I want you to stay in Alice Springs. Come to Darwin occasionally for parliament, but stay in Alice Springs. Do not go anywhere. Do not meet anyone. It is your fault if international visitation is down’. It does not work like that. The Northern Territory, being a small jurisdiction, has to work that much harder. All the states have to work that little bit harder to generate business into the Northern Territory - inbound travellers, international visitation into the Northern Territory - because we do not have the money to compete with the rest of the world.
I went to ITB. Has anyone in Labor visited the biggest international tourism fair in the world? Hello? Has anyone been there? Any former tourism ministers go to ITB? Do any former tourism ministers know what ITB is? I did not think so. You can see why we are at such a disadvantage and have such a problem on our hands. No one over there knows what these things are.
ITB is the biggest tourism trade fair in the world. It is enormous. The scale may be 10 Sydney Convention Centres layered on top of each other. The Europeans do not mess around; they take it seriously. ITB is like a tour of the world. Tiny countries - Zanzibar - have massive stands full of operators. All the tourism operators from this tiny country have huge, colourful stands with dancers and acts - they were belly dancing. It is unbelievable. It shows you where we are in the world.
You have little old Northern Territory with very little budget. We shared our stand with Tourism Australia, New Zealand, Qantas and all the operators. Other tiny countries are making noise above the line because they recognise their product is pretty good - not as good as ours. They get visitors because they are making noise above the line. They are there and, occasionally, even their minister turns up. You would be surprised how many ministers have travelled internationally promoting the Northern Territory in the last decade or so - very few. I was amazed at how well-received a minister was on these trips.
Conducting business on behalf of the Northern Territory is one thing. You can send a number of people but, if you are there as head of government or the top of the tree - that is the way they see ministers travelling around the world - they think, ‘These guys are serious and super-enthusiastic. I will give you the time of day’. That is how you strike up deals and build relationships. Tourism is about relationships and price. If you can develop a relationship with someone - an airline, a high commissioner, an inbound or outbound tour operator, a wholesaler – if you forge a relationship with that person and come back to see them again, you would be amazed what you are able to achieve. It is all about putting yourself in that space at a ministerial level and making some noise above the line. I make no apologies for it. I will be doing more of it. It is incumbent on all of us to be out there, wherever it is – internationally or across the Territory - making noise above the line to ensure the Territory is recognised as the great, incredible tourism destination it is. There is nothing like it anywhere in the world. We are up there punching above our weight and have to ensure people know about it.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend this statement to the House. It was not a good statement because it was full of home truths - Labor left us with a $5.5bn debt. Shame on you.
Debate adjourned.
SERIOUS SEX OFFENDERS BILL
(Serial 18)
Continued from 14 February 2013.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to this bill and intend to raise a number of concerns the opposition has about the proposed legislation. I thank the Attorney-General’s office for accommodating me with a briefing on the bill last week. I have attended a number of briefings in the Attorney-General’s office in the last six months given the new government has been very busy and very clear about its justice reform agenda. The Attorney-General has brought many bills before the House, some routine, some not so routine, some supported by members on this side of the House, and some not. I suspect many of these bills are the Attorney-General’s personal agenda rather than a broader Country Liberal Party agenda.
As the Attorney-General himself noted during the last sittings, he knows I will always seek a briefing on any bill he brings before the House. With officers from the Department of Attorney-General and Justice, I will examine and ask questions generally of a technical nature but will leave, by and large, the bigger questions around the philosophical basis of law and its legislative instruments to the continuation of the second reading debate on the floor of the House. Today is no different.
At the outset, I express my concern about the lack of proper consultation and the absence of comprehensive legal advice around the shaping of this bill. I would be much more comfortable if the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee report, commissioned by Labor in government and provided to the new Attorney-General, was made available to us. It would be most helpful to see what the experts think. However, this bill has been rushed to give the impression of action and we have no idea if it will work.
The potential for expensive legal challenges where the cost will, no doubt, be worn by Territory taxpayers is heightened by the central role of the Attorney-General in his proposal. We should not let politicians interfere in the effective operation of justice no matter how enthusiastic they are to don wig and robes for the cameras. This is a classic case of political interference.
I understand this bill follows in the footsteps of four other jurisdictions - New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia and Victoria - in introducing legislation which seeks to allow for the continued and preventive detention or supervision of serious sex offenders post-sentence. Whilst I note similar legislation exists in these other jurisdictions, it does not always follow the Northern Territory needs to, or should, fall into line with other states and territories. That, in itself, is not always a reason to adopt legislation unless it comes via COAG through reforms implemented with Commonwealth legislation which does require states and territories to come on board. This aside, each jurisdiction must consider its own law reform agenda within its own legislative environment and context.
Why should we be beholden to the legislative approach of southern states when it comes to sentencing? Indeed, at times they should be looking to us for guidance. In my opinion, tinkering with Queensland legislation is not good enough. We need laws which suit Territory conditions and are reflective of our sentencing regime which is effective and often quoted as the toughest in the nation.
There is no evidence to confirm the principle of this bill:
and:
will be met by the proposed legislation as it stands. This bill delivers on a commitment of the Attorney-General to introduce a private members’ bill which he put before the House when in opposition, which was not supported and, ultimately, failed.
It is important for me to note we, on this side of the House, are as passionate as anyone, irrespective of party political allegiances, to the protection of members of the community, including those who are most vulnerable, from individuals who would inflict harm on the innocent, be it violent offenders or sexual offenders. I must be very clear about that.
The opposition understands the intent of this bill and has no argument with its stated goals. However, we believe enhancing our existing laws will be more effective and less open to legal challenge.
Shortly, I will address some of the important and much-debated issues associated with preventative detention. First, I need to raise why there is a need for this bill in the first place, and why the Territory’s existing legislative framework cannot accommodate this matter of detaining serious sex offenders.
Why could amendments not be made to the Northern Territory Sentencing Act, Division 5, Subdivision 4, Indefinite sentences for violent offenders, which already has provisions in place to deal with the detention of violent offenders? Could not clause 65(1) of the Sentencing Act be amended by adding the offences set out in Schedule 1, Class 1 offences, of the Child Protection (Offender Reporting and Registration) Act 2004 to the existing list of offences which define violent offence for the purpose of this subdivision? Further, by amendment, then replace the term ‘violent offence’ in the subdivision with the term ‘serious violent or sexual offence’ and rename Subdivision 4, Indefinite sentences for serious, violent and sexual offenders.
It is not only me who suggests looking at using and amending the Sentencing Act; this is legal practitioners in the Territory, including the Criminal Lawyers Association of the NT, which considers this a good option and better alternative to this current bill. To this end, I ask the Attorney-General to explain which experts and stakeholders he has consulted and what advice he has taken on board from legal practitioners.
I commend the Attorney-General for the round of public consultations held in November 2011 to address seven proposed bills. Consultations were held in Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs and Darwin, but not in Nhulunbuy because, according to the Attorney-General, we are not on the Stuart Highway and, therefore, will not be included in consultations even though we are a township of 4000 in a region of 10 000 people. Whilst these were labelled ‘consultation sessions’, they were really information sessions with some questions and answers, and held when most bills were still being drafted and not introduced in parliament.
Both the Criminal Lawyers Association of the Northern Territory and NAAJA approached the Attorney-General, me and, I suspect, the member for Nelson, to voice their concerns and objections to this bill. We have yet to understand what happened to the reference to the NT Law Reform Committee. A major concern is the direct involvement of the Attorney-General in the judicial process, whether it be in the Territory or the other four jurisdictions which have this legislation. This bill allows the Attorney-General to make application for continued detention or supervision of an offender rather than leaving such judgments in the hands of the judiciary. As long as we have a politician with that power, I remain, as do others, unconvinced the separation of powers is clear and untainted and judicial independence is free from political interference.
The Attorney-General in his second reading speech points out:
I appreciate these sentiments of the Attorney-General. Indeed, there must be safeguards in place to ensure the legislation is not abused or used to political advantage. I would like to hear more on this from the Attorney-General when he responds because I am not convinced. As I said, I am not alone.
For that matter, nor was Justice Michael Kirby, one of the seven judges who presided over the 2004 Fardon v Attorney-General (Qld) case which was heard before the High Court and which held that the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 Queensland was constitutionally valid.
Justice Kirby, the only dissenting judge in that pivotal case which opened the door for such legislation noted:
Correspondence to me from the President of the Criminal Lawyers Association of the Northern Territory, Mr Russell Goldflam, stated:
I know the Attorney-General will want to point to the four other jurisdictions which have introduced similar legislation - under Labor administrations what is more. However, the point of contention around the role of the Attorney-General in making the application for continued preventative detention or supervision remains not just for the opposition or Justice Kirby but for the Territory, particularly the judiciary and the legal profession.
We have a new Attorney-General with a law degree and a prior career in policing who is hell-bent on reform at all costs and has adopted what some might describe as an interventionist approach to law reform, and one which is not always based on evidence but rather his opinion.
This is exactly what he said when I put it to him during the February debate around minimum mandatory sentencing laws. In the face of so much evidence saying it was not the right path to go down, he said he pursued it because it was his opinion. This smacks of not only a degree of arrogance, but a disregard for the competency of the legal profession and the judiciary, and a total lack of regard for the separation of powers.
This has been further highlighted by the Attorney-General recently appearing in court, much to the amazement and a degree of bemusement of the legal fraternity, to assist the Solicitor-General of the Northern Territory in a case. The legal water boy is how he described himself during this most unusual episode of what can be described as little more than work experience.
The introduction of this bill, which sees a process initiated by the Attorney-General to extend the detention or supervision of serious sex offenders, serves only further to highlight his interventionist and populist approach overriding the processes of the judiciary, presumably because he has no faith in them to do their job.
Let me turn to the contentions of the philosophy and premise of the bill associated with preventive detention and sentencing. The opposition has less of an issue with continued supervision orders for offenders because they are not entirely unreasonable. However, the main concern comes from the proposed preventative detention of offenders on the basis they have already served a sentence for an offence they have committed, but will be further and indefinitely detained for a crime they have not committed, but might commit.
Preventive detention regimes for persons regarded as dangerous already exist across many jurisdictions both here and overseas. Suspected terrorists, individuals with severe mental illnesses or intellectual impairment, those with certain infectious diseases whose detention is in the interests of public health, and high risk offenders, can be detained in order to prevent serious harm to people in the wider community. Controversially, and topical currently - it has been for the past few years - has also been the detention of unlawful non-citizens for the purpose of either deportation or waiting processing of an application to determine eligibility to enter or remain in Australia. This preventive detention regime breaches some serious principles of law, not the least of which is that of liberty.
In his second reading speech, the Attorney-General alluded to this when he noted:
And further:
No argument there.
While this may be the case with the ruling of the High Court in the 2004 Fardon case, it does not mean the issue of preventive detention is a closed case. While the High Court has affirmed the legal and constitutional validity of such legislation in Australia, it is most unlikely to be the last word on it.
Professor Bernadette McSherry is a leading Australian academic who has written extensively on the issue of preventive detention and is unrelenting in her criticism of statutes such as those this bill will deliver for a number of reasons; in particular, because it breaches Australia’s human rights obligations pursuant to international law. However, she also warns:
That is a valid point. Professor McSherry and others also go to emphasis placed on risk and assessing risk:
While she notes there has been growth in the risk assessment techniques used, it remains a ‘notoriously difficult task’.
The issue of predicting dangerousness is taken up by many academics and researchers, including a paper from NSW by Honor Figgis and Rachel Simpson, who stated:
Back then to McSherry, who stated:
I look at Part 8 Division 1 of the bill which deals with medical assessment orders and reports. I need to clarify one matter within Part 8 Division 1. The second reading speech refers to an independent expert but that distinction is not made here. I need to clarify that, as per the briefing I was provided with last Friday, that these experts are independent and not employees of the Northern Territory public service.
The reliability of forensic psychiatric assessments and the measuring of risk will remain to be seen beyond what is contained in the bill. I appreciate the bill cannot encompass everything, but we will be watching to see how these assessments are identified and how they are proposed to work.
Part 8 Division 2 of the bill deals with victims’ submissions. I welcome the fact victims of serious sex offenders have a voice in the process. Clause 84(1), the content of victim submissions:
While we would welcome giving victims a voice to describe the crime and its impact on them, the court is required to take account of a victim’s opinion of whether the offender is, perhaps years after the crime, a serious danger to the community. Is that opinion reliable? Under well-established rules of evidence, would such opinion be received in evidence?
One legal opinion I received asserts this is rather extraordinary and contrary to usual legal principles and may make this part of the legislation invalid as, potentially, an impermissible distortion of the judicial function and, as such, could invite legal challenge. Again, I would like the Attorney-General to comment on this matter when he comes to closing debate.
Rehabilitation of offenders is the second object of the bill, but the bill says nothing about that. Presumably, it would be captured within regulations somewhere - I suspect within Corrections. I want to raise this issue because NAAJA raised it with the Attorney-General in a letter dated 27 November and, obviously, sent me a copy as well. I would like to quote from that letter around rehabilitation:
The primary objective is less about rehabilitation and more about punishment and it is punitive, and punishment is reserved for the judiciary for breaches of the law. Under this bill we have no offence, no charge and no trial. Decisions will be made on the premise of what an offender might do post-sentence.
Again, I quote some of the comments of Justice Kirby in the Fardon case on this aspect of law.
The opposition supports the intent of this bill to protect the community from serious sex offenders. However, we maintain this bill is rushed and brought before the House driven less by a legal platform and more a populist approach following in the wake of other jurisdictions. With an effort to genuinely engage with key stakeholders, especially in the legal profession and via their peak bodies such as the NT Law Reform Committee, we believe there is a way forward by exploring amendments to the Sentencing Act. Therefore, the opposition calls on the Attorney-General to defer this bill until such a time as alternatives are fully explored.
Madam Speaker, the less political interference in the making of new laws the more robust, independent and fairer our legal system will be for all before it.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nhulunbuy for her contribution to a serious issue and a fairly difficult piece of legislation to work through. At the outset, I quote from Ronken and Johnston, the people involved in Bravehearts, which supports the victims of sexual assault and abuse. I am quoting from a PowerPoint presentation from Dr Lorraine Johnston who was dealing with the ethical and professional issues associated with lifelong sentences. This was in Scotland in January 2009. She used a PowerPoint presentation which said:
Ronken and Johnston also said in another paper which I do not have with me:
I agree with that and hope, in this debate, things are not misinterpreted because we have a different view to the Attorney-General. I support the general principle put forward, but this bill deals with some very serious matters which have to be analysed to see if this is the best way for the Northern Territory parliament to go. This needs an independent body to look at it.
I have looked at the final report from the Victorian Sentencing Advisory Council. To show how serious it is, this is double pages, back to front - a document produced after issuing a Discussion and Options Paper called High-Risk Offenders: Post-Sentence Supervision and Detention. They then issued their final report. It is not only me, other jurisdictions say it is a serious issue and have looked at whether this is good legislation. I will show you how difficult it is. I will read two paragraphs from the Preface of the Victorian Sentencing Advisory Council Final Report under the heading ‘The Merits of a Continued Detention Scheme’.
The Victorian Sentencing Advisory Council consists of: Professor Arie Freiberg, chair; Ms Thrse McCarthy; Ms Carmel Arthur; Ms Carmel Benjamin AM; Mr Noel Butland; Mr Bernard Geary OAM; Mr David Grace QC; Professor Jenny Morgan; Mr Simon Overland, the previous Police Commissioner; Mr Jeremy Rapke QC; and Ms Barbara Rozenes. A fairly qualified group of people looked at this. They said:
It went on:
I read that because this bill should be deferred.
I quote the Attorney-General when he introduced the bill last year. The minister introduced a bill quite different to the one we have today ...
Mr Elferink: That is true.
Mr WOOD: If you read the way it is constructed it is different.
Mr Elferink: That is what I am saying; it is true.
Mr WOOD: The problem is we could have, in theory, passed it. However, the government said it had referred it to the Law Reform Committee, and the Attorney-General said:
Where is the report from the Law Reform Commission? We have a fairly substantial report from Victoria and know a large amount of work was done in Scotland on similar issues. I have a desk full of documentation relating to this issue, and we are introducing a bill which needs to be tested by people in the business of law - not just the Attorney-General, but a range of people to ensure the law we are putting forward today is a good one.
I have spoken to two eminent lawyers and both have concerns with this bill. I ask the government to delay introduction of the bill until it goes before an independent body to see the ramifications of what has been put forward.
As I go through my concerns with the bill I hope the Attorney-General will see I am not asking for the concept of the legislation to be defeated. Some basic philosophical issues need to be looked at to see whether the legislation the Attorney-General has brought before us today is the best.
What has been put forward is a sentencing act and I will explain why. There are two possible models of this type of bill and I will go into those later. One is the Scottish version which allows an indeterminate sentence be made at the point where the person being convicted can be sentenced. That indeterminate sentence can have a nominal sentence within it. That means the person is regarded as a high risk. The judge has decided that because they are possibly a high risk to the community he will give them an indeterminate sentence but will also declare within that a nominal sentence which could be five or 10 years.
We already have that in our Sentencing Act. Section 65 of the Sentencing Act relates to indefinite sentence. We allow indefinite sentence at the beginning not the end. Section 65(2) says:
Section 65(5) states:
We already have an act which provides for the indefinite sentencing of violent offenders. In Scotland, the legislation is for violent offenders and sex offenders.
If you take the concerns the member for Nhulunbuy had in relation to the High Court, then look at this book called Sex Offenders and Preventative Detention by Bernadette McSherry and Patrick Keyzer - Bernadette McSherry has a BA (Hons), an LLB (Hons), an LLM (Melbourne), a PhD and a Graduate Diploma in Psychology from Monash University. She is the Australian Research Council Federation Fellow and a Professor of Law at Monash University. Patrick Keyzer has a BA (Hons), an LLB (Hons), an LLM, a PhD (Sydney), is a Professor of Law and Director of the Centre for Law, Governance and Public Policy, Faculty of Law, Bond University. They looked at three versions of preventive detention and believe, even though it has its flaws, the Scottish system is the best because it overcomes some of the criticisms given in other parts of the world. They said, ‘There have been no criticisms of the Scottish regime on the basis it inflicts double punishment or arbitrary detention’.
The Attorney-General mentioned the issue of double punishment in the second reading stating:
However, by having a final continuing detention order at the end of the sentence that is exactly what is happening. You are receiving double punishment.
We have already developed a system like the Scottish one and it is already in our Sentencing Act. Why can we not include this bill – do not deal with it as a civil matter - and put it into section 65 of the Sentencing Act? That would make good sense. The same issues you deal with in relation to holding a person are looked at in section 65(9) where it says:
This is very similar to what you are trying to do in the Serious Sex Offenders Bill:
That is what we are all about. Why do we need a new bill when we can place most of what the Attorney-General is trying to do into an existing bill? Some of the most eminent people in Australia have said the Scottish system is much better. It is not the same because when they finish their nominal sentence they are supervised from then on. That does not mean we could not adjust our legislation to allow continuing detention using the same scheme.
The other advantage is the Attorney-General does not have to be in the bill. Reading section 65, there is no mention of the Attorney-General. If so, it is rare. In the bill the Attorney-General is mentioned at least 38 times. Why do we need that? If we put it into the Sentencing Act we do not need what can be seen as interference from the Attorney-General when it is the role of the Supreme Court and the DPP to look at these issues. That already happens. If it is good enough for violent offenders who, I understand, are the more repetitive in our society; violent offenders are more of a problem than sex offenders. That is some of the information I gained from reading this book. Why can the same law not apply for both? They are both a concern to our community. The risk of serious physical harm to members of the community and the need to protect members of the community is what we are about today.
The other area I am concerned about is reintegration programs. I am unsure if there was any mention in the second reading about reintegration programs. Again, I read from a book by Bernadette McSherry and Patrick Keyzer, page 72, where they studied the Queensland, Washington and Glasgow versions of preventative detention. They say:
That is the act:
It goes on to say the facts of Gough v Southern Queensland Regional Parole Board illustrate this problem.
I received a letter recently from someone in prison for a sex offence who is now permitted to have a one-on-one program but they cannot say when the program will start because they do not have enough people. It would concern me, if we are bringing in these laws, that we ensure we have the wherewithal to have programs to assist people. It would be interesting to hear what programs are in place and if we have the finances to ensure there are sufficient people to run the programs. It was raised as an issue in Queensland, and I have recently received a letter saying a person has been cleared to participate in a program but cannot say when it would start. That is important because it is one of the matters in the new Serious Sex Offenders Bill.
The other issue goes to the philosophy of what we are doing. We are detaining people beyond their punishment, something which requires careful thought. Nowadays, it is used for people suspected of terrorism. We use it through the Mental Health and Related Services Act but those people have not committed a crime. We have the issue - as I read from Ronken and Johnston, who said offenders are afforded a just process - how do we ensure the wrong people are not …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time for the member to complete his remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: I did not realise it had gone so fast; it is a difficult area to get through. I lost my train of thought …
Mr Elferink: You were at Ronken and Johnston.
Mr WOOD: They said everyone should be afforded a just process. What systems will ensure we do not put the wrong people in prison?
Again, I go to the Scottish process. They have the Risk Management Authority, an independent body set up by the government. We are only a small jurisdiction, but the issues still apply. You need to ensure, before someone is given an indeterminate sentence, the process ensures only people who need to be kept in prison are. The Risk Management Authority has this great book - this is only Version 2 - called Risk Assessment Tools Evaluation Directory. That tells people the various assessment tools available to look at if you are judging whether a person is a risk. They bring out standards and guidelines for risk assessment and also help with risk assessment plans.
When a person is in prison for serious sex offences, do we have independent processes which enable assessments to be done properly and ensure that person is not kept in gaol when they should not be? This is the fine balance we have in this debate.
We also need to know, when judging or assessing somebody, what system will be used to assess them. There are many ways of assessing people. I will not go through them all now, but one is the Static-99 coding rules used in America for white offenders. How do you assess the risk of reoffending by Indigenous males? Do we have programs specifically for those?
I quote from Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice document of July 2004, No 280, issued by Alfred Allan and Deborah Dawson. A note from the Acting Director says:
I highlight my concerns because this needs to go to an advisory council such as the one in Victoria - minister, you mentioned a Sentencing Advisory Council in other jurisdictions - or the Law Reform Committee. I am not putting these up as obstacles, but this is fairly serious legislation which goes against our normal judicial process. I do not have a problem as long as the system has been put together in the way Ronken and Johnston were asking for: that the offender should be afforded a just process and that community members are entitled to be protected. I support that.
Time is of the essence. Another area we have not touched on is facilities for people in longer detention. What happens when people get out of prison? We have not discussed that either. What programs do we have? Do we have enough people on the ground to supervise these people? What happens if they are out bush; if they are sent to a remote community? Can we ensure they are supervised correctly? In Queensland, the front page of the document will show you. It is called The management of convicted sex offenders in Queensland. You can have tracking devices and keep an eye on people. I did not see anything in the second reading describing what processes and systems will be in place to ensure supervision is proper and is working.
Not only are you saying people should have supervisory orders, the community wants to know who ensures it is working. Do we have sufficient staff to ensure people are doing what they should? The Territory is a big place. Again, there is not much in the second reading. They are issues a Law Reform Committee or a Sentencing Advisory Council could have looked at to ensure this bill could be amended, could be put into the Sentencing Act, has enough safeguards and processes for rehabilitation, and ensure those outside prison are adequately supervised and have access to programs. There is not much of that in the second reading. Perhaps the minister believes this is only about the bill; however, the bill has ramifications outside many letters on a piece of paper.
When you read this book, you realise it is not a case of copying Queensland, which had its issues. They rushed the law through in 72 hours then found it was not such a good idea. A few issues should have been looked at. It has taken time, because this legislation went through some years ago. By now, they have probably sorted out any issues and I hope we do not have the same problems. If you went down the path of the Victorian model, there is a better chance to come up with legislation checked by an independent body. I am not an expert on this and imagine it could not be said the Attorney-General is not an expert in the area. Perhaps he is knowledgeable about the law, but this deals with far broader issues than just the law.
We need to send this to a body of learned people to assess the bill, see if it can be improved, and see whether it could be part of the Sentencing Act - part of section 65. There is the same issue with violent offenders in our community as with sexual offenders - danger to the community. We already have it in our legislation. The minister says, from time to time, we have too much legislation and regulation. If that is the case, let us reduce it by including it in existing legislation. We would come up with partly what you are after - having less legislation but very good processes to ensure the community is protected.
Madam Speaker, I support the philosophy behind the bill: the community needs to be protected from offenders who we believe, if let out, could cause harm in the community, but we need to be very careful how we do it. That would be a good reason for sending it off to an independent body for assessment.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I have a confidential briefing note in front of me. I will place this in context and selectively quote from the confidential briefing note. We are talking about a three-year-old girl:
That crime occurred during a period that, if the bill I had brought before this House in opposition had been passed, it is unlikely that person would have been released into the public whilst continuing to exhibit those behavioural patterns, and the three-year-old girl may well not have suffered those injuries. I have heard, at length, from both the shadow Attorney-General and the member for Nelson about the rights of the offender ...
Mr Wood: You are exaggerating, on purpose.
Mr ELFERINK: What do you think those reports talk about? The freedom of people to be at liberty and those types of things. You cannot come into this House and bang on about the rights of the offender and the rights of people to be at liberty, saying, ‘We agree with the philosophy of this bill’. This is the nonsense which meant this legislation was not in place to protect children at the time of the offence because we have to send it off to the Law Reform Committee to look at, then send it off to some other committee to look at. This is a way of burying this and sticking our head in the sand saying we were waiting for lawyers to decide. Would you like me to read that out again? I suspect not because it is a disgusting and reprehensible thing ...
Mr Wood: Of course it is. Do not tell me I do not agree with what you are saying.
Mr ELFERINK: You did not. You defended this. I will pick up on the interjection. ‘Do not say we do not agree with what you are saying’. Why are you arguing passionately giving all the reasons we should not do this?
Mr Wood: Because it should be in another bill.
Mr ELFERINK: We will get to that, but that is now the context of my reply.
Mr Wood: Do not go putting the wrong emphasis on me.
Mr ELFERINK: The member for Nelson likes to have a bet each way and talk about all the things he cares about, but is never prepared to be answerable to the people of the Northern Territory and make a decision. It always has to be somebody else’s decision or opinion which drives the member for Nelson. He seems to be incapable of making a decision for himself. That has been resplendently evident in the last few years; in fact, ever since he entered this House. The member for Nelson would like to have a bet each way on this issue and the government will not give that comfort.
I will respond to some of his comments. If the member for Nelson had prepared his speech, he would not have had to say the same thing 16 times and seek an extension. Why is this not in the Sentencing Act? This is not about sentencing, it is about restraint. The comment was also made by the shadow Attorney-General and I want to cover off on it so it is abundantly clear. The suggestion to place it in the Sentencing Act was made to me by certain parties and I looked at it. The reason I was very cautious about adding it to the Sentencing Act was I do not want it to be a sentence. It is not in the nature of a sentence and not designed to be a sentence. It is designed to be an order of restraint.
I hear the member for Nelson chortle and laugh, but this is an order of restraint and, for that reason, specifically not in the Sentencing Act. Orders of restraints from court can come in all shapes and sizes. They come in orders and injunctions and sentences for criminal offences. They come in the form I am seeking now. Restraining orders probably still exist in the Justices Act which prevents a person from doing something. There are orders of restraints surrounding domestic violence orders and such things. They are all orders of restraint issued by courts which are the independent oversight body of this jurisdiction.
There is an unclear understanding, I suspect, from both the member for Nelson and the shadow Attorney-General as to the way this system will work. It will work because the Attorney-General, or their delegate, makes an application. In the case of a criminal offence, the person who brings the prosecution against an offender is the Crown, yet I do not see Queen Elizabeth II strolling into every courthouse in the country starting a prosecution. It is a vehicle to get into the courthouse, but this is not a criminal matter and, therefore, not subject to the operation of the Department of Public Prosecutions because these are not prosecutions, these are applications for orders of restraint to be placed on people. I do not want them anywhere near the Sentencing Act and it would not be appropriate to put them in the Sentencing Act.
The member for Nelson quite rightly pointed out there are models in the Sentencing Act which allow for indefinite detention. In fact, there are a number of prisoners in custody in the Northern Territory at the moment who are subject to indefinite detention orders. I could probably name three or four off the top of my head. However, I am not talking about that because they have to be introduced at the point of sentencing.
A prisoner may well present to a court, at the outset, as a person who requires an indefinite sentence. Where that occurs, that person may well be held indefinitely in custody and will not be, in all likelihood, subject to one of these orders because this order is different. This order is about a person on a definite sentence which is reaching expiration who then presents to the community a high degree of probability of risk of offending again. We are not asking for a court to cast a low standard in this House, we are asking the court to, upon application, adjudicate on a simple notion: the person in custody will and does represent a threat to the community to a high degree of probability. Often these people can be identified. In regard to the nature of the person I spoke about, that high degree of probability could probably have been outlined in this person’s sentence.
The person who has been sentenced may, and I hope will, see the error of their ways and reform whilst in gaol. I hope that occurs. The question that will bother me, however, is if that person, or a person like him, finds themselves reluctant to rehabilitate and represents a risk to the community of a high degree of probability - not might but a high degree of probability - that person should be restrained.
Regarding the Law Reform Committee report, this matter went to the Law Reform Commission but, during the period of the election, the government took it to the public of the Northern Territory as part of the issues we wanted to deal with because we believed there were shortcomings in the legislation surrounding this issue. We formed a government on the basis of being successful in that election campaign, so we determined to keep our promise to the people of the Northern Territory to go down this path. Having said that, there was little point in the Law Reform Committee reporting on this issue, therefore, the line of inquiry was discontinued; it was not reported on. There is your answer. By the way, if you had asked me or the staff during the briefing, you probably would have received the same answer ...
Mr Wood: We were having a good briefing.
Mr ELFERINK: That is good. That answers the question which seemed to be front and centre. It had gone to a higher authority, the people themselves. This was part of our policy platform, well-advertised and pursued on a prior occasion in this parliament. There was no secret of our intention to introduce this legislation in the Northern Territory. Therefore, even if the Law Reform Committee said it did not recommend the legislation we would have pressed on because we had been open, honest, and accountable with the people of the Northern Territory and would have rightfully claimed a mandate to do so.
The member for Nelson referred to a report from Victoria which I did not quite get the name of. There is no doubt this is potentially contentious legislation. A narrow majority of the council that reported had a problem; a substantial minority determined this was worth doing. You end up with some of the best legal brains in the country, according to the member for Nelson, almost equally divided on the issue. That means there are many eminent people - jurists, lawyers, professors - who agree with what we are proposing in this bill.
For that reason, we continue to press on with this and some people will criticise. There is no doubt people in the legal profession who regularly defend people tend to see their role as resisting legislation which would have a negative impact on their clients. I understand that; I do not agree with it. The government understands it and does not automatically agree with it.
I understand the reservations of these organisations, but my concern is not about their clients so much as about potential victims. Those victims are real, and the scars and the imposition on their liberty are lifelong. Often, the damage done, particularly to children, will result in circumstances where that child may never be able to bear children herself. Those are the things we are dealing with. The lacerations referred to in the document I read from before - I have seen lacerations like that and they are not small abrasions we are talking about. This is nasty, brutal horrible stuff. These people are often the ones about whom you will hear prison guards or police officers say, ‘Goodness, when they let so-and-so go at some point in the future, we will see them again shortly’. All too often, sadly, that is correct. There is no psych report attached to that; nothing other than the opinion of a prison guard or an officer involved. That is, obviously, not sufficient to allow for continued detention.
What do we do? We make an application to the court for continued restraint. That is an entirely appropriate thing to do. People are concerned with the Attorney-General name being out the front. It is fairly unlikely I will be in the courts pursuing these things myself. However, even if I did, I would only be there as an applicant.
I am curious about the argument constantly being run that if the Attorney-General, for some reason, walks into a court, they are, in some way, breaching the separation of powers. Says not, the Solicitor-General of the Northern Territory; says not, Robert McClelland QC, former Attorney-General of this country; says not, the Labor Attorney-General of South Australia, John Rau, who appeared in court last month. None of that is a breach of the separation of powers because there is no attempt, when the Attorney-General or any other applicant walks into a courtroom, to interfere with the process of justice. You are there as an applicant, like any other applicant.
If you were to follow the logic put forward by the shadow Attorney-General, if I, as a victim of crime and also Attorney-General, sought redress from a court somehow that would mysteriously become, because of the status of my victimhood, a breach of the separation of powers and I should not appear in court. A victim of crime is, essentially, an applicant for a court seeking justice and redress from the court. An applicant, whether it is a lawyer or a citizen at the bar table, is merely an applicant. The Crown, in the form of the DPP when lodging a complaint or information before either the Court of Summary Jurisdiction or the Supreme Court, is an applicant. They make an application. They are seeking adjudication, which means they have no power to influence the court other than by the arguments and evidence they place before that court.
There is no diminishing of the judicial power of the court. Indeed, the only way that could be is if a person attempted to supersede or underwrite the court’s authority by climbing on to the front bench and doing the adjudicating themselves. No such concept is entertained in this legislative instrument. Indeed, if such a concept were entertained by any legislative instrument in the Northern Territory, I would be very quick to amend it in defence of the separation of powers. To introduce the concept that, in some way, an applicant before the court is breaching the separation of powers is to introduce a nonsensical concept. It does not work that way; it is not how the system is put together.
I keep hearing references to an independent body oversighting this. That is called a court. Courts are an independent body, and that is the oversight constructed all the way through this legislative instrument. Not only that, but the legislative instrument restrains itself, particularly on the threshold question of whether this person is a risk, not to the balance of probabilities which is the civil standard, or to beyond reasonable doubt which is the criminal standard. This goes further and says there has to be a high degree of probability. That is the standard being applied.
Not only that, I have been mindful to look at other jurisdictions, particularly Queensland. We have restrained ourselves from the same interpretative structure as Queensland because the Queensland model is broad. We have deliberatively sought to tighten it in this environment because I do not want to capture a broad group; I want to capture those individuals who represent a clear and present danger to the people of the Northern Territory - women and children in particular.
I want to address a couple of issues. First, there is the Fardon case in which the shadow Attorney-General recounted the determination of Justice Kirby. If I recall that case correctly, it was a 6:1 majority in favour of the lawfulness of the Queensland legislation. That means you were quoting a judge who was in the minority by a factor of 6:1. Where you were quoting one judge - as wise as he may be - in relation to this legislation, six other equally wise judges disagreed with Justice Kirby in that instance. As I recall, the Queensland legislation was found to be lawful.
This legislative instrument is not quite as broad as the Queensland legislation so I am comfortable we are on the right side of lawful. I do not want to make it a form of sentencing because if we introduce it into the Sentencing Act, I am nervous it could extend to breaching the principles of double jeopardy. We have heard several references to double jeopardy from the member for Nelson. Double jeopardy, in this instance, is the restraint on the state or a court of sentencing a person twice for the same offence.
This is not about sentencing and I want to make that abundantly clear. Members opposite, this is not about sentencing. This is about applying restraint on a person who has become a threat. An indefinite sentence can be done at the point where the head sentence is handed down. That is no problem. I do not want this to look, smell, feel or in any way touch on a sentence for a crime that has already been adjudicated on. This is about preventing something happening into the future ...
Mr Wood: What about violent offenders? You already do it.
Mr ELFERINK: I will pick up on the interjection. If at some point I, and this government, am convinced violent offenders should be added to this I am happy to do it ...
Mr Wood: No, they are already in it.
Mr ELFERINK: This is the problem I have with the member for Nelson. He still cannot separate the two issues I am talking about. He is talking about violent offenders being in the Sentencing Act. Yes, that is right; you can get indefinite sentences for that. This legislation does not refer to violent offenders other than violent sexual offenders. We are talking about two completely separate structures ...
Mr Wood: Put them together.
Mr ELFERINK: No, I cannot. I do not want to otherwise this takes on the nature of a sentence. This is not a sentence; this is an order of restraint ...
Mr Wood: It is continued detention and you said it yourself in the second reading.
Mr ELFERINK: Unfortunately, sometimes I get the feeling I am trying to explain algebra to a slug.
I do not want this to be argued in any way that we are sentencing a person again for an offence they have already been sentenced for. This is about an order of restraint to prevent a person from doing certain things should they be at liberty, or alternatively, being restrained from being at liberty at all because of the risk they pose to the community. I do not want to have to read another briefing note like the one I read out before because we have not had the intestinal fortitude as a parliament to make a decision. Apparently, we have to spend our time deferring to all types of authorities, whether they are intrastate, interstate or international. Our opinions count for nought despite the fact out of all the organisations quoted this is the one elected. We seem to be afraid of making decisions and sticking by the policy commitments we make.
I pick up on the member for Nhulunbuy’s comments about public consultations. Yes, this was part of the public consultation process. The outrage was clear when I went to the consultation. That is part of my interventionist style of Attorney-General - I attend public consultations. I went to the one in Alice Springs and the one in Darwin. In Alice Springs, there were two or three people from the legal fraternity and one interested member of the public. They were able to ask questions of the staff, which outnumbered the people at the consultation.
A similar effect was noted at the Darwin one. Yes, in future if we do the trip around the Territory we will go to Nhulunbuy. I am mindful of that and you are quite right. In the meantime, in the round of consultations we did, the public was not there in force raging against this injustice. In fact, whilst those consultations were well-advertised, even the profession was not there in force raging against the injustice. Some people made critical comments and observations no doubt, but it was a handful of people. I did not sense a strident movement in the profession or beyond to resist this legislative instrument.
The shadow Attorney-General asked a question in relation to Part 8 Division 1. I draw the member’s attention to clause 79(6) of the bill which says:
I hope that deals with the issue raised by the member for Nhulunbuy.
I have to advise the House of a clerk’s amendment, clause 95(1) which says:
That should read 7(1); there is no 6(3) and 7(1) refers to the standard and onus of proof issue. That will be a clerk’s amendment if that does not cause too much grief to members opposite.
I thank honourable members for taking the time to do the research they did. I have been in opposition and know how much hard work that can be. I am grateful we have restrained ourselves, rather than forensically trying to examine full stops, colons and commas in the bill, to the process that we should be applying ourselves to this House - the big picture stuff; the policy settings we are putting in place.
I take heart from the fact members opposite agreed with the government despite the fact they spent 99% of the time telling the government all the reasons the philosophy is wrong. I trust the staff of the department, and the legislative draftsmen, to capture the essence and desire of government intent. I hope this will have the effect of restraining potential offenders from raping or committing sexual assaults whilst at liberty when we have an opportunity to prevent their liberty giving them that opportunity.
Of course, we will never know if this bill has been successful because we will never know about the rape that did not occur. It is like saying the Traffic Act prevents car accidents. I am sure it does, but you will never know about the accident that did not occur on the corner of Cavanagh and Daly Street at 7.30 am because it did not happen. That is a hard thing to do with legislative instruments of this nature - they are preventative in nature. If they have the effect of preventing a crime from occurring, the only way you can point to it in some longitudinal way is to look back after three or four years and see if there has been a change in offence rates among prisoners who have been subject to orders under legislation of this nature.
Madam Speaker, It is for those reasons this is not included in the Sentencing Act. I hope this will, in some way, prevent a crime from occurring in the future. I anticipate it will. I will probably never have the satisfaction of knowing which crimes it has avoided, other than knowing we, as a government, were prepared to stand up and be counted despite resistance from the profession and other members of this House to protect and prevent potential victims becoming actual victims.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Madam SPEAKER: Whilst I am waiting for the Deputy Speaker, I have noticed pairs for government, Mrs Bess Price, and for opposition, Michael Gunner, for the period 26 March 2013 to 28 March 2013 inclusive, signed by government and opposition Whips.
In committee:
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole:
Mr WOOD: Mr Chairman, regardless of what was said before, I will continue, as a member of parliament, to question the government on its legislation regardless of whether it has been a public policy of the government. The issue is whether it is good legislation and what we are trying to determine today. I re-emphasise, I support the philosophy behind the government bringing this legislation forward today.
Because I believe it should be done in a different way does not make me a fence-sitter. It is simply me asking government if it could be done better. Government might not agree, but it is my right to see whether it is better.
I question the minister in relation to the distinction between the indefinite sentence for violent offenders, which holds a person in prison for longer than the offence they received a nominal sentence for. That is keeping someone in prison under the Sentencing Act and doing exactly what the minister is doing through his bill - keeping someone in detention longer. That is what he called it in the second reading. What is the difference between keeping a person in prison for a violent offence and keeping a person in prison for a sexual offence?
Mr ELFERINK: I thank the member for Nelson for his question. I will tell you what my thinking was when this issue arose. The concern I had was the rules of double jeopardy. You cannot sentence a person twice for the same offence. This issue came up while we were debating and discussing how we should proceed. The government is being uber-cautious - very careful - about this. I do not want to invite the argument that we are seeking to further sentence a person for a crime they committed in the past. That is not what this bill is about. Therefore, to place it in the Sentencing Act was to invite the argument run in this House on two occasions by you and the shadow Attorney-General - this was a form of double jeopardy. That is not what this is. The practical component is yes, we will detain people in prisons, but we are not sentencing them twice for the same offence. I want to make it abundantly clear to any future court that may choose to look at any comments made in this House that the mind of the Attorney-General is utterly and unequivocally clear on this issue. This is not a sentence; it is an order of restraint - a completely different thing - which is why it is not even in the criminal system. That is why the DPP is not prosecuting it because they prosecute criminal matters. This is a civil action taken to restrain. It is like a domestic violence order. No criminal history or criminality flows from the issuing of a domestic violence order. A domestic violence creates a system of restraint and that is what this bill is seeking to do.
I understand you see this from a practical point of view. You cannot see the difference between a person in gaol and a person in gaol. I understand that.
Mr WOOD: The prisoner will not know any different.
Mr ELFERINK: The prisoner, I hope, will. Even if they do not, that is not the issue for me. My issue is to avoid the argument this is a form of double jeopardy. This is not looking back in time and saying we will punish a person again for something they did in the past. This is about saying, ‘Gee whiz, this person is really a risk to the community. We believe, to a high degree of probability, this person will go into the community and possibly rape a child. To prevent that rape from occurring, we are going to put an order of restraint on that person’. We are not talking about what they did in the past; we are talking about what that person is like today.
If that person is not subject to an indefinite sentence - and the vast majority of the people in prison are not - there is a release date. Even if we refuse parole and run them to the very end of their sentence, when you hit that day there is no power to restrain that person. Yet we look at them from time to time and think to ourselves, ‘Goodness gracious me, the moment this person gets out they are going to commit a sexual crime. They are going to rape somebody’. Often that assessment, non-expert as it is from a handful of police who will make a comment like that, or a prison officer, is right. We will go through a process of identifying these people and assessing them so we can identify people who fall within this environment. We are not going to worry about what they are in gaol for, necessarily. We are going to worry about what they are going to do when they get out of gaol. I do not want to see rapes occurring, particularly when we say to ourselves, ‘Oh my goodness, that person we are about to let go will do this’. It is about their future.
I know there is no obvious practical difference between a person in a cell who is a sentenced prisoner and a person in a cell who is under a restraint order, but the legal difference is the reason I wanted to keep this out of the Sentencing Act. I did not want to invite the argument of double jeopardy and that is the rationale behind this.
Mr WOOD: Attorney-General, you have a law which is exactly the same for violent offenders, and they can be just as bad as sexual offenders. You have the ability to detain violent offenders for the same reasons you want to detain a sexual offender. That is the law as you have it now; you have an indefinite sentence to protect the community from serious danger, which is exactly what you are doing with sexual offenders.
In this case, Attorney-General, we make the decision up-front at the point of sentencing. I know you do not like me quoting other people, but this is an Australia document and I have to research as much as I can. I have spent many hours working through this. I am not an expert but I do my research. It says - these are the learned people, Bernadette McSherry and Patrick Keyzer:
Which is the same as we have in section 65:
Mr ELFERINK: You have not listened to a word I have just said.
Mr WOOD: That is right.
Mr ELFERINK: You have not listened to a word I have just said.
Mr WOOD: The bill you are putting forward is sentencing at the end.
Mr ELFERINK: No, it is not.
Mr WOOD: It is. You are making a decision six months from the time the person is perhaps to be released. The Scottish system is where you make a decision about a person - whether they are on an indefinite sentence - at the beginning, which gets rid of the issue you said before and in your second reading - gets rid of the problem of double punishment.
Mr ELFERINK: You have made your point. I will answer it.
Mr WOOD: Yes.
Mr ELFERINK: I need some butcher’s paper and crayon, I suspect. This is not about sentencing. You keep saying the answer is in the Sentencing Act. To do that, you have to do it up-front; you said so yourself. An indefinite order for a violent offender has to be at the front, which means - by the way, the sentencing stuff applies to sexual offenders as well - you have a sexual offender and you give them a head sentence of four years for a rape but there is no indefinite sentence. They serve the four years. What happens at the end of those four years, under your proposal, when it becomes very clear that person will get out and rape again?
Mr WOOD: I am not sure you understand this. That does not say they can get out.
Mr ELFERINK: No, you misunderstood me. For an indefinite sentence to be imposed it has to happen at the time the sentence is handed down. Right?
Mr WOOD: Yes, that is right.
Mr ELFERINK: Good. We agree on that point.
Mr Wood: Yes.
Mr ELFERINK: What if the court does not issue an indefinite sentence? They only do it rarely. The vast majority of sentences handed down are definite sentences. You say we have to identify these potential risks up-front, add it to the Sentencing Act and it becomes part of the sentence and avoids double jeopardy. I get that. Some of these people are identified whilst in custody. What do you do with them? You cannot take them back to court because that is double jeopardy. You have a person serving six years for rape or they are subject to an indefinite sentence, in that case it is fine. This legislation will not be invoked but if they are not subject to an indefinite sentence - which is the vast majority of offenders - that is where this comes into play. This is the ‘keep them in gaol’ card we are seeking to play. You have in mind we can do this up-front and will not identify anybody as a potential rapist whilst they are in gaol. There are people in gaol today who will say, ‘The moment I get out of here I am going to do it again’. They are not subject to an indefinite sentence. What do we do with those people? How do we explain that to the three-year-old victim when it happens? That is the point of this legislation.
I hear what you say, ‘Do it up-front’. We do; we have it there now. This is about capturing people who need to be restrained at the other end of the sentence. If they are subject to an indefinite sentence, this legislation will never come into play as long as they are on that indefinite sentence. If they are subject to a definite sentence - which is 99.9% of the prison population - that is where this legislation fills a hole.
Mr WOOD: I realise we could go on for a long time. Attorney-General, a system exists in Scotland called the Risk Management Authority which looks at people at the beginning. They are assessed - I have asked what assessment processes we have for these people - which sets up management plans. A prisoner would be assessed on a continual basis because they have two forms of sentencing. They will be sentenced at the beginning, and we know they will have to be assessed because they will be serious sex offenders. You mentioned three serious sex offences and you would be looked at seriously. They have a nominal sentence and, during that period, the risk management authority would have a management plan in place which would look at those people with the concept of letting them out, which is the system they have in Scotland. If they are not ready to be let out, they have to be left in. If you remove the concept of double jeopardy, you assess them and ensure people are not released into the community. We do that now …
Mr ELFERINK: We do.
Mr Wood: Then why …
Mr ELFERINK: It does not capture a particular group of people.
Mr WOOD: That is right. The Scottish system realises the two offences sometimes overlap and said it was much better to deal with the two as one.
Mr ELFERINK: I understand what you are saying and know where you are coming from. Perhaps we can deal with it another way. Pretend for a moment you are Attorney-General and you receive a report from the Commissioner from Corrections, with psych reports and everything else, that prisoner blogs is on a sentence. This matter will not come to your desk because he is on indefinite detention so that will never happen - he is already indefinitely detained for the crime committed. Prisoner blogs is on a definite sentence and is at the tail end of six years for a rape he committed. Prisoner blogs is presenting as really high risk - this person is going to rape again. In that circumstance, what do you do under Territory legislation?
Mr WOOD: Tell me if I am wrong. If you had a serious sex offender in prison for sex offences that prisoner would be adjudicated at the beginning. The people you are talking about are obviously serious sex offenders and you said that in the second reading.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes.
Mr WOOD: I am saying yes, they should be assessed at the beginning. I know where you are coming from …
Mr Elferink: Answer the question, minister.
Mr WOOD: If I want to look like the acting Attorney-General I will have to swing this chair around, put my hands in my pocket and chew on my glasses, but …
Mr Elferink: Answer the question now you have done all that.
Mr WOOD: They use it in Scotland. I am not the lawyer so I have to go on what other people do. They are already using it in Scotland and have had it running since 1993. They have set up a process which deals with the issues you are talking about. It is regarded as the better system according to these people because it gets over double jeopardy.
Mr ELFERINK: It does not get past the problem I have just presented you with.
Mr WOOD: You will have that with any case, will you not?
Mr ELFERINK: We can close that loophole and that is what we are attempting to do.
Mr WOOD: Looking at what the Scottish system has done, they have the same issue. If you release someone into the community on supervisory orders, they have a management plan, they assess them - there must be times when things do not work out like any judicial system. They have a system that has been running for a long time and the more I read about it, the more it appears to be a good system …
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Mr WOOD: All right. We are not going to change our …
Mr Elferink: Can you answer the question I have put to you, Attorney-General? Can you answer that question?
Mr WOOD: Ask the question again?
Mr ELFERINK: You are the Attorney-General and have a person on a definite sentence - not an indefinite sentence, which is the vast majority of sexual offenders - and the advice you receive from psychologists and other reports is if Joe Blogs is released by you he will, in all likelihood, rape again. Under the Scottish system, you cannot do anything about it. What are you going to do about it, Attorney-General? He is on a definite sentence, you have been told this guy will rape again. What are you going to do?
Mr WOOD: My understanding from the Scottish system is that people - not just the people on indefinite sentences - would be under some form of assessment.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, but they are coming to the end of the sentence, double jeopardy applies now, and you cannot sentence them again. He is about to let go, what are you going to do, Attorney-General?
Mr WOOD: I understand what you are saying …
Mr Elferink: Well, what are you going to do?
Mr WOOD: Do the assessment orders - and I have not been able to go through all this - that apply in Scotland cover that?
Mr ELFERINK: No, Attorney-General, they will not.
Mr Wood: I do not know …
Mr ELFERINK: No, they will not because this person, Attorney-General, is coming to the end of their sentence. There is no mechanism under the common law, or under any law, under which you can hold that person any further - no mechanism at all. This person will rape again, Attorney-General, what are you going to do?
Mr WOOD: It is not an issue that seems to have come up. I am going on the evidence I have read. If that has been an issue - and it is an important issue you raise - it certainly has not been raised as a concern within the Scottish system.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay. Can I read that opening briefing note again to you? It was raised in this House by the Country Liberals when we were in opposition, because we saw it as a real and present danger. If that legislation had been operational, there is a high likelihood that person would never have been released, and that child would never have been raped.
I have an answer to that question. It is called the Serious Sex Offenders Bill (Serial 18) 2013. I and this government have the answer to the question you are struggling with right now. That is the crux of this discussion.
Mr WOOD: All right. Minister, can we go on to what assessments you would apply to these people? What programs do you have when assessing whether somebody will be a danger to the community?
Mr ELFERINK: The process of assessment - I will tell you how this stuff operates in the practical environment. Prisoners who are serving sentences for sexual crimes will come to notice, from time to time. Prison officers will have dealings with them, and they will start to think, ‘Goodness, gracious me, this person is coming to the end of their sentence, and we think this person is trouble. We think this person is a real problem. He will go out and rape again’.
At that stage, there is an assessment process which is a psych report, and several other reports will be done. A file will be put together, and that file will be comprehensive. The reason that file is put together is because a court has to be convinced this person is that dangerous. It has not only to be convinced to a low civil standard of proof; we are saying that court has to be really convinced. That is why we use the expression ‘to a high degree of probability’.
We walk into court with a file. It would be psych reports, evidence from prison officers who have heard the prisoner boast they will commit a sexual crime again, or a prisoner who may have written some documents. The normal rule of evidence in relation to civil matters will apply. The court then adjudicates independently on the strength of the argument that the government makes, or the applicant - in this case the Attorney-General, or the Attorney-General’s representative normally.
The Attorney-General’s representative with the delegation to will walk into court, walks in with file and says, ‘We have these psych reports, we have all of this evidence to support it’. That evidence will change from time to time, depending on what evidence is there. It will be whatever evidence is available, but I am certain a psych report will be in that mix - evidence from prison officers and other physical documentary, circumstantial, and other evidence of a probative value. It has to be to such a standard that the court says, ‘There is a high degree of probability’.
Mr WOOD: I understand that. Again, I refer back to the Scottish system. I am not saying we have to have the Scottish system but, obviously, they have put much emphasis on making sure the risk assessment is very independent, and also very professional. Do we have a risk assessment process that is backed up by people who know about these things?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, there is an administrative assessment committee involved with this. To give you an idea of the sort of evidence, 10 sex offenders, last year alone, declined to be assessed for treatment. That might be part of it. This is real numbers by the way; 10 prisoners refused to be assessed for treatment in prison. Therefore, they will not be treated, just released at the end of their sentence. That is the type of evidence which will support.
I am not just saying because you refuse to do a course you will represent a high degree of likelihood, but that, combined with other things you may have said - possibly even the evidence of other prisoners - goes before an assessment committee. The assessment committee then goes, ‘Oh, sugar. This person is a real risk. We better put it to the Attorney-General’. So, it goes up to the Attorney-General’s Office with a recommendation, and the likelihood is the Attorney-General will sign off on that recommendation one way or another, because the Attorney-General relies on that advice from smart people. If it is a positive, ‘Yes, we have to try to restrain this person’, then the application will be lodged. That is the process and those are the things that will be taken into consideration.
Mr WOOD: Again, I refer back to the Risk Management Authority. It sets up, or helps set up, risk management plans for those being, I presume, sent out under supervisory orders. Do we have those sorts of plans as well?
Mr ELFERINK: We run similar things all the time. Community Corrections of the department has field officers who often work in the field. There are two ways to do those sorts of things. You either do them actively where you go and knock on the door and say, ‘Hello Billy Bob, you were supposed to be here at home and it is nice to see you here at home’, or there are potentially passive ways to do it depending on the nature of the order that is being given. If an order is given by a court which says you are not to go near certain places like kindergartens, for instance, and then we find out, because a member of the public has complained that Billy Bob has gone near a kindergarten, that is another way to breach those orders. They are very similar to parole orders, good behaviour bonds, or other conditional orders a court imposes.
Conditional orders are very common. They happen all the time, and they happen in a raft of different environments, including domestic violence orders and orders of restraint. Conditional orders are very common. They are either policed passively - that is, we wait for a complaint to come in through the door - or actively, when that particular person has to be case managed. There are people who do that now.
Mr WOOD: The other area I raised was the number of courses that are available at present. I mentioned a case where someone had been admitted to a course but they could not say when that person would be able to attend. Has the government a program within its policies in relation to this particular bill to increase the number of services in prison for these people?
Mr ELFERINK: We provide them now to the point where 10 people last year were able to say, ‘No, I am not going to one’. We do provide them. Offender management plans are drawn up for all offenders. If you have people going out into the community, we still try to manage these people in all sorts of ways. Just because a person has committed a rape in the past, it does not automatically follow we will apply this legislation to them. This legislation will be applied in such a fashion as to target those people who are of a high degree of risk.
A person who has committed a rape but then can demonstrates they have seen the error of their ways - have gone through all the courses, and perhaps have found God or whatever - and gets an offender management plan, upon their release are still managed through the parole system until the end of parole; they are released into the community and they get on with their lives - what is left of it.
That is not what this is about. We will apply offender management plans to people who are released under this system but are subject to effective control.
Mr WOOD: If those people come from a remote community, is it likely you have enough staff to supervise in that community, or will it be a case of, ‘No, you cannot go to that community because we have not the staff to supervise’?
Mr ELFERINK: It may be. We have staff in remote communities by the way, through the Corrections Department. We do have them placed. Sometimes it is hard to fill those positions and that is the practical and pragmatic issues of running a corrections system in remote communities. But we do have them. We also, let us say in Alice Springs, have a number of Corrections staff who travel quite a bit and visit remote communities.
It may well be the case that a control order will prevent a person from travelling to a particular community. I am interested to know what sort of evidence you would be able to adduce to a court which would demonstrate this person is only likely to commit a rape in Yuendumu, for instance, rather than in Hermannsburg or Papunya.
There is the latitude built into this to enable the court to make an appropriate order of restraint, either if they are in the community or - the ultimate form of restraint - under the physical restraint of a gaol.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, Attorney-General. I mentioned in the management of convicted sex offenders in Queensland they have a document relating to that, and some of that is to do with bracelets. There was discussion in the news …
Mr Elferink: I am so glad you asked this question.
Mr WOOD: … last year because we had bracelets once. The biggest concern was when there was lightning they were likely to get zapped. Some people might say that is good. The point is I have heard that type of equipment may be coming back. What sort of means do you have of keeping an eye on some of these offenders?
Mr ELFERINK: This is a great question.
Mr Wood: I have one good question.
Mr ELFERINK: The reason it is a great question because I can comfortably answer it by saying I was in Adelaide last Friday looking at exactly this type of equipment. There are several different types of bracelets that are available and, depending on the technology you need, there are bracelets which now enable you to track prisoners wherever they are. There are bracelets where a prisoner is sent to work, for argument’s sake; they are released into the community and they have one of the bracelets on. The Corrections staff can come by with a remote monitoring system, drive past the shop where the person subject to the bracelet order is and check the person is in the shop, because it communicates with the bracelet directly. So, it can be completely unobtrusive. This person can go to work. There is no probation and parole officer walking in and saying, ‘Just making sure you are at work here’ because that would be very difficult for some prisoners who are trying to amend their ways. You can check them through that sort of technology.
Much is done through landlines. There is a little unit in the house where, if you walk 30 m away from the unit, it sends off an immediate alarm which is centrally managed through a system that is run by South Australian Correctional Services.
There are also bracelets which you can apply in such a way that you can exclude people from areas. Let us say a person is told they are not allowed to go near Braitling in Alice Springs then, if that person goes within 300 m of the boundary of Braitling, then an alarm goes off immediately, warning that person they are close to their exclusion zone. There is an inclusion zone that is an electronic parameter fence which can be done, or an exclusion zone, which is where you are allowed to go anywhere but there.
There are GPS bracelets which means you can track any person anywhere in the world. They are a little hungrier on battery life, but the technology is improving. The batteries in those only last for about 24 to 25 hours, but in the other bracelets the batteries last for weeks and there is a simple recharge.
There are all sorts of technologies available. We are looking at them very carefully. They are an option in tracking people who are under all sorts of different orders.
There is legislation within the Correctional Services portfolio where bracelets are already contemplated. The former government wisely passed that legislation. If there needs to be amendments to that legislation because of changing technology, we, as a government, will be happy to change that. We are looking at it. I was in Adelaide last week looking at these things, had them in my hands and chewing on the back of them, trying to find ways to get around them. They are pretty solid units, in the technology, and it is very hard to deceive the system.
I saw the computer backup system as well, which supports it, and it is instantaneous. If somebody breaches a geographic area on their order, the computer lights up and you know about it instantly. So, yes.
Mr WOOD: I imagine they are not cheap. Would you have any indication of how many people you think would need such supervisory controls in the Northern Territory?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes. Part of the problem with Corrections is like health; you are running a demand-driven area. Because the courts are independent, they make orders which are independent of government, so we have to provide resources in accordance with the determinations of the court. Can I stand up here and say 315 people would successfully qualify? No, I cannot say that because it is up to the court to adjudicate that on each individual case.
In regard to sentencing - now we are talking about sentencing which is off topic here - if the courts were able to be convinced of the usefulness of this technology, yes, it is not that cheap, but it is much cheaper than putting people in prison cells. As an alternative to imprisonment, that is where you would look at bracelets and those types of things.
In relation to bracelets for this type of legislation, if a court determines through the orders we give them discretion to make tracking a person rather than keeping them in gaol is the option, then that is written into this legislation - the court has that capacity.
Mr WOOD: That is where, without going too far off the track, the Glasgow system is because they have management plans and they release their people. That is part of the way …
Mr Elferink: That is contemplated by this legislation.
Mr WOOD: All right. I have probably worn you out, but you have given me time to think about a response to your question. It is a good question. I am not trying to shy away from the fact that is a real issue. However, if it is an issue for sex offenders under the changes, why is it not an issue for violent offenders? A violent offender could also go in with a determinant sentence and the same problems you have with a sex offender could occur.
Mr Elferink: Yes.
Mr WOOD: To me, there is no difference between the problem to the community of a violent offender and a sex offender. Do we have an issue with violent offenders?
Mr ELFERINK: We may well do; I certainly have not discounted it. I have been asked by the media why not violent offenders, and the answer has been at this stage we are focusing on sex offenders. However, should this bill pass the House with the support of the majority of members, I am happy to look at it. If you want to make submissions to me this should extent to violent offenders, I am happy to listen to you.
Mr WOOD: I might take my one overseas trip to Glasgow and look at what they do. One thing I found from studying this - I am not an expert or a lawyer - as a member of parliament, regardless of whether you have a legal background, one needs to, as best as possible, get as much information as you can.
I do not have any other questions. I am a bit disappointed you had a go at us because you believe we support offenders against the terrible crimes you mentioned. That, to me, is nearly an insult. I look at the legislation, I go to briefings, I ring up lawyers, I study as much as I can, and I work on the Internet. That is not because I disagree with what you are trying to do, but I remember -this might be a minor issue - the member for Brennan arguing about cash for cans. I remember him saying, ‘It is my job as an opposition member to scrutinise this bill’. That is all I am doing; trying to ensure the bill you have before us is a good one.
I do not want to be classed as somebody who is sticking up for rapists or people who play around with children. That is not what this is about. This is about you putting in legislation to stop those people. My job is to see whether this legislation will do the job in a way - as I said at the beginning from the people from Bravehearts - that we have a judicial system which is fair for the offender but, at the same time, protects the community. Surely, that does not make me appear to support people who commit terrible crimes? I do not support people who commit those terrible crimes. I am here as a member of parliament to test your legislation, and that is all I was trying to do. I feared, as soon as I stood up, you or someone would say, ‘Look at that bloke supporting those terrible people’.
The first thing you did was quote the Tennant Creek matter. That was a terrible thing and not something I support. I wanted to ensure your legislation stood up to scrutiny, just as the member for Brennan did. That is all I was trying to do.
Mr ELFERINK: I appreciate what you are saying. The problem is sometimes events overtake scrutiny. I am not saying we should not scrutinise, that is what a parliament is about. Despite people trying to dress up this government as trying to shut the thing down, I am doing no such thing, particularly in this instance.
We have to find a balance between the abundance of caution, which is advocated by you and the shadow Attorney-General, and the reality of these crimes. The reason I was a little upset at the outset was the very type of crime I was seeking to prevent when I brought this or similar legislation into this House a couple of years ago may well not have occurred. That rests on my conscious deeply.
We can push this through a million committees. You referred to the Victorian committee, which was divided on it. I understand this is a divisive issue. You have to strike a balance somewhere. For me, the balance falls in favour of the potential victim.
Ms WALKER: Mr Chairman, I did not want to interrupt the member for Nelson as he was going through his questions, so forgive me if I overlap a bit here, Attorney-General.
I have listened very carefully to what you had to say throughout this debate, but I still do not remain convinced. Call it a restraint or detention - whilst technically, for all intents and purposes, it is not sentencing and it avoids the legal tag of double jeopardy - it still detains people. It still keeps people in prisons. On that premise, I still maintain the contribution of my debate about the fact that it still is detaining people. You are emphatic that it is not sentencing but, for all intents and purposes, it is.
I make another observation as well. These are really complex matters. The member for Nelson and I have read extensively on this and discussed it with people. I am disappointed. I made the comment during my contribution that, sometimes, I wonder if this is very much the law reform agenda of the member for Port Darwin, or the CLP’s. So few on your side participate in these debates. On so few occasions with Justice bills have we had second speakers. Off the top of my head, I can remember two. One was the member for Drysdale in the National Uniform Evidence Bill and the other was the member for Stuart in the minimum mandatory sentencing. If we wonder why this is not an agenda shared by the broader government, there is that.
There is also the fact it is within your prerogative as the Attorney-General to not have to accept the report or the recommendation or, for that matter, to even make a referral to, the NT Law Reform Commission. I contend, when you say the people are a higher authority than eminent lawyers in the Northern Territory, that is somewhat dismissive of legal experts with cumulative years, decades, of experience. That borders on offensive. The terminology was that the line of inquiry which had been initiated on this particular issue with the Law Reform Committee was ceased or terminated, and that is a great shame. You are, obviously, entitled to accept or reject that report, and there is nothing that obliges you to release it. However, to have a closed mind to that - and I quoted from Justice Kirby. I have the whole Fardon case here; what all seven judges had to say. I went to Justice Kirby because I wanted to know what it was about the Fardon case that saw him raise objections. My role on this side of the House is to be the devil’s advocate and find those points of difference.
I quoted from the letter from NAAJA which you would have received. The member for Nelson has asked you questions about rehabilitation. I want to know what rehabilitation will be made available - it is a difficult issue, pre-election, post-election - for those offenders in our Corrections systems who have conducted sexual offences - terrible offences - yet they are incapacitated on a number of levels, not the least of which is that barrier of language.
Whilst the government has done away with an Indigenous Affairs portfolio, there is no denying the fact that 30% of our population makes up 80% of our prison population, and that is a real concern. If we have a government which is hell-bent on alcohol reform, then what is the way forward with reforming individuals? I have asked much there, but perhaps you could go to the point around rehabilitation for disadvantaged people.
Mr ELFERINK: We provide courses for sex offenders, and many sexual offender prisoners take advantage of those courses. Some do not do the courses - last year 10 refused to. We do our best - you can lead a horse to water. Let us be honest, of the prisoners who do these courses how many are just trying to get through the parole system and how many are paying attention? You will not know the answer to that question because you cannot interrogate what is happening between a person’s ears if they are trying to jump through some hoops. I understand the language barriers. If this was a perfect world we would have zillions of dollars to pour into this, and be able to provide one-on-one mentoring and all that. The fact is we cannot, so we have to do it within certain parameters, and we provide the requisite courses. More generally speaking, we do our best.
The response from this government in relation to prisoners generally is I want to keep them away. I pick up on 80% of the prison population being Indigenous. I believe it is 82%. If you are looking for a correlation between offending and a particular class of people, Indigenous is not the most common. The most common is welfare dependant. More welfare-dependant people end up in gaol than Indigenous people. I prefer to use that correlation because it gives me a better potential to plan in that area. That is speaking generally.
Speaking more specifically about this bill, whilst I appreciate people have asked critical questions - I understand you are here to ask critical questions – you are not playing the devil’s advocate. The devil’s advocates job is to ask difficult questions to test the quality of something. You are doing more than that. You are resisting this bill; you are saying, ‘We do not like it for several reasons and these are the reasons’.
Justice Kirby did not like it despite the comments of six other High Court judges. Justice Kirby has often been a dissenting judge because, I suspect, he sees his role as an activist judge. That does not always accord with the law of the land according to his colleagues, which is the case in this instance. He makes his observations. I have read a number of judgments of Justice Kirby where he likes to pursue these things. It is his business how he goes about that. However, the law of the land says these legislative instruments are lawful and are supported in other Australian jurisdictions.
It is not just a case of you playing devil’s advocate. You will, I presume, vote no on the basis of your comments so far because you do not like the structure of this bill, or the fact it has not been pushed through half a dozen different organisations for their approval.
I hesitate at the suggestion people are, in some way, the great unwashed, and the wisdom of judgment and smart people is the better form of judge on these issues. I do not accept that because, if you follow that argument to its logical conclusion, you can do away with democracy and we can have a bunch of professors running things. We do not do that because the great unwashed often have informed opinions. As the member for Nelson pointed out from the report he quoted, even the smarty pants, the clever guys, the professors and the QCs, still form, on these types of legislative instruments, narrow majorities and substantial minorities. Even when they are informed up to the 100th floor, you still get a pretty clean divide. There comes a point where you have to make a decision and that is what this government has determined to do.
In relation to the member for Port Darwin’s law reform aspects, this went through the Country Liberal Party’s policy committee and was ticked off. It has been before the parliamentary wing of the Country Liberal Party and been ticked off, prior to and subsequent to the election. It has been before Cabinet and been ticked off. This has gone through all the processes my party demands of me before it came into this place.
Consequently, it is not the member for Port Darwin’s opinion. Yes, the member for Port Darwin does drive these things. I got into politics because it would enable me to do certain things and, hopefully, in this case to protect victims from becoming victims. That is why we all get into politics. But it does go through processes. This is not just John Elferink’s or the member for Port Darwin’s opinion. This is the considered policy position of the Country Liberal Party, parliamentary wing and Cabinet.
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, although, traditionally, at this time of year it is often quiet in the Territory ahead of the Dry Season, in the Nightcliff area it has been far from quiet. I will update the House on some of these activities.
Only yesterday, the member for Johnston and I hosted a seniors’ Easter morning tea for local residents in our area. It was a wonderful morning with over 80 people attending, sharing a cuppa and some laughs. Many residents commented that it was wonderful to catch up with each other. Some residents have known each other for years, but had not caught up recently.
There was also a number of attendees who, in recent years, had moved to the Territory to join family here, so different from the days when, upon retirement, people moved south. I thank everyone for coming along and sharing the morning with me and the member for Johnston.
One concern senior residents asked me to raise, as their representative in this parliament, is how much the Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme assists them. They were horrified that any changes to the scheme were being contemplated. I call on the government to ensure this scheme is not cut in the upcoming budget, as it means a great deal to many people.
Last Friday, I was at the Nightcliff Primary School to share Harmony Day. What a wonderful celebration! Nightcliff Primary School has a strong multicultural community and it was great to see this on display.
I also congratulate the Nightcliff Primary School for the recent election of the Student Representative Council members. I will read their names, and you will have to excuse my pronunciation. I congratulate Ethan Colless, Sofia Krepapas, Daniel Morgan, Bella Yates, Dae Gerschwitz, Gabbie Ma’afu, Toby Papworth, Eve Sprite, Ben Goldney, Emma Gonzadi, Joshua Butts, Elizabeth Argoon, Timor May, Steffanie Ligno, Seth McGregor, Kimberley Levett-Olsen, Oscar Williams, Lena Petterson, Theofanis Kokkinomagoulos, Stacey Phillips, Jonty Beard and Nika Wironika. The group recently visited my office to share their thoughts and ideas for the area with me. It was a pleasure to host them and I thank the Student Representative Council from Nightcliff Primary School for their visit.
I also had the pleasure this last weekend of presenting awards to the participants in the Royal Life Saving Swim and Survive Water Safety Program. This is a wonderful program run by the not-for-profit Royal Life Saving Society. It has been running for many years. In the Territory, with our outdoor lifestyle where we spend so much time in or around water - mainly around water - water safety is so important. I acknowledge the efforts of not only the participants who have been completing activities over the last six weeks, but the parents and carers who have given up their Sunday mornings - a very early start - to ensure their loved ones have vital water safety skills for life, and the trainers who have given up their time to pass on skills. Many of these people work full-time but give up their Sunday mornings to come along and teach the programs.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the program runs twice a year at Nightcliff Swimming Pool and encompasses programs from infant aquatics - babies of six months of age who are participating in the Northern Territory government Water Safety Awareness program - through to the bronze medallion level. Over 100 children participated in the program and Royal Life Saving appreciates parents’ active participation. I congratulate the Royal Life Saving Society and all involved in running this vital program.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, this evening I will give a brief summary of one of my constituents and the achievements she has gained through archery.
Joy Wood has been an archer for most of her life. She is involved with the Wandering Archers at Humpty Doo, and recently was a participant in the Australian team for the World Field Archery Championships held in Argentina in November 2012.
Joy was the only person from the Northern Territory to participate in the Australian team. She met up with the team at Sydney airport then flew direct to Buenos Aries, spending several hours at the airport learning life in Argentina is very different to the Northern Territory, particularly Humpty Doo.
They had a little mix-up with cars but, eventually, found their way to the hotel. They had to travel about 450 km to 500 km south to Miramar on double-lane divided highways. She told me they were pulled over by the police for not having their lights on, which is required in the country areas. When the traffic lights were red, if there were no cars coming the other way it was fair game and they were allowed to go through the red lights - or perhaps they just went through the red lights.
They were welcomed into the town with a march through the main street the next day. She said the sight of all the different country competitors in their uniforms was quite spectacular.
They set up a small practice range later but then realised, when they started to use it, the arrows went straight through the material and out the other side, which is not desirable. So, they had to find more reinforcing for the practice range. She said the tournament almost did not go ahead but the International Field Archery Association hierarchy could not do or say much or the Argentinians may have just pulled the pin and told everyone to go home. They day before the competition was due to start the ranges were not set up and only a few target butts were in place.
About 10 Aussies, most of them with range fighters, followed by some English, Scottish and Americans, went out to measure the distances and hammer in the shooting pegs themselves while others erected the butts. She said there is nothing like a do-it-yourself campaign for a World Field Archery Championships, but they were glad to help out. Most of us would understand Aussies, English, Scots, and Americans - and everyone for that matter - were prepared to pitch in.
There was a delay but, finally, they headed out to the range just before lunchtime and got back before it was too dark. On her first shoot she did not shoot well; the long trip over had played havoc. As we know, it is a fair way away. There is much walking when you do field archery and no short cuts, so they were pretty tired before they had even started. Also, she said it was misty and foggy, which does not go well with the arrows.
The English and Scots shot and for the first two days were brilliant. The course was up and down hills, and the animal round was all set at maximum distances - a five-yard walk up with first peg set between 60 to 45 yards. All started at 60 yards. Even the close ones, the small targets, were supposed to be between 10 and 20 yards and were all 20 except for one.
There was only one other competitor in Joy’s division, a woman from Argentina who had not shot a field round before. Most South Americans shoot indoor but not much outdoor, and it is very different given the conditions you can experience in an outdoor range. The Argentinian lady had many difficulties with the shots over 20 yards.
Joy did not shoot particularly well but they had fun and improved their language skills, given Joy probably could not speak Spanish and the Argentinians probably did not speak very much English.
On the fifth day, all the scoring was done in Spanish so people could understand what was going on. After the competition finished there was presentation day. Most of the Australians won medals. Joy won the gold and, therefore, the World Champion Patch in her particular division in field archery.
Before returning to Australia seven of the team travelled to other parts of South America. Joy went to Peru, which she said was amazing climbing lots of steps and looking at many fascinating parts of the country. The whole trip, she said, was very busy, and it was a long way away with long air flights.
She recently competed with others from the Wandering Archers in the IFAA World Indoor Male Match, in which shooters participate at their local club and send scores to an international score recorder for collation. She has been helping out with coaching at the latest course for beginners.
Interestingly, the Australian National Championship have been held in Alice Springs on Sunday 24th. It is the first time the nationals have been held in the Northern Territory and many interstaters have travelled to Alice Springs to compete. Joy will be continuing south to do some cooler weather practice. She also intends to travel to New Zealand for the IFAA Pacific Region Championships held on 26 and 28 April. She sent me some photos of the Australian team which acquitted itself very well.
Joy is a passionate archer and is keen to share her skills and knowledge about this particular sport with people of many ages. The Wandering Archers is a club based in Humpty Doo, primarily on Joy Wood’s property. I have been there, and it is not as easy as it looks. It is not like when you were a kid playing bow and arrows and pretending to be Indians and cowboys; it really is a professional sport. I wish her well, and I know she will continue to compete well into the Aged Championships and bring back gold and prizes, not only to Australia, but particularly to the Northern Territory to her Humpty Doo club. Congratulations to Joy Wood, and I wish her and the Wandering Archers all the very best.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is with great pleasure I talk about my electorate schools, Alawa and Nakara schools. Alawa Primary School’s new Principal, Robyn, advised Alawa had a great start in the year. I enjoyed attending Alawa Primary School special literacy group assembly last year, and also hosting my annual welcome to staff morning tea and meeting up with all the staff, especially Principal Robyn and the new teachers.
Last Friday, Alawa Primary School celebrated Harmony Day with a breakfast which, unfortunately, I missed because I had to be in Alice Springs. The breakfast was a huge success. The atmosphere, music, food and coffee was great. Most importantly, it allowed parents to celebrate a special day with their children and the Alawa community before they went off to work.
Recently, Alawa Primary School launched a national wellbeing initiative, KidsMatter. Also, the school acknowledged National Day Against Bullying with a slogan competition. The new slogan for Alawa is, ‘This is Alawa school, so don’t bully, that’s our rule’. Well done to all the kids who participated in the slogan competition. It is great to see the initiative from the kids themselves.
Nakara Primary School also had a great start to the year, and the principal advised that the enrolment numbers are what they expected, but the preschool numbers are really high with 78 students. I am very proud to advise Nakara Primary School is listed in My School 2012 website as the top government school of the Northern Territory across Year 3 and 5 and is at or above national average in all areas. That is a fantastic record. Well done to all the students and teachers at Nakara.
It has been a very busy first term at Nakara. The school is fully implementing the Australian curriculum in English, maths, science, and history this year.
I have to say this is my first time reading directly from a computer; I actually do not have a piece of paper. It is a good start, but the letters are too small, so if I make a mistake, apologies.
Last Friday, Nakara hosted a wonderful Harmony Day celebration for the community, with many beautiful performers in the assembly hall in a special multicultural lounge. They usually get the students who come from different cultural backgrounds to dress in national costumes and perform their traditional songs and dances. Then, all of them contribute, bringing food from their countries, which is fantastic.
The recent Crazy Hair Day - yes, they do things different in Nakara - raised well over $500 for the Leukaemia Foundation.
Their school had new carpet and vinyl laid throughout over the holidays, and that makes the school look really good. The basketball court was resurfaced, with new backboards and hoops, and a full internal repaint of the school has been approved to commence soon.
Nakara also received 20 new PCs and 20 new iPads this year. More good news for Nakara Primary School with the introduction of music classes. The classes are up and running and so is the senior choir. I will be going back to Nakara soon to present my achievement awards as I do every month to recognise the students for their best efforts.
I have another school in my area, the Nemarluk School. They started the new school year very well in their new fantastic school they have in the Alawa Primary School grounds. The new Principal, Lorraine, advised they have 12 preschool students, 128 primary school students, 59 DECS teaching staff, six non-teaching staff, as well as a lovely group of casual support staff.
They celebrated their first school event, Harmony Day, with an informal evening celebration to allow everyone to mingle. The celebration focused on student performances and displays of the students’ work. The theme was, Everyone Belongs, Many Stories, One Australia. The evening was just as everyone hoped it would be, relaxed and colourful, allowing families to catch up with other families and school staff, and allowing the children to have fun in a safe family place.
On a sad note, we lost one of our really lovely legacy workers recently, Peg Thompson, from Tiwi. Peg and her daughter, Jan, were regular visitors to my electorate office and very good friends. You could see her nearly every day in Casuarina. Her daughter, Jan, was always looking after her mother who recently lost a lot of weight and still looked very well.
I attended the funeral and I was very impressed when they read the eulogy and showed the photographs. I was very impressed because Peg came from South Australia and settled with her husband in the Northern Territory. They raised not only their own children but an extended family when they adopted a couple of Aboriginal girls who they raised as their own daughters.
Madam Speaker, I have been to many funerals and gatherings, but this time the family were so united which spoke so well for their natural and adoptive mother that I had tears in my eyes. My sincere condolences to Jan and all the Thompson family. Peg will be dearly missed by us all.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Commonwealth Day Message
Commonwealth Day Message
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received the following Commonwealth Day Message 2013 from Her Majesty the Queen dated 10 March 2013:
- This year’s Commonwealth theme, ‘Opportunity through Enterprise’, is a celebration of our achievements, particularly those that may have seemed challenging, daunting or even impossible, which have helped to build strength, resilience and pride in our young people, in our communities and in our nations.
- Great achievements in human history have a number of common characteristics.
From climbing the highest mountain, to winning a sporting competition, making a scientific breakthrough, building a successful business or discovering unique artistic talent – these outcomes all begin as a simple goal or idea in one person’s mind.
We are all born with the desire to learn, to explore, to try new things. And each of us can think of occasions when we have been inspired to do something more efficiently, or to assist others in achieving their full potential. Yet is still takes courage to launch into the unknown. Ambition and curiosity open new avenues of opportunity.
That is what lies at the heart of our Commonwealth approach: individuals and communities finding ways to strive together to create a better future that is beneficial for all.
Our shared values of peace, democracy, development, justice and human rights – which are found in our new ‘Commonwealth Charter’ – mean that we place special emphasis on including everyone in this goal, especially those who are vulnerable.
I am reminded of the adage, ‘nothing ventured, nothing gained’. As we reflect on how the Commonwealth theme applies to us individually, let us think about what can be gained with a bold heart, dedication, and teamwork. And let us bear in mind the great opportunity that is offered by the Commonwealth – of joining with others, stronger together, for the common good.
ELIZABETH R
March 2013
MESSAGE FROM ADMINISTRATOR
Message No 5
Message No 5
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received from Her Honour the Administrator message No 5 notifying assent to bills passed in the February sittings of the Assembly.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of very bright, exceptional Year 5/6 students from Humpty Doo Primary School, accompanied by Ms Katie Jensen and Ms Wendy Tate. Also, there are equally bright and delightful Year 5/6 students from Jingili Primary School accompanied by Ms Vivienne Chellew. Welcome, on behalf of honourable members, and I hope you enjoy your time at Parliament House.
Members: Hear, hear!
ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS ORDER
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I table a copy of the Administrative Arrangements Order signed by Her Honour the Administrator on 20 March 2013. I advise the Assembly that on 20 March 2013 Her Honour the Administrator made the following appointment of ministers of the Northern Territory of Australia:
Adam Graham Giles - Chief Minister; Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services; Minister for Corporate and Information Services; Minister for Trade; Minister for Economic Development (Major Projects); Minister for Asian Engagement; and Minister for Transport.
David William Tollner – Treasurer; Minister for Business; Minister for Employment and Training; and Minister for Defence Liaison and Defence Industry Support.
Johan Wessel Elferink - Attorney-General and Minister for Justice; Minister for Public Employment; Minister for Correctional Services; and Minister for Statehood.
Robyn Jane Lambley - Minister for Health; and Minister for Alcohol Rehabilitation.
Peter Glen Chandler - Minister for Education; Minister for Housing; and Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment.
Willem Rudolf Westra van Holthe - Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries; Minister for Mines and Energy; Minister for Land Resource Management; and Minister for Essential Services.
Alison Anderson - Minister for Children and Families; Minister for Regional Development; Minister for Local Government; and Minister for Women’s Policy.
Matthew Escott Conlan - Minister for Central Australia; Minister for Tourism and Major Events; Minister for Sport and Recreation; Minister for Racing; Minister for Parks and Wildlife; and Minister for Arts and Museums.
Peter Donald Styles - Minister for Infrastructure; Minister for Multicultural Affairs; Minister for Senior Territorians; and Minister for Young Territorians.
I further advise that the member for Port Darwin remains the Leader of Government Business. The Government Whip is the member for Drysdale, Ms Finocchiaro.
Madam Speaker, I table the arrangements order.
MOTION
Public Accounts Committee Membership
Public Accounts Committee Membership
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the member for Sanderson, Mr Styles, be discharged from the Public Accounts Committee and that the member for Stuart, Mrs Price, be appointed to the committee in his stead.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Routine of Business
Routine of Business
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the routine of business for the Assembly be reordered in the following manner:
(1) Prayers
(2) Questions
(3) Ministerial Statements
(4) Government Business – Notices and Orders of the Day
(5) Notices
(6) Petitions
(7) Government Business - Notices and Orders of the Day
(8) Papers
(9) Consideration of committee reports and government responses and Auditor-General’s report
(10) Discussion pursuant to Standing Order 92 (Matter of Public Importance)
Motion agreed to.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Member for Stuart
Member for Stuart
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I seek leave of absence for the member for Stuart for later today, tomorrow and Thursday for personal reasons.
Leave granted.
Member for Fannie Bay
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I seek leave of absence for the member for Fannie Bay for today, tomorrow, and Thursday for personal reasons. I advise the House that the acting Opposition Whip will be the member for Casuarina who, accordingly, will take that location in the Chamber.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I advise the acting Whip we will organise a pair for the members absent.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Filming of Proceedings
Filming of Proceedings
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, as you can see, I have allowed the ABC television crew into parliament to film the beginning of today’s proceedings, but they will not be here for Question Time.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Move Proposed Motion of Censure
Move Proposed Motion of Censure
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent this Assembly from censuring the Chief Minister for:
his cowardly knifing of the former Chief Minister, Terry Mills, while he was overseas representing the Territory
becoming an illegitimate Chief Minister by ignoring that Territorians voted for Terry Mills as Chief Minister only seven months ago
the damage to the reputation of the Northern Territory caused by his actions
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, the government will reluctantly be accepting this censure motion because it is one of the most serious motions that can be brought before a House. However, could we ensure, at least on this occasion, it is properly drafted and signed?
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, Leader of Government Business. Opposition Leader.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, yes, it is written, signed and will be distributed. I recall many occasions in this Chamber the opposition writing as they were talking. It is normal, but not in your world, is it, John? We will get on with the censure motion ...
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition Leader, please …
Ms LAWRIE: Member for Port Darwin.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Proposed Censure of Chief Minister
Proposed Censure of Chief Minister
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move censure of the Chief Minister for:
his cowardly knifing of the former Chief Minister, Terry Mills, while he was overseas representing the Territory
becoming an illegitimate Chief Minister by ignoring that Territorians voted for Terry Mills as Chief Minister only seven months ago
the damage to the reputation of the Northern Territory caused by his actions
the damage he has been done to the business community in the Northern Territory, and
the lies that have led to lost job opportunities for Territorians.
Madam Speaker, I now speak on the motion. It is being distributed to the attendant right now. I will pass the signed motion. If I can have a copy passed back to me it would be great.
Mr Conlan: Forgot to keep a copy.
Ms LAWRIE: No, I did not forget. They want the signed motion. Thank you, Matt; it is good to see you back from your junket.
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: Sorry, it was the grub, not you.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: You will be forever defined by what you said to a woman at the mobile polling booths, just as the member for Braitling will be forever defined by his actions in knifing Terry Mills, the elected Chief Minister of the Northern Territory for seven months. This is unprecedented. This cowardly and despicable act has not occurred in any other Australian parliament.
You have gone quiet over there. Perhaps you feel the sense of shame you have brought upon yourselves and the Northern Territory by your actions. Perhaps you do not want to listen to this, but it is what the people of the Northern Territory are saying. They find it despicable. Whether someone liked or agreed with Terry Mills to a person they have found your actions, member for Braitling, the illegitimate Chief Minister, cowardly and despicable …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The terms of a censure motion are clear. She is making allegations in relation to conduct. There is nothing in the censure motion about the Chief Minister’s legitimacy, therefore, she should be …
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, it says ‘becoming an illegitimate Chief Minister’.
Mr Elferink: Okay, yes there is, look at that.
Ms LAWRIE: And the word ‘cowardly’ is in there as well.
Mr Elferink: I saw that.
Ms LAWRIE: Member for Port Darwin, if you want me to repeat it I will because you, obviously, have difficulty with it. I will go through it again.
The cowardly knifing of the former Chief Minister, Terry Mills, while he was overseas representing the Territory, becoming an illegitimate Chief Minister by ignoring Territorians voted for Terry Mills as Chief Minister only seven months ago. Also, the damage to the reputation of the Northern Territory caused by his actions, the damage he has done to the business community in the Northern Territory, and the lies that have led to lost job opportunities for Territorians.
I was talking about the cowardly and despicable act and actions of the member for Braitling. I was pointing out that regardless of what people felt and thought about Terry Mills as Chief Minister, his reign of seven months and the pain being inflicted on Territorians to a person - they find the actions cowardly and despicable. Why could this egomaniac not temper his ego and ambition for a few more days, put it in the box, hold it down and deal with it as a party wing when Terry Mills was back on Northern Territory turf so we did not heap insult onto one of our most dear and respected relationships - the nation of Japan and the company which has invested $32bn in our nation’s second largest major project in the Northern Territory?
Why do companies invest $32bn? They did so because the Northern Territory, in those days, provided an environment of certainty. Go back to just over a year ago when chairman Kuroda was asked by media, on the announcement of the final investment decision on the Ichthys project, why they made the decision to bring the project to Darwin and invest $32bn. His answer, in his inimitable style, was clear - certainty.
We have displayed the opposite of certainty under the Country Liberal Party and the way it has behaved in seven months. It has been seven months of infighting and brawling - public brawls that spill over to disgusting behaviour and descriptions of each other. Alison Anderson described the member for Braitling as ‘a little boy’ and went on a rant about ‘the little boys’ in the party wing. Those little boys now lead the Northern Territory - unelected, illegitimate, but now leading the Northern Territory.
If you look at their actions of just a week, you shudder. There is the three gigalitre water licence grant to their mate, the CLP candidate for Lingiari. There is the action of sacking the Chief Executive Officer of Power and Water and the entire Power and Water board - a board made up of independent industry and business experts - and installing their old mate, John Baskerville, and some bureaucrats.
These actions will define the style of leadership, and hurt Territorians in time to come. They like to pretend they are a united team and it is okay Alison Anderson described the Chief Minister as ‘a little boy’; they are good mates and friends. Somehow, Peter Chandler sitting behind Adam Giles, who has been a staunch supporter of Terry Mills from get go, is in this parliament because of the support of Terry Mills and sitting behind Adam Giles is okay. We have the great mates, Dave Tollner and Adam Giles, the team that has been undermining Terry Mills’ leadership for years. They admitted as much on the 7.30 Report when interviewed by Leigh Sales. Adam Giles admitted on the 7.30 Report he had been unhappy for years with the leadership of Terry Mills. Those of us in politics, in this very small Chamber of 25 people, have heard, watched, and seen the clear and calculating way Adam Giles and Dave Tollner have been undermining Terry Mills for years.
However, it did not quite work out the way they wanted or planned. And herein lies the rub; the problem they have going forward. The plan had been that big Dave would be Chief Minister and ‘the little boy’, his mate, would be deputy. That had been the plan - that is the way it has always been. To their mates in the old guard of the CLP, that had been the plan. However, something changed.
Those of us who watch politics carefully can pretty well pinpoint the time it changed. That was with that final straw of bad behaviour - Dave throwing the Cabinet books at Terry Mills’ head inside the Cabinet room for Budget Cabinet. That was a moment in the CLP when his own colleagues wondered if they could trust a leadership position to someone who behaves in such a violent and aggressive manner as that. There was word the police were going to be called to that Budget Cabinet. That was a moment of change. However, it does not change the person, does it? It does not change the unbridled leadership yearning of Dave Tollner. Even on the weekend after his mate became Chief Minister - the job he coveted and had set up over a few years - big Dave was at the footy telling people, ‘Do not worry, mate, I will be the Chief Minister’. I was gobsmacked when person after person told me what you were saying. I thought, ‘Can’t this man contain himself even the weekend after?’ Unbelievable!
That is why the instability will continue. Apart from the fact there are still clear divisions and factions within the members opposite, they have deep irreconcilable differences which can be seen after a seven-hour meeting of tearing each other apart; and by all accounts, shouting and threats being made. Accounts have come leaking from many of them. Several leak information. It is unbelievable! You get a pretty detailed description of what goes on.
These actions define people. The knifing of Terry Mills while in Japan, cowardly and despicable, will define Adam Giles forever because the majority of people do not know who he is. How often am I asked, ‘Adam who? Who is he? What has he done? What is he like? What is he going to be like as Chief Minister?’ People do not know him. You had to run an advertisement during the Wanguri election to explain his name and title. You knew he did not have the recognition. However, he is there, ‘the little boy’ as described by the member for Namatjira, Alison Anderson …
Ms Lee: Nobody knows you either.
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection from the member in hiding. Member for Arnhem, come out of hiding. Give an interview to the media today. Clear your name of the allegations of corruption that are hanging over your head. Why do you not go further and clear the name of your brother, Preston Lee, who you have publicly stepped away from …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We are aware of the Leader of the Opposition’s penchant for using this House as a cover for slander and liable. However, nothing in this censure motion refers in any way to a member other than the Chief Minister. I ask that she be restrained from her slanderous and libellous comments and stick to the matter before the House.
Ms Lawrie: It is a censure motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition Leader, if you could direct your comments through the Chair as well, please.
Mr Elferink: Where does it say ‘member for Arnhem’ in this?
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I was picking up on an interjection by the member for Arnhem. She brought herself into the debate so became part of the debate. This is a House of debate.
Member for Port Darwin, I know you will spend your entire parliamentary career trying to shut down the opposition in any way you can. Member for Port Darwin, this is a democracy; this is not the world in which you would like us to operate. You have not quite got your way in guillotining the estimates of the parliament, but I know you are still pursuing it …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Leader of the Opposition is so clearly ill-prepared for this debate she is finding any rabbit warren to run down to make up the 20 minutes. Make out your argument and sit down!
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Ms LAWRIE: The truth hurts, member for Port Darwin.
When referring to the continued instability of the members opposite and the fact you have members who are irreconcilably divided - they cannot come together after seven deep, long hours of insults, shouting and swearing. What type of behaviour is that for a government?
Putting that to one side, who do we have? We still have the member for Port Darwin, who will not set aside his own ambitions to be Chief Minister. We still have the member for Fong Lim, who will not put aside his ambitions to be Chief Minister. We have the friends - the only ones who can say, hand on heart, are the friends - of Terry Mills who are not going to forgive quickly, easily or lightly because friends do not forgive when something so despicable and cowardly has been done to their friend.
I could not believe it when Adam Giles, after having knifed Terry Mills while the Chief Minister was in Japan, publicly said in one of the first statements, ‘Terry Mills is my friend’. Why would you start your career lying? Why would the first thing you say to the public be so patently a lie? Could you not even pretend to say something people could believe? Could you not, with a shred of honesty, say,’ I made no secret of the fact I did not like the style of leadership. I challenged last week and have challenged again and succeeded’. To lie and describe Terry Mills as a friend - the public can see through these lies because they are so blatant.
In the notion of mates, you on the other side would probably struggle given your internal relationships. Mates do not treat their friends like that. Mates do not knife their friend when they are overseas on business representing the Northern Territory. If you were even slightly a friend you would have given the man a shred of dignity and let him return to the Northern Territory and be on Territory soil. If he was your friend or mate, you would have shown him the names you were gathering. Do not gather the complete list - you knew you had the numbers. Pull that truck up, but you did not. You were so blinded by your ego and ambition you did not care what you did, who you did it to, and who felt the impact of your folly.
Territory businesses - the same businesses Terry Mills was representing in the meeting and talking about local business and local jobs - are shaking their head. They are very concerned at the behaviour of this government, the instability of the past seven months, the uncertainty this environment has created in the Northern Territory, and the shifting, changing and moving of ministerial posts. Seven months, four ministerial reshuffles, three Treasurers - and you have the unmitigated gall to blame the delay of the budget on the previous Labor government?
The figures in your statement today, Treasurer, are the same figures that appeared in the pre-election fiscal outlook. You have known those figures since August. They are a slight improvement on the published May budget figures of 2012, yet you have the gall to blame delay of the budget on the previous Labor government.
Grasp that people are sick and tired of being lied to - at least understand that about the way you are governing. Grasp they can see through the lies and are sick and tired of it. Regardless of their politics, Territorians are disgusted with the behaviour of the CLP government. CLP card-carrying members are disgusted with the behaviour of their own government. You wonder why I say this. They tell me.
Business people are appalled. Whether they are small, medium or large businesses, they are appalled at the behaviour of this government. They are desperate for certainty and for the pain to be stemmed. Businesses are downsizing or running smaller shifts to stay afloat - it is very real out there. You have taken the fastest growing economy in the nation and gone about crippling the domestic activity of the economy. It is an insane way to begin a four-year government.
They rant and rave about doing all these things - increasing power and water tariffs because of debt, which they did without evidence. They increased power and water prices without a shred of evidence. There was no report in the public domain about why you needed a 30% increase in power. Then they changed it to 20% and expected us to be delighted. Well, 20% for a family is still a $1200 increase that year, and then you add 5% year-on-year after that. That ends up being about $130 more than the $2000 people were going to be stung with. You have made it worse. Work that out, Dave. You will need someone to help you with it, but work that one out. Unbelievable!
Then, insult on injury, you will scrap the one thing everyone says works for the Territory: the concession scheme for our seniors, pensioners and carers. You will scrap it and means test it.
That was introduced by a previous CLP government for a good reason; we wanted to recognise our seniors and keep them in the Territory because they are a vast and valuable investment for the Territory. They provide so many countless hours of voluntary work which keeps the fabric of our society humming and vibrant. They pass on their wisdom and knowledge to the youth of the Territory. A society without our valued seniors is a sad indictment of a society. Through your meanness you want to drive them out because they cannot afford to live here. Those concessions are keeping our seniors in the Territory, even though you have been busy driving up the cost of living.
We have always had our cost of living impact upon society. Tyranny of distance and cost of freight are the realities - people understand that - but government is there to find the ways and means to ease the burden or ease the squeeze, to use your words. You have been squeezing the hell out of Territorians since coming to government, and continue to do so …
Mr Tollner: Push it on to the next generation and their kids. You are disgusting!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Fong Lim, who believes the way to win a debate is to be the person who shouts the loudest. Big Dave, bring it on. Spend the next however long you are in that chair shouting at me. I am not going anywhere and will be here to tell you how wrong you are getting it. On behalf of Territorians, the voice of opposition will not be silenced no matter how difficult and uncomfortable that makes you.
When you talk about the debt - Delia’s debt, unsustainable debt - suddenly, because of the knifing of Terry Mills, the government could afford 20% in one year instead of 30% it said it must put on power and water price hikes otherwise we would be bankrupt. Where is the justification for the change in figures? Nothing. The old boys they paid $1m for six months have gone. How much did their accommodation come to? Was it $1000 a week in high-rise apartments on the Esplanade?
Do not worry, even with the changes to the Estimates process - ripping out the democratic Estimates process we have - you will get these as written questions on notice and will have to answer. You will have to pretend to be accountable and transparent even though you make decisions like giving your mate, Tina MacFarlane, three gigalitres of water without plan, without due process, and after she lost a court battle.
You got the numbers while Terry Mills was overseas. People have asked me, ‘What was the change?’ I said, ‘Well, they tested the numbers over seven hours and got down to who was with who’. You do not spend seven hours locked in a room shouting at each other without really knowing who the swingers are. The NT News was pretty accurate in it description - they wanted to break up the bush coalition numbers and a couple of swingers.
You heard what happened to the swinger. He punished Lia. In the end, he did not need Lia. Six days in Cabinet and the member for Drysdale was unceremoniously dumped from Cabinet. How humiliating for her. Did you really need to do that? Did you need to be quite so harsh on her? You have no core decency in the way you go about business. It is vengeful the way you approach your work, and we see the marks of vengeance right through your government’s behaviour. Territorians see it and do not like it.
We have seen three Treasurers. When is the member for Port Darwin going to understand they really do not want him to be Treasurer because three times now he has been dumped as Treasury spokesperson? When are you going to get it, member for Port Darwin? They do not want you in that role. You have been dumped three times. You were dumped for the member for Katherine, in opposition. You were dumped for the member for Araluen - with very little experience to put it nicely - and you were dumped for the member for Fong Lim after six days of your own personal, private joy gone. Where were you when it happened? Interstate.
They did not treat you with any decency yet you will rant, rave and shout on their behalf because you are still ambitious. You still want to be Chief Minister and can see, by the behaviour of the Chief Minister today, he is a man without substance. An opportunity for him to deliver vision and substance became his own normal bully-boy theatrics of shouting and denigration.
The disloyalty shown was incredible. Regardless of what people felt about the way the government was behaving, Terry Mills was someone most people found fairly inoffensive. They did not like the decisions he led in government. You were all very happy to let him take the blame or - I have not spent any time dwelling on this person in the sad and sorry saga - the Deputy Chief Minister and Treasurer, who finally found enough was enough and walked out on Cabinet on the Monday. She had copping the blame to the teeth. The member for Araluen had done the yards and was sick and tired of copping the blame and getting nothing in return. The member for Araluen walked. She was kept inside the tent with a Cabinet post. She knows too much, she could spill too much.
One wonders when Terry Mills will tell his side of the story. It has not happened yet. It will be a very uncomfortable period for the CLP should Territorians hear what Terry Mills has to say about the seven inglorious months of back stabbing. How long did he get before you started undermining him? Was it the victory night? Was it that weekend?
For those of us so closely immersed in politics, what became patently evident very early in the CLP government was he was being set up. I will call him the fall guy. This is the tale; this is what I have seen unfold and where the mess comes back to. Member for Braitling, you and your unbridled ambition have much to answer for. You ran around the remote regions of the Northern Territory – the bush - promising everyone everything to win votes, seats, to win government - everything to everyone. If it was the Port Keats Road, ‘Do not worry, we will seal that’. If it was a new hospital in Katherine, ‘Do not worry, we will build that’.
Those contracts signed by Terry Mills with each community contain billions of dollars in unfunded election commitments. They were promises made not by Terry; he came in to sign the contracts - he was the fall guy in front of the camera to sign the contract. The contracts were drafted on promises made by the member for Braitling - billions of dollars of promises in the bush going to infrastructure and recurrent funding. They did not appear on the costings submitted to Treasury in the election campaign. A total of $400m in CLP promises were submitted to Treasury as opposed to the more conservative $200m from the ALP. However, evidently we are terrible financial managers. We held our promises down to $200m and you came in double that at $400m. Add another couple of billion dollars on top of that in what was not written on the list submitted to Treasury. What sat in the former Chief Minister’s office are the signed contracts with the remote communities. People have not forgotten because they voted for that. They voted for the promise because they believed they would be delivered.
You have to find the funding for that so the fall guy, the member for Blain, was set up by the Col Fuller/Barry Coulter old guard - wheeled in old boys who have now departed the Territory. They set him up and raided the budgets of the Northern Territory, cutting education by 10% and slashing child protection.
You have $375m sitting in the coffers now with the cuts so you can start spending your way out of the corner you were painted into by the member for Braitling with his unfunded promises in the bush. Businesses are screaming saying, ‘You are hurting us too much, start releasing that money now. Do not wait for the budget’. Yet, what do you do? You delay the budget because of your infighting and incompetence. After three Treasurers in seven months, you could not meet your budget deadlines.
This government, led by the member for Braitling, is defined. You are cowardly and despicable. He could not even muster himself today to answer the questions in Question Time. He just went on a rant. You two will continue to rant about Delia’s debt, but $5.5bn was sitting in the books in May and you knew about every cent of it. It is manageable debt, taking just 8% of income to manage. Most people like to pay 8% of their income on their mortgage ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Her time has expired.
Madam SPEAKER: My apologies, Opposition Leader, your time has expired.
Ms LAWRIE: I have finished.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, one could be forgiven, when listening to a debate of this nature, for hearing somebody take the moral high ground and say, ‘We are so clean on this side of the House. We are as pure as the driven snow and nothing can touch us. We can start using words like “illegitimate” and “cowardly”, things designed to insult’. I find those words insulting, and believe many people listening in the public galleries will find them insulting. You have to be careful how you use those words and ensure you can support your allegations of cowardice and illegitimacy with the quality of the argument you bring before the House. I listened for the quality of the argument but we had a loosely connected, loosely joined up series of thoughts and ramblings which did not support the allegations and assertions being made in the motion circulated to honourable members.
As a consequence, I find it difficult to imagine how you could support this motion. If there was a true demonstrable argument to support some of the assertions made in this motion, perhaps honourable members could be drawn to that place. However, this is not about censuring the Northern Territory government, this is about highlighting what the Leader of the Opposition will continue trying to highlight into the future, which is an attack on the integrity and person of the Chief Minister.
I can already see, over the next few years, how this will roll out. The Leader of the Opposition, in her angst and lack of preparation to demonstrate this, immediately strayed into areas not covered by the censure motion. She picked on the member for Arnhem, and had a crack at me and nearly every person on this side of the House. She does that because she has form. This is what she does; this is how she conducts herself.
l listened carefully to the questions asked of the Chief Minister by this side of the House and those asked by the Leader of the Opposition during Question Time. The Chief Minister talked about the fiscal position of the Northern Territory, developing infrastructure, building a future, and trying to create something noble for the people of the Northern Territory. I listened to the questions asked and they were all about gossip, rumour and innuendo. This is how the Leader of the Opposition operates.
She started on the first day with a personal and scurrilous attack on the member for Daly by using the anonymous words of a person to make the most egregious allegations against the member for Daly which were, ultimately, disproved. I point out to the Leader of the Opposition a continuing barrage of slanderous nature against the member for Daly she made which she refuses to repeat outside this House. She could be rightly and justifiably sued for defamation were she to utter it anywhere other than this House.
She made great play of the Australian Human Rights Commission complaint of the anonymous complainant which came to her. Despite the fact we placed on the record five signed statutory declarations and statements from people who said the allegations made against the member for Daly did not occur, she continued to trot it out and said. ‘Wait for the Australian Human Rights Commission to respond’. A letter dated 4 March 2013 addressed to Mr Gary John Higgins MLA, Parliament House, Darwin:
- Dear Mr Higgins …
It went on and, inter alia, said:
- The commission has made a number of unsuccessful attempts to contact the complainant in relation to the complaint. Therefore, we wish to advise we have decided not to continue to inquire into the complainant’s complaint in accordance with Section 46PF(5)(a) of the Australian Human Rights and Commissions Act.
Every time the Leader of the Opposition makes a complaint in this House, or repeats someone else’s complaint about the conduct of other people in this House, she does so under the cover of this House - the rare privilege we enjoy because there are times such privilege is necessary. However, she abuses that privilege and engages in personal and spiteful attacks. This is why we find the words ‘cowardly’ and ‘illegitimate’ in this censure motion - then all we heard was a 30-minute diatribe based on personal attacks. Compare that to a Chief Minister who said in Question Time, ‘This is about the future of the Northern Territory’.
I am unsure if everyone heard the prayer this morning. We say two prayers - the Lord’s Prayer – but, immediately prior to that, we ask for the guidance of the Good Lord. Putting the religious component of that aside, we finish the prayer with, ‘for the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory’. Honourable members, think about this: a Chief Minister talking about infrastructure development, budgetary management, race relations, governing for all people in the Northern Territory, Asian engagement, and a Leader of the Opposition engaged in innuendo and gossip.
If the honourable Leader of the Opposition was so clean she could stand on Mount Olympus and pass judgment on us all. What was her role when Mr Henderson took the job? We stand on top of Mount Olympus and pass judgment on all but, as any reader of the Greek classics would know, many of the gods on Mount Olympus were not covered in honour, glory and moral righteousness. The Leader of the Opposition, in this case, is hardly an exception. I would prefer to deal with a Chief Minister who cares about the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory rather than someone who, by instinct, cannot drag themselves out of the gutter. I imagine sometimes -no, that would be seen as a personal attack and we should be better than that. I will not say what I was going to. This is about the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory.
If I look at the Labor Party on a national scale, if the Leader of the Opposition was so incensed by backroom deals and the horribleness of politics, not only would she have chastised herself and her own party members for the transition from Chief Minister Martin to Chief Minister Henderson, but she would have loudly and resoundingly chastised the people surrounding the Prime Minister and some of her senior Cabinet colleagues if we look at what has occurred there over the last few days. Do I hear criticism of the Australian Labor Party resonating off these walls? It is quite silent on that.
In one breath she wants to attack a conservative government on the grounds we have undergone a change of leadership, but utter silence is all we hear when the Leader of the Opposition talks about her side of politics.
To say, ‘I am the moral judge of you all’, but only do it in a select way does not position her well for the argument. This Leader of the Opposition did not position herself well in the argument and this is now exposed for what it is - a political exercise: see some weakness in the government and try to drive wedges. The Leader of the Opposition fabricates the bits she does not know - most of it. If I was a librarian I would place that Parliamentary Record in my library using the Dewey Decimal System under the heading science fiction because that is what it was.
While we have a duty to tell the truth in this House there are, from time to time, members who fill in the blanks in an effort to create an argument. Unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition plays scrabble with nothing but blanks - fills them in and makes wonderful words. I play scrabble with my six-year-old daughter and she makes some remarkable words. I am defeated every time because she can use letters the way she does. In the real world, my six-year-old daughter may not be playing by the rules. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to play by the rules and start thinking about how she presents herself to the people of the Northern Territory.
We are, and continue to be, a stable government for the people of the Northern Territory. It will be a government focused on the things described by the Chief Minister. Yes, there has been a period of instability - you do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. Everybody has realised there has been a period of instability.
I remember a period of instability where the government of the Northern Territory was held in a vacuum for two weeks whilst the member for Nelson decided which side he would come down on because of internal politics in the Labor Party. Not a word was uttered in relation to that episode by the Leader of the Opposition, yet she was immersed in it as though she was in the deep end of the swimming pool. Whilst swimming to the other end of the talent pool - the shallow end - they held the Territory in suspended animation for weeks whilst that leadership matter was sorted out. They then formed a stable government under Chief Minister Paul Henderson. Unfortunately, it was an ineffective government which insulted many people in the electorate. What happened in that process? Democracy. In that democratic process, the people of the Northern Territory opted for a change.
The Westminster system we have enables changes of leadership outside the electoral cycle. We do not have the presidential system of the United States which, when you elect a president, the only way to remove them is by impeachment or assassination. That is a flaw in the American system because it does not enable leadership change. The Westminster system, which has evolved over 800 years since the signing of the Magna Carta, allows leadership change without having to draw the whole body politic - the people of the jurisdiction - into a changed environment. That is exactly what the Labor Party did when they changed from Martin to Henderson and is the nature of our parliamentary democracy. It is precisely what has been attempted on a number of occasions at the federal level. It has happened on the Liberal side of politics, and on the Labor side of politics. It has happened in the past, it happened here recently, and will continue to happen into the future; it is part of our system.
To run the argument the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory is ‘illegitimate’ is to misunderstand, or worse still, misrepresent to the people of the Northern Territory how our system works. Our system works because the parliament elects a leader - including both sides of the House - who enjoys the substantive majority of the party they represent. That is the position the current Chief Minister has found himself in, and was the position of the former Chief Minister, Terry Mills, until it changed. It was the position of Mr Henderson and Ms Martin. It was the position of Mr Burke, Mr Stone - I can go all the way back to self-government - pre-Stone, Perron; pre-Perron, Tuxworth; pre-Tuxworth, Hatton; pre-Hatton, Everingham; pre-Everingham, Goff Letts. That takes us back to the first fully-elected council in 1974.
If you look at the British system, you can start at David Cameron and work all the way back to Robert Walpole ...
Mr McCarthy: You mixed up Hatton and Tuxworth there, John.
Mr ELFERINK: Perhaps I did. My point is none of those Chief Ministers was ‘illegitimate’. An illegitimate Chief Minister would be someone who waltzes into the parliament and dissolves it. That has not happened since Cromwell was around.
This is part of the process of using language to erode credibility rather than criticising and critiquing government at a policy level which will, ultimately and hopefully, lead to better outcomes for the people of the Northern Territory.
I cannot recall a single question today from the other side asking the government about policy. It rested entirely on the suggestions of cowardice, illegitimacy, dishonesty, and those types of things. If you roll that out day in, day out, and show no more depth than the desire to use a personal attack as a political weapon, the punters will, ultimately, see through it.
The current Chief Minister - and he will be the Chief Minister from now until the next election - will continue to work for the people of the Northern Territory. He will do so with intelligence, passion, drive, and substance. Those are all qualities the public will get to see. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that not everyone is certain what the Chief Minister stands for or who he is. That is true of anyone who comes into politics, whether at a Chief Minister level or a local member level. No one knew much about me when I was elected member for Macdonnell or, for that matter, as member for Port Darwin. No one knows much about any of us, but how we conduct ourselves in this House is the measure by which the public will judge us at the next Territory election, in part. If we conduct ourselves with drive, passion, desire, and one eye, if not two, firmly fixed on the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory, that is the reputation this Chief Minister will build for himself over time. I believe that is precisely what he will do.
If, however, a member has an eye, or both eyes, firmly fixed on personal attack, innuendo, gossip, libel or slander, they will saddle themselves with that as they lead to the next election - whether it is an individual member or the leader of a party in this House.
There are three-and-a-half years to go until the next Territory election. There is enough time for people in this House to either enhance or decay their reputations in accordance with their conduct. I am certain the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory will continue to demonstrate what I saw in the first question in Question Time today: concern for the budgetary management of the Northern Territory; care for the economic development of the Northern Territory; and a desire to see all Territorians treated on who they are as people, not what racial group or gender they are. These are noble and upright qualities worth supporting. I will continue to support those qualities in the Chief Minister.
The nature of this censure motion means we cannot support it. We should expunge what the Leader of the Opposition has tried to do in this House today.
Madam Speaker, I move that the motion be amended by deleting all words after ‘as would’ and replacing them with ‘prevent this House from censuring the now Leader of the Opposition for her calamitous mismanagement of the Northern Territory budget while she was Treasurer’.
I picked up on the words from the Chief Minister during Question Time and the consistent theme was a $5.5bn debt. I heard the Leader of the Opposition say, ‘That was not written anywhere’. Hogwash! Go to Budget Paper No 2 and the Uniform Presentation Framework, one of the last chapters. Go to the Non Financial Public Sector Balance Sheet and you will see an entry of $5.5bn worth of debt.
The previous government, at the time the GST windfalls were pouring into the jurisdiction, could have eliminated all debt in the Northern Territory. We could have had savings. We could have entered the GFC with savings. Did we enter the GFC with savings? No, we did not. We entered the GFC with a slightly reduced debt and a situation where, all of a sudden, we had to start borrowing because of the challenges we were faced with. That was a calamitous failure.
Is it possible other governments could have moved to expunge their debt? Yes, Mr Howard, the former Prime Minister of Australia - debt for the Australian government when the Labor Party took over at the federal level was zero. In fact, they had money in the bank. I congratulate the Labor Gallop government in Western Australia for expunging its debt off the books. They had exactly the same opportunities as the Northern Territory. Our former Treasurer went on a spending spree and her projections into the future were writ large in the last budget she delivered to this House: a $5.5bn debt up from about $1.2bn where it currently is.
Talk about a spending spree! The commitments she made included employing people when there was no money in the budget. In the important area of child protection, one I do not seek to diminish, they were putting people in jobs without any money in the budget. They were employing people on the credit card. There is no other way to describe what has happened to the Northern Territory’s budgetary situation other than call it calamitous, which is why I placed it in the amendment to this motion.
This House should censure the former Treasurer for her calamitous failure and for allowing the Northern Territory’s fiscal position to decay, particularly when the economy was doing well. You have to make the important distinction that the fiscal position of the Northern Territory government is very similar to other governments because we are so dependent on the GST - and GST revenues, as we all know, are shrinking.
The economy of the Northern Territory is doing reasonably well. We know about the investments in the area, so there will be pressure on a tight fiscal environment because of an economy making demands on it. Did we see any planning for that environment as it rolled out? No, we did not. We saw a shift to reckless expenditure unsupported by the income projections of the Northern Territory. It was reckless and has induced a state of decay this government has been forced to respond to with decisions we, reluctantly, made.
Unfortunately, the position of the Cabinet under the new Chief Minister is such that we had to revisit those decisions; that means the pain will be there for longer in relation to our fiscal situation. That is a legacy directly handed to us by an incompetent Treasurer who did not care about the bottom line. This is the Greece, Italy, Cyprus and Ireland approach to fiscal management - out of control.
That is why I recommend this amendment to the motion before the House. The Leader of the Opposition, for her calamitous failures, should be censured. I hope honourable members in this House will understand the necessity to censure the former Treasurer because of the legacy she has left.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am tired of hearing personal attacks as a vehicle for political gain in this House. The Leader of the Opposition is a past master; a virtuoso of the personal attack. We have seen it in the past, seen it again today, and will see it in the future. I am not interested in gossip. I will not condescend to rebut some of the absurd nonsense she has articulated. If this was a personal relationship I would be seriously considering a stalking order.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, the only thing missing from the member for Port Darwin’s performance today was a wig and gown. He has tried to defend the indefensible. The censure motion is very clear. It is of Shakespearean proportions, and starts with a coup, a plot, and a knifing. Then he said this has damaged the Territory’s reputation. This has embarrassed the Territory internationally and, importantly, it has hurt Territory business.
It is very clear the member for Port Darwin, the eminent solicitor, is trying to run interference through this censure motion to get off the topic and away from the indefensible. He has gone from principal law officer prosecuting in the Northern Territory to Rumpole of the Bailey defending the indefensible.
The member for Port Darwin based his argument on gossip, rumour and innuendo. He talked about the truth of the matter. I have been shocked and disgusted from the first day I set foot in this House because the gossip, innuendo and rumours come from the CLP via text messages. It is from your own members. In the electorate I tell the story of what politics is really about and say, ‘Whatever you think, you have to make the decision on a tight team - the Henderson government team now the Delia Lawrie opposition team, or a team that leaks like a sieve, back stabs each other and sends text messages as the coup is unfolding’. It is disgraceful. How dare you talk about gossip and innuendo when the only information the opposition receives to represent Territorians comes from you guys. Look at each other - who is it? Who is sending text messages? Who is sending information to the opposition? Who is the one playing games …
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Is the member for Barkly speaking on the original motion or the amended motion?
Mr McCARTHY: Mr Deputy Speaker, I am speaking on the original motion and it is unfortunate the oral comprehension of the member for Katherine is lacking. I am speaking on the censure motion and will continue to do so.
I want to get it straight from the start regarding gossip, rumour and innuendo - I am disgusted. As I share the stories of political life, the constituency is also disgusted. We talk about the member for Port Darwin’s insults. Let us talk about cultural insults because this censure rolls off the back of a cultural insult of major proportions.
Before I go to the relationship with the great nation of Japan and tell the House about the work I was doing with Japan when we created the Defence of Darwin Experience commemorating the Bombing of Darwin - a very sensitive issue with extreme protocols necessary around it - I will go to the cultural insult of calling somebody ‘a little boy’. I explained to my colleagues in the Territory there is a word juga. You can call somebody juga, which means ‘little boy’. It is a colloquial term adopted by many linguistic groups across the Territory. If you wanted to pick a fight you would call a grown man juga to insult that person ...
Ms Anderson: What rubbish.
Mr McCARTHY: Juga is okay. At school and amongst friends we use it; it is a colloquial term. However, if you want to insult somebody culturally that is what you use; you call them a little boy. I have been working and living amongst Indigenous people for 35 years, but the member for Namatjira forbids me to speak about Aboriginality. When I heard those comments on ABC radio I was disgusted. I thought the Chief Minister would show real leadership in the Northern Territory by doing one thing for Territorians - sacking the member for Namatjira and putting her on the backbench. He chose to keep her in the gang that leaks like a sieve, sends text messages to the opposition, and shares stories about their colleagues so the media can get the true story about what is going on with that instability.
Let us talk about cultural insults and the way the Japan coup unfolded. That was unnecessary and the Chief Minister of the day, the member for Braitling, said, ‘I did not really mean that, I did not really want that to happen’. What rubbish!
The text messages, innuendo and gossip the member for Port Darwin mentioned in this House was running rife four years ago. It was destabilising the CLP as an opposition and has destabilised the CLP as a government. Today we are asking, ‘Chief Minister, come clean, tell the Territory the story and put it to rest. No more innuendo, no more rumour, no more he said that she said that you said. Tell the truth’. That is what this is about.
I had the privilege to be Minister for Arts and Museums and Minister for Construction and, in those two portfolios, the previous Chief Minister of the Northern Territory delegated a very important job to deliver the Defence of Darwin Experience for the Northern Territory, but really for Australia. I worked with senior Japanese diplomats personally and through correspondence. We were also working with the Embassy of the United States and the United Kingdom High Commission and showed respect for cultural protocols. The Defence of Darwin story is when the Japanese Imperial Forces invaded Australia. Out of the commemoration of those activities, Territorians and Australians who lost their lives - by commemorating this as a major event in history we reached a point where it can also become an important element of reconciliation between two great nations. When you include the Americans and British, you include four great nations. That work was occurring.
I was also privileged to see a dynamic government team delivering the biggest construction project in the history of the Northern Territory - the Ichthys project. I was privileged to be part of that work and be led by experienced ministers who were delivering 40 years of prosperity to the Northern Territory.
I will tell the member for Port Darwin about assessment of us and the important work and cultural protocols. They were not just looking at the government, member for Port Darwin, they were also looking at you guys. One of the basic reasons for Ichthys coming to Darwin was a stable government with support structures to get their project out of the ground and deliver important energy reserves for the future and incredible prosperity for the Northern Territory. They were looking at all of us. I do not know what they assessed the opposition as, but opposition members attended functions and briefings and followed the lead of the Henderson government. I was privileged to sit with Terry Mills, the member for Blain, the former Chief Minister and former Leader of the Opposition, at a function where we discussed this in a bipartisan way. We spoke about how this was going to benefit all Territorians.
The CLP members in government then pulled a coup and stabbed the Chief Minister in the back while he was in Japan at high-level meetings. The outfall of that is in this censure motion: it has damaged our reputation and credibility, and is now damaging business confidence.
The Leader of the Opposition said clearly in Question Time and in this debate - solve it! When are you going to Japan? When are you going to put this right? When are you going to be a grown man and face up to your responsibilities to put this right? As an opposition, we have a clear point of reference. We will debate you on what you do, your values, and on what you say. We will also offer alternatives. The alternative in this censure is very simple: make this right because it is still an open wound and we are being assessed. Unfortunately, you guys are in the saddle and have let the Territory down. Solve it! Do the work, eat the humble pie and ensure this issue is resolved as soon as possible.
When we talk about building bridges and roads, as the Chief Minister said, of course the opposition supports it. However, at the moment, the CLP is claiming the glory for the previous government’s infrastructure. Media release after media release were issued. I say, ‘That is rubbish; that was our work’. They get to cut the ribbons and talk about it in the media. We know the truth. We support bridges and roads, and believe in a fiscal stimulus approach and building the regions.
What is new from the CLP? Let us talk about what is new in your building the regions. We have not heard anything yet. We want to hear what the CLP is bringing to the table. The Chief Minister of the Northern Territory has made big promises in the bush and people are waiting to see that translate into real action. There are other bridges to build, Chief Minister, and one is the bridge back to the great nation of Japan to ensure confidence is restored, to iron out the rocky diplomacy which occurred because of your illegitimacy and the way you conducted your underhanded business, and to ensure business in the Territory benefits totally from the Ichthys project.
It is interesting when talking about trust. The Chief Minister in Question Time said, ‘We are making the right decisions’. Knifing the member for Blain, the Chief Minister, in the back while he was in Japan attending high-level meetings and representing the Territory was not a good decision. Make it right. Do it and be seen as straight up and down because, where I come from, if you pick a fight you go toe to toe and you look eye to eye.
If the member for Port Darwin wants to compare leadership challenges in politics let him, because he will have to admit that is the way they are done in the party room. They are done with diplomacy. They are done to continue the role of government or the wing to ensure there are no hiccups, momentum is not lost, and everything moves forward.
This coup was not done in the party room and not done honourably. This coup was out of control, as the Chief Minister said. He did not really want it to happen like it did, yet he has been planning it for the last four years. He was assisted by members on that side who kept us abreast of it throughout the circus of the CLP government since August 2012.
The Chief Minister said, ‘We want to send the message that we are united’. That message has to be sent to Japan, juga. You have to build that bridge and make that peace. We are all about sending united messages. Unfortunately, the CLP is saying, ‘Trust us’. The member for Port Darwin looks at track records and says it is sorted. Drop the talk and let us see the actions because actions speak louder than words. To add to the member for Port Darwin’s contribution, I will be biblical: what you sow you shall reap.
Over the last four-and-a-half years, I have seen dishonesty and deceit from CLP members. I have seen nothing but ambition ride over the top of good dynamics and good governance. I have seen profits put before people. We are starting to see the backflip. As the Leader of the Opposition said, one day it is doom and gloom, but the next day you are able to backflip and change the fiscal strategy dramatically. That raises questions for Territorians which need answers.
This censure motion is straightforward. It rests on the trust of Territorians, our international business partners, and of Australians who are watching this CLP circus unfold before their eyes with the 24-hour media cycle.
I have called the member for Braitling many things in this House, always trying to be honourable. I said to the member for Braitling once, ‘I will never call you a liar; you are consistently careless with the truth’. I have also pulled up the member for Braitling on various aspects of his contributions in this House, such as when he called the member for Nelson a dog. I went through that disgraceful episode painstakingly to point out to that young man what calling a person a dog really means.
Today, the Chief Minister spoke about a dirty port. I would like to correct that for the Parliamentary Record and Territorians. What the Chief Minister is talking about is a bulk commodities port, which the previous government was already planning. I can see the Greater Darwin Region Land Use Plan is being used by this government. That is one smart thing you are doing because that planning was well under way. We do not refer to it as a dirty port. The Chief Minister will have to, as the member for Namatjira alluded to, grow up in some respects and get the language right, rise to the occasion as a minister, and drop the despicable backstabbing.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we reject the amendment, it is shallow and pathetic. The government will use the numbers, which reflects what a hollow and paranoid group they are.
Debate suspended.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Death of Mr Colin Charles Firmin
Death of Mr Colin Charles Firmin
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it is with deep regret I advise of the death on 3 March 2013 of Mr Colin Firmin, a former member of the Legislative Assembly for the electorate of Ludmilla from 1983 to 1990.
I acknowledge the presence in the gallery for the condolence motion for the late Mr Colin Firmin of the Deputy Lord Mayor of Darwin, Mr Gary Haslett, Mr Grant Tambling, Mr Mick Palmer, Mr Rick Setter, Mr Earl James and Mrs Wendy James, Mr Terry Flowers and Mrs Maravon Flowers, Mr John Hardy and Mrs Marie Hardy, Mr Peter Allen, Ms Alison Maynard, Mr Bob Bradley, Mr Peter Bracken and Robyn Bracken, Mr Michael Savage and Mrs Sally Savage, Mr Jack Hamilton, and also friends and family of Mr Colin Firmin and apologies from Dr Jan Hills.
CONDOLENCE MOTION
Mr Colin Charles Firmin
Mr Colin Charles Firmin
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly express its deep regret at the death of Colin Firmin, the former member for Ludmilla.
Today I recognise the life and service of Colin Charles Firmin, member of the Legislative Assembly for the Division of Ludmilla from December 1983 until October 1990.
Colin Firmin passed away on 3 March this year aged nearly 73 years. I acknowledge his wife, Anna, children Nikki and Michael, their partners Tim and Jennifer, and his six grandchildren Andrew, Chris, Jessie, Alana, Billy-Jack and Samantha, and extend my condolences in relation to their loss.
I did not know Colin during his time in the Territory or after he served in parliament. However, as a member of the Country Liberal Party, he was present during some of the best and visionary years of the government, a time of hope for the future and capitalising on opportunities that were on the way.
Colin originally came from Western Australia. He was born in 1940 just as the war began - something that influenced his life in later years. Leaving school at the early age 15 to work in the insurance industry, it was soon after that he first served the community.
An active interest in the RAAF saw Col first join the RAAF Cadets and, subsequently, like many his age, he was drafted into the national service with the 16th Battalion, Royal Western Australian Regiment, the Cameron Highlanders. Perhaps he had no inkling at the time, but the Cameron Highlanders served in the defence of Darwin during 1943, the first links to the Territory for Col. He served the necessary two years and could have moved on to a professional career in the Army. Instead, he went back to insurance.
In 1966, Col took up a position in the Northern Territory as an insurance inspector. Through the 1970s and 1980s he was a self-employed insurance broker.
In 1968 he married Anna, who was by his side for the next 45 years. His interest in public service saw him moving into politics in 1976 as an alderman with the Darwin City Council, and into the Legislative Assembly in 1983, which was a big year in the Territory legislature. The House was expanded from 19 seats to 25 and, while the seat of Ludmilla continued in name, Roger Steele, the incumbent member and Speaker of the House, moved to contest the seat of Elsey creating the opportunity for Col to stand for parliament.
It is nearly 30 years since Col Firmin took his place in this Assembly. While some of the issues he first noticed and commented on have changed with the nature and character of the area, some remain with us today. It is important to acknowledge even in the early 1980s environmental factors were at the forefront of mind for the Country Liberal member for Ludmilla. Noise disruption, disturbance, smell, mosquito problems, traffic and pedestrian problems are just some of the issues the members for Fannie Bay and Fong Lim probably hear about from their constituents today, and are about some of the cornerstone aspects of the Ludmilla electorate as it was then - the Turf Club, the sewerage works, and living under the flight path.
Col also recognised there were opportunities such as the redevelopment of the 2 Mile Works Depot - has it been 30 years since that was first transformed? It must have been as Col spoke of it way back then. There was also the closure of the drive-in on Dick Ward Drive, now a part of the suburb of Nightcliff, including the shopping precinct, the Sunset Cove development allowing commercial infill in the area between Bagot Road and Dick Ward Drive, perhaps soon to become a reality, and he even went so far as to call for a new international airport - a terminal to serve the tourism industry, done and delivered. I think that Col would have continued looking for a vision for the future of the Turf Club and the operation of the Ludmilla Wastewater Treatment Plant.
I can only suggest that, as a member of the Darwin Town Planning Authority from 1978 to 1983, the strategic planning issues of the day drove him to consider the best ways to resolve these. Let us agree, in 30 years we will have developed some solutions for those local issues.
Going over some of Col’s contributions to the House, he would have been a great supporter of the new government’s three-hub economy. He spoke about support for the tourism industry, the mining sector, investment in infrastructure like the railway, the gas industry and pipeline networks, and the sustainability of our fisheries. While a member of the House, he applied his passion for and love of the sea to the management of Darwin Harbour, another chapter in the story of looking and planning for the future.
It was here Col filled some key roles in the government of the day. While not reaching a ministerial office, he was Government Whip for three years and Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees. Col last served in the Assembly in 1990. He was defeated at the election that year as an Independent candidate for the seat of Brennan, having lost the endorsement of the party. In 1990, the seat would have looked much different from what it does today under the current member - perhaps a bit more like the Fong Lim electorate in design - but he was still keen to have a go.
Throughout his time in Darwin, Col was an active member of many community organisations. He was Chairman of the Anti-Cancer Council, a member of the Isolated Children’s Parents’ Association, patron of the Darwin Golf Club, President of the Darwin Apex Club and a founding member of the Arafura Apex Club. Col also spent many years in various roles relating to road safety and town planning.
Col managed to find time for recreational interests which he pursued through active membership of the Darwin Sailing Club. His impressive range of qualifications for this role included those of a master sailor, an instructor and a celestial navigator. Col was a qualified scuba diving instructor and in his spare time played golf, tennis, and ran with the Casuarina Hash House Harriers.
Col took his interest in sailing into his post-parliamentary life. He worked in tourism at Seven Spirit Bay where he had charge of the resort’s vessels, and on Darwin Harbour where he skippered Billy J for the Northern Frontier Group.
In September 1994, Col and Anna departed for Cooktown in Queensland, via all the good fishing spots en route. They purchased their own yacht, competed in the inaugural Brisbane to Solomon Islands Yacht Race and spent six months cruising around the Solomon Islands. Col and Anna continued to pursue their shared interest in sailing with journeys to New Caledonia, Vanuatu and again to the Solomon Islands. During 2001-02, they sailed to Darwin, across to the west and up to East Timor, which they left just ahead of the conflict.
In recent years, Col came to enjoy cruising when someone else was in charge while he and Anna enjoyed Malaysia, Hawaii, Canada, Alaska and New Zealand.
Col’s service to the community continued in Queensland where he became very involved in Legacy as a legatee with 37 widows to look after. In his spare time, Col cared for his classic cars and a large collection of orchids.
Col’s final year was a challenging one for him and his family. He faced the challenges bravely in the wonderful caring hands of Anna, the love of his life. Col friends saw him as a remarkable man. He is remembered as a brother to many of his friends and those who knew him well.
Madam Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to move this motion of condolence to Colin Charles Firmin. I commend the motion to the House.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, a commitment to public service is very much the common theme of today’s condolence motion for Col Firmin. On behalf of the opposition, I acknowledge and recognise the contribution Col made to the Territory, whether as an active member of our community, a Darwin City Council Alderman, or a member of this parliament.
On 3 March 2013 we lost a former colleague who served the people of Ludmilla, both as a member of the CLP and as an Independent, from 1983 until 1990. As you have heard, he has left behind his wife, Anna, along with their children, Nikki and Michael, and six grandchildren who can all look back with pride at the significant contribution Col made to Territory politics and community life in the 1980s.
Col was born in Perth in 1940. He was a Legacy ward and maintained an active role in support of Legacy and countless other organisations, including Apex and the NT Anti-Cancer Foundation. His sporting activities were many and varied – sailing, golf, tenpin bowling and tennis were among his interests. He was even a qualified scuba diving instructor.
Col was elected to the Darwin City Council in 1976 and continued to serve until he ran for Ludmilla. He worked in a variety of roles in the insurance industry before he entered parliament. As an alderman he was on a number of committees including the Darwin Town Planning Committee, the Darwin City Council Works Committee and the Road Safety Committee as well as its successor, the NT Road Safety Council.
After being elected to parliament Col was active on parliamentary committees including the Privileges Committee and the Constitutional Development Committee, as well as a range of select committees and working parties. As you have heard, he also served as the government Whip before becoming Deputy Speaker.
Following his defeat by the CLP in the 1990 election, Col continued to make a contribution to our community and worked in tourism.
When he moved to Queensland in 1994 he began his role as a legatee looking after the welfare of bereaved service families. He also became active in the National Servicemen’s Association. Inspiring for those of us still in this House, he managed to have plenty of adventures following his political career, finding the perfect yacht and sailing extensively in the Pacific, north Australia and up to Timor-Leste.
On behalf of the opposition, I extend our deepest sympathy to Col’s wife, Anna, his children, Nikki and Michael, their partners, his grandchildren, the extended family, and the many friends who have gathered here today.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for bringing this condolence motion on. Thank you for the kind words from the Leader of the Opposition.
I knew Colin Firmin reasonably well. I admit I knew his wife, Anna, much better - Anna and I worked together in the early 1990s. I was in my very early 20s and, at the time, was selling insurance for a range of different insurance companies and Anna was in the general insurance business. We worked out of the same office, side by side. So, I had quite a bit to do with Anna over those few years. Shortly after working with Anna, I got to know their daughter, Nikki, very well. Nikki is a similar age to me and we enjoyed many social events together.
Col, at that time, was a bit inaccessible to me. Of course, he was a member of this parliament then and, as members know, life becomes very busy when you are an elected member of parliament. Spending time with family and friends will generally fall to the wayside to some extent, and Col was no different; he had an enormous capacity for work. As has already been said, he also had an enormous capacity for community service and civic duty. He was on a range of community organisations and sporting groups, was a dead keen scuba diver, and later became very interested in sailing. What stood out about Col was his sheer commitment to the Northern Territory. Unfortunately, that commitment took its toll.
Being a member of parliament was a very difficult job which took him away from family and friends. Politics, as we know, can, at times, be quite a brutal game. Unfortunately, Col became caught in some of that toward the end of his parliamentary career. That took a toll on his family. It was a hard thing for them to swallow and they were all very upset. He battled through that and, like a true Territorian, bounced back almost instantly; got back on the horse and continued his service to the community.
I enjoyed my time with the Firmin family. He was, at that time, everything I aspired to be. He was an elected member of parliament - I was 23 or 24 years old - one thing that probably makes me different from most people is I have always had a big interest in the political system and how laws are made. I have always been a keen observer of the parliamentary process and I saw Col as a part of that, which he, indeed, was. I aspired, at that early age, to be part of it.
Being able to sit with Anna and talk politics and about the future of the Territory and the world was, for me, a very precious time in my life. Nikki was a good friend of mine; Michael, Col’s son, I knew reasonably well, but we all got along well together. I am sure parliamentarians who have been in the Territory for a while treasure those times in the 1980s and 1990s. It was a very different place from today - not to say things are not good now. We loved our times back then. The Firmins were certainly a part of the community and I was very upset to hear of Col’s passing. He was a great Territorian; his heart was always in the Territory, but eventually sailing and that boat took him away. Both Anna and Col loved their time on the water and they had to spread their wings and head further afield.
Madam Speaker, I am thrilled to offer these words in relation to Col Firmin. He was a good bloke, had his heart in the Territory and did everything he could to serve the Northern Territory. I extend my condolences to Anna and the family. It has been a hard time for everybody. It is a close knit-family and you can hold your heads high. Your father and husband, was a great man who did much for the Territory and that is evident by the calibre of the people we have in the gallery today listening to this condolence motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I also wish to pay my respects to the late Colin Firmin and extend my sympathies and sincere thoughts to Anna and the children, Nikki and Michael. I remember Colin as a true gentleman. He was always exceptionally friendly and polite, and was only too happy when I would come to Parliament House to visit my mother to come forward, say hello and have a chat.
I also knew him to be an avid sailor and keen golfer. He was the type of fellow who would extend himself and assist anyone or put a hand out. When the America’s Cup was in Perth in 1987, the NT police boat, the Salloo, was to guard the waters and keep an eye on the riff-raff who attend those races. I was in Perth at the time and he said, ‘If you are in Perth I will arrange a visit for you and your family on the Salloo’. That is the type of fellow Colin Firmin was. So, we did. My sister-in-law and I, and one of my brothers, went on the boat. It was an incredibly rough day and the race was cancelled. I was fine but the rest of my family spent much time leaning overboard. Col was fine too, of course. Being a sailor, he did not get seasick at all.
I found him to be a delightful person and I was very sad to hear of his passing. I extend my sympathies to Anna, who I also knew well and liked as she is a charming woman. To Nikki and Mike and their children - his grandchildren - and all his friends and family here today, my sincere condolences on behalf of the Northern Territory parliament. Please stand now for one minute’s silence as a mark of respect.
Members stood for a minute’s silence as a mark of respect.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: I thank honourable members for their contribution to the condolence motion. I invite the family and friends of the late Mr Colin Firmin to afternoon tea in the Main Hall.
RESPONSES TO PETITIONS
Petition Nos 6, 8, and 9
The CLERK: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform honourable members that responses to petition Nos 6, 8, and 9 have been received and circulated to members. The text of the responses will be placed on the Legislative Assembly website. A copy of the responses has been provided to the members who tabled the petition for distribution to petitioners.
- Petition No 6
Power and Water Price Increases
Date presented: 29 November 2012
Presented by: Mr Wood
Referred to: Treasurer
Date response due: 28 March 2013
Date response received: 22 March 2013
Date response presented: 26 March 2013
Response:
The Northern Territory government has approved the total increases to be phased in over a period of three years rather than commencing in full on 1 January 2013. New pricing orders have been issued with the effect that, in relation to relevant billable customers, the increases taking effect on 1 January 2013 now be:
(a) 20% for electricity
- Petition No 8
Power and Water Price Increases
Date presented: 5 December 2012
Presented by: Mr Wood
Referred to: Treasurer
Date response due: 1 May 2013
Date response received: 22 March 2013
Date response presented: 26 March 2012
- Response:
The Northern Territory government has approved the total increases to be phased in over a period of three years rather than commencing in full on 1 January 2013. New pricing orders have been issued with the effect that, in relation to relevant billable customers, the increases taking effect on 1 January 2013 now be:
(a) 20% for electricity
(b) 30% for water, and
(c) 15% for sewerage services.
Humpty Doo Fire Station Close
Date presented: 12 February 2013
Presented by: Mr Wood
Referred to: Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services
Date response due: 20 June 2013
Date response received: 6 March 2013
Date response presented: 26 March 2013
Response:
On Thursday, 21 February, I (Hon Terry Mills MLA) advised the House that the decision to transition the Humpty Doo Fire Service from permanent (career firefighters) to volunteer status had been reversed and would no longer take effect.
MOTION
Proposed Censure of Chief Minister
Proposed Censure of Chief Minister
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I support the amended censure put forward by the Attorney-General. The Opposition Leader deserves censure. What she has done to the Northern Territory is beyond the pale. She has set the Northern Territory up for a record $5.5bn worth of debt. With 230 000 people in the Northern Territory, $5.5bn equates to almost $24 000 for every man, woman and child. Babies born today at Royal Darwin Hospital, Alice Springs Hospital, or at any other location in the Territory are instantly assuming a debt of some $24 000, which is appalling.
What is even more appalling is, every time this government tries to curb spending and bring us back into a fiscally responsible position, the former Treasurer screams and says, ‘No, no, no, that cannot happen’. The fact is, the deficit the former Treasurer left the Territory is forecast this year to be $867m for 230 000 people. That is spending of more than $867 000 above what it would take to break even. It is not hard to see how the debt was accumulating. It has been said in this House before that debt is not a bad thing. I totally agree with that, provided that debt is used to finance things of material value.
However, the previous government was spending for the sake of spending. The former Treasurer took a leaf out of Kevin Rudd’s book and said, ‘We have to spend because it keeps the economy growing’. There was no concern at all for the mountain of debt being created, the financial burden it placed on future Territorians, or for any balanced fiscal responsibility.
The forward estimates were showing the budget deficit would grow to almost $1200m in the 2013-14 financial year. Again, this is in a jurisdiction of 230 000 people. We are not talking about the New South Wales budget, the Queensland budget, or the Australian government budget deficit. The little old Northern Territory has a budget blowout, a budget deficit, of almost $1200m - $1.2bn. It is interesting the Opposition Leader will say, ‘We have been building up to this’. Yes, we have been since the Leader of the Opposition took over as Treasurer. When that happened the Territory had about $1.2bn in debt. That is about to be our deficit in the budget. That was the debt she took over.
I remember at the time criticising Clare Martin and the then Treasurer, Syd Stirling, for the way they were managing the Northern Territory budget. In hindsight, those guys were economic geniuses in comparison to the former Labor Treasurer, the member for Karama. The member for Karama has taken that $1.2bn of debt from around 2008 and it is projected to be $5.5bn by 2015 - a trebling of debt in such a short period of time. She now wonders why there is a censure motion coming her way. She came into this House this morning, decided to deflect scrutiny of her job and time in government by running a censure motion on the Chief Minister, and is surprised to find herself the victim of such a censure motion. That is where the blame for our financial situation needs to be placed.
I will go through some of the legacy items the former Treasurer left the new government. We have been left with a legacy of expenditure commitments - costs estimated by agencies of over $600m for the forward estimates period. That is over $600m of unfunded legacy items left to us by the former Treasurer. Some of those items we cannot back away from, such as the Alice Springs Hospital emergency department; we need that to operate. However, the cost of that operation was never factored into the forward estimates by the previous Treasurer. No cost at all was factored into the budget by the previous Treasurer.
Nothing stands out more than in the Office of Children and Families where the Chief Executive advised she was instructed by the then minister to hire over 90 staff in the last month of the 2011-12 financial year despite there being no provision in the 2012-13 budget - over 90 staff were hired outside budget.
There are many other areas where the former Treasurer put the Territory into a state of serious risk. One area we have had some numbers on is police infrastructure. The shortfall in repairs and maintenance assessed by that agency across the forward estimates period is $48m. However, nothing was seen in the budget to cover these necessary expenses. Coming into government following the poor fiscal management by the previous Treasurer, we knew we had $5.5bn worth of debt looming and the budget was almost $900m in deficit, but we did not know there was almost $600m of unfunded legacy items bequeathed to us by the former Treasurer.
When the former Treasurer talked about responsibility and relevance - I heard her in Question Time today banging on about relevance. Nothing is more relevant to Territorians at this point than the level of debt created by the former Treasurer. The former Treasurer, the Opposition Leader, needs to hang her head in shame. She needs to explain to Territorians exactly what her motivation was in putting the Northern Territory into this parlous financial state.
As an aside, I recall when I was member for Solomon and the member for Karama was Treasurer she was talking about the ‘disgusting’ surpluses being posted by Howard and Costello in government. She said it was wrong, the Northern Territory was struggling, and the federal Treasurer, Peter Costello, was being a miser meanie by not releasing the purse strings; Peter Costello had done the wrong thing by Australia by not going into deficit.
Goodness me, how things have changed! The state of the finances Howard and Costello left the Australian nation in were pretty good. They had plenty of money in the bank, $60m sitting in the Future Fund, a similar amount sitting in the Higher Education Endowment Fund, and similar money sitting in the Communications Fund. It had all been hived away slowly over years by a prudent Treasurer who knew exactly what he was doing. Kevin Rudd came on to the scene, the global financial crisis hit, and it seemed to be manna from heaven for Labor Treasurers all over Australia because they had the perfect excuse to do what they do best - spend money.
Kevin Rudd was mailing cheques to dead people and people who had never set foot in Australia. We saw the waste with the school halls fiasco and the Pink Batts fiasco where people died, all to get money out the door as quickly as possible. They allocated $10bn for spending initiatives to kick-start the retail industry because it was withering on the vine - $10bn Kevin Rudd allocated in cash payments to the community and he had a $386m bounce in retail spending. What a wonderful way to spend $10bn - get a $360m bounce in retail spending. It was madness and the same was applied in the Northern Territory.
The former Treasurer cannot help herself, she said, ‘We saved the Northern Territory. We spent money and continued to spend’. That time is over. The spending is over and we have to focus on the legacy of that spending. That legacy will grow to $5.5bn for 230 000 Territorians - $24 000 per man, woman and child. It is outrageous and hard to contemplate how a Treasurer could be so wrong and make things so bad in such a short time.
Madam Speaker, I support the amended motion put by the Attorney-General and now move that the motion be put.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I seek clarification of whether the government understood the Independent wanted to speak on the censure motion.
Madam SPEAKER: This is a motion that the amendment be put.
Ms LAWRIE: Is the government going to move directly to guillotining and putting the motion in its entirety, or will it allow the Independent to speak?
Mr ELFERINK: The motion is that the amendment be put and we will deal with that question shortly.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 13 Noes 8
- Ms Anderson Ms Fyles
Mr Chandler Ms Lawrie
Mr Conlan Ms Manison
Mr Elferink Mr McCarthy
Ms Finocchiaro Mr Vatskalis
Mr Giles Mr Vowles
Mr Higgins Ms Walker
Mr Kurrupuwu Mr Wood
Mrs Lambley
Ms Lee
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, it is a little confusing what I am speaking on here, but I gather …
Mr Tollner: The motion!
Mr WOOD: On the censure motion brought forward to cancel another motion. Of course, the reason for this motion is to avoid a reasonable debate. It has occurred and is on the minds of many people. I was in West Lane a short time ago and the lady I was speaking to could not believe what happened to the previous Chief Minister. The reason the government has brought in this amendment is to avoid that debate. Many people would like a better understanding. From my point of view, we can talk about the budget because it will be the subject of a statement today. It also avoids what needs to be said about what has happened in the last few weeks.
I have looked at it from the point of loyalty. I have known the member for Blain since being in parliament and he is the longest-serving member of parliament. I regard him as a friend. I remember him speaking to me some time ago when we had some difficulties. Much of that is to do with the politics of this House. I am not quoting him but, basically, he was asking whether we would still be friends at the end. I said, ‘Of course’. We have gone through some very rough times; however, I am still his friend. Loyalty is a very important thing to believe in. That is the one thing missing in the government because, without loyalty, you cannot have stability.
This man came into parliament in government, went straight into opposition after the government was defeated, became leader, and decided it was too much for him. He was replaced. He then had another go at it when there were only four CLP members in parliament. The Independents were 50% the size of the opposition. That was pretty tough times because every member of the opposition had an enormous workload as shadow minister for many portfolios …
Mr Conlan: Fifteen.
Mr WOOD: It was a tough time for them. The member for Blain took the CLP from a position of near total wipe-out to where they are today, in government. What happened to him is the ultimate case of disloyalty. The dictionary says loyal means -this is what it means in the context of this parliament – ‘steadfast in allegiance’. In the Westminster system which relies so much on party loyalty, that is something members of parliament who belong to a party would uphold and keep dear to their heart. Loyalty means you are not in it for yourself; you are in it for the party that nominated you to represent it and the people of the Northern Territory. You represent the people of the Northern Territory by creating a stable government.
In the last few weeks and months, unfortunately, there has been disloyalty to the member for Blain even though people claimed, on the surface, they were loyal to him. Behind his back, while he was in Japan, they showed their disloyalty. That is an un-Australian thing to do to a man who not only brought the CLP into government, but took the brunt of the criticism. I criticised; I have many issues with the government. He was the leader of a government that, with the support of his Cabinet, made some very unpopular decisions. When I hear people saying how terrible those decisions were, I would not mind if they said, ‘We made a mistake as the government, as the Cabinet’, not as Terry Mills, and they recognise many of the decisions made by this government were made by a collective group of people. Please do not say, ‘They were bad decisions’, which makes it look like Terry Mills will take the blame for it. Of course, he was the person out the front, that is what leaders are about, but he could not make those decisions without support from the Cabinet ...
_________________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, can I interrupt to welcome some visitors in the gallery? I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of St Philip’s College students from Alice Springs who are in Darwin for the NT Rock Climbing Championships. On behalf of honourable members, I extend you a warm welcome and hope you enjoy your time at Parliament House and in Darwin.
Members: Hear, hear!
_________________________
Mr WOOD: A fine school too.
Madam Speaker, people need to understand this was a low act. I have compared it with Julius Caesar and Brutus. It is Easter; I can nearly compare it with two other people. Unfortunately, one person had a death much worse than being knifed in the back.
I had hoped the government would be much more humble and given the member for Blain more recognition. It will be hard for me to look at some of the people in this party who wrapped their arms around the former Chief Minister, who spoke publicly about their loyalty to the former Chief Minister, and could not be loyal enough to wait for him to return from Japan and put to him they were going to have a spill and wanted to take a vote on the leadership.
If you want loyalty in a football team you expect people to work together. If you want loyalty in a committee you want people to stick together, and you would hope if you want loyalty in a party you would do things the right way. This was done the wrong way.
I have been through some ups and downs with the former Chief Minister. I have had my share of difficulties in this job with some of the pain the CLP has put me through because of decisions I made some years ago. I know Terry was not happy with those decisions and understand why. I do not mind him criticising me for those decisions, but would never have stabbed him in the back because of it. I may have told him I did not agree with him. I have always believed, through all the ups and downs, Terry Mills to be a good man and I would say that to his face any time.
In fact, I doubt people realise how much hurt they have caused out there, regardless of all the problems the government has had.
I was at a garden club recently and a women said, ‘Will you pass a message to Terry?’ I said, ‘Yes, that will be okay,’ and she said, ‘Our little group of people have been praying for you’. I thought that was great. It was not about the CLP or politics, they wanted to support Terry Mills the man because they knew he was going through some difficult times. I wonder if people understand the actions of the government have disappointed so many people.
You have every right to change your leader - we do not live in an American presidential system - but it is the way you have done it that has upset your supporters and many ordinary Territorians.
We should take into account the member for Blain, regardless of whether we agree with him or not, did his best for the Territory. Unfortunately, while he was trying to do his best in Japan we were made to look like the laughing stock, both nationally and internationally. In fact, I understand he was at a ceremony with the Prime Minister and the Emperor of Japan and was the only international delegate to speak. The next day, while at a JGC meeting, he was told he did not have the job. What dishonour does that bring to the Territory?
When I had to decide who I would support in the balance of power issue a businessman said to me, ‘The Japanese do not like unstable government’. That is, Japanese business people do not like unstable governments. To a large extent, we have now shown we are unstable. I know the Chief Minister avoided answering when he will go to Japan, but it needs to be quite soon to try to repair the damage done.
The Chamber of Commerce had concerns about the way the member for Blain was sacked while in Japan. In the meantime, the government has to mend the fences it has broken. I do not know if it is as bad as the federal government and its ban on live cattle, but it is certainly something the Japanese will not forget because they strongly believe in loyalty and honour. In this case, the CLP has been disloyal to its leader.
You have every right to change your leader; that is the privilege and business of the party, but the people who elected the CLP with Terry Mills as its leader would have expected this be done in a fair way where the member for Blain could put his case if he wished to stay on as leader.
I understand why the government has brought forward this censure motion. I have not seen this done for quite some time - back to the old days of the CLP when they would try to turn things around by bringing in amendments. There is certainly room for debate about the Northern Territory budget and, obviously, we will have that debate with a statement today, but this makes you look silly.
The way you dismissed your Chief Minister then avoided debate by trying to bring a censure motion on the Leader of the Opposition – which is fair enough - it would have been better to use this opportunity to express support for the work he did as Chief Minister and show some gratitude to a person who took the hits. If anyone read the text messages and Letters to the Editor, some were very abusive. I imagine he received quite a few abusive e-mails and telephone calls. I went through some of that last year and know how hurtful and debilitating it is. This is an opportunity to thank him for the work he did. I did not agree with everything the former Chief Minister did but he acted as a leader, did what he thought was in the best interests of the Territory, and was loyal to the Territory. We somehow get the politics mixed up with loyalty and, unfortunately, Terry Mills is now on the backbench considering his future.
I do not vote on censure motions so this gives me an opportunity to express my thoughts. This was a cowardly act of Shakespearian proportions and, if the CLP had used this motion, it may have accepted it was not the right way to do things. The new Chief Minister said he would have preferred it not to have happened. This was an opportunity, while the previous Chief Minister was here, to explain that to the public and recognise the good things he has done. It is easy for people to pretend they are doing good things by reducing the cost of electricity and water - still quite high. Some people take praise for removing the $20 MVR fee on the day it was coming forward as a motion - General Business Day. It is good to take the praise, but you also have to accept and recognise the previous Chief Minister did much of the hard work. Some people are now pulling away from that even though they were part of the poor decisions because they were part of Cabinet.
Madam Speaker, I do not support the censure motion, amended or otherwise. Terry Mills is a decent fellow who worked hard for the Northern Territory. As in all politics, we do not always agree but that does mean he is not a good bloke, should be recognised as a good bloke, and the CLP should have been loyal to him.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Future Directions of the
Northern Territory Government
Future Directions of the
Northern Territory Government
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The ministerial statement before the parliament today is the one circulated by the Treasurer?
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, this was discussed with the acting Whip this morning and advice given that the Chief Minister would be making a statement at this point. No issue was raised by the acting Whip and I remind honourable members a ministerial statement can be brought on by a minister but the convention of providing a pre-written copy is a convention only.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, the Chief Minister would need to seek leave to lead the statement. The ministerial statement on the Notice Paper is the statement by the Treasurer, unless you made a mistake last night.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Speaking to the point of order, no notice has been given of the Treasurer’s ministerial statement. A copy was circulated last night as part of convention. It is a convention only. There is no requirement in standing orders for it. I am astonished you would not want to talk to the Chief Minister’s ministerial statement. For goodness sake, if the Leader of the Opposition is so frightened of the Chief Minister she does not want to hear what he has to say, it is a pretty poor effort on her part.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I too was not notified about these changes until I received a piece of paper stating how it was going to work for the day. I asked if the Orders of the Day would come on this morning. I was told they were going to come on after lunch and knew Question Time only went to 11 am. Why was I not told the Serious Sex Offenders Bill was …
Mr Elferink: Because the planet does not orbit around you.
Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated, member for Port Darwin.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, that is a sign of arrogance ...
Mr Elferink: It is not.
Mr WOOD: It is, because good manners are not something – it is like when you sent me a copy of the letter to the Leader of the Opposition about changes to the Estimates Committee. You could not even be bothered sending me a copy. I am part of the Estimates Committee, I am a member of the parliament; it would be nice to know what is going on …
Mr Elferink: Ring and ask. When was the last time you …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, you do not have the call.
Mr WOOD: You have a Whip who could at least tell me what is going on. It seems you operate in a vacuum. You are not willing to be …
Mr Elferink: You were spoiled by the former government.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Elferink: Comrade, you know.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, you do not have the call.
Mr WOOD: No, please, do not be silly. All I am asking for is a fair go …
Ms Lawrie: Kick him out.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Karama, you are on a warning.
Mr WOOD: I am asking for some politeness. It would be polite for the government to advise the order of work so I know whether to bring down a big heap of papers for legislation or something else. That is not too much to ask …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! He is speaking to a point of order. We can truncate this and get on with the business of the day.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, Leader of Government Business. Member for Nelson, have you finished your point of order?
Mr WOOD: No, Madam Speaker. This reflects the manner in which they are trying to run this House.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr WOOD: I am speaking …
Mr ELFERINK: He has made no reference to a standing order. Could he direct us to the standing order to which this diatribe is being launched.
Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated, Leader of Government Business. Member for Nelson, what is your point of order?
Mr WOOD: That we are not notified of these changes. That would be the proper thing for the government to do.
Madam SPEAKER: That is not in standing orders, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: It is in decency, Madam Speaker, and good manners.
Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated, member for Nelson.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Speaking to the point of order, he was advised this morning, through a motion in the House. He should have been listening.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, please be seated. Member for Nelson, I suggest in future it needs to be a two-way street. Talk to government as government talks to you. Also, the Whips should be talking to each other, as the leaders of business should be talking to each other.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I seek clarification. The ministerial statement circulated was the Treasurer’s ministerial statement. If the Chief Minister wants an indulgence and comes before the House to seek such indulgence, you would have thought he seek leave to make a statement. I seek advice because he would need to seek leave. This is not the ministerial statement as advised to the House.
Madam SPEAKER: I will seek advice from the Clerk.
The Chief Minister can have the call as long as copies of his statement are circulated to members before you start or whilst you are talking, Chief Minister.
Mr ELFERINK: We can do that, Madam Speaker. At the outset, the opposition was advised of this, this morning …
Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. You can discuss this with the opposition out of the Chamber.
Chief Minister, you have the call. Can you get a copy of the statement to the members of parliament, please?
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I seek to afford the opportunity for the Opposition Leader to respond in a similar time frame.
On 14 March 2013, it was my privilege to be sworn in as Chief Minister of the Northern Territory of Australia. I stated at the time it would be a new order, a new form of government.
The tenor of the conversation between government and the people of the Northern Territory changed for the better on 14 March. We are a party for all Territorians. We have listened to and engaged with all regions. We will support all Territorians regardless of where they live. My ministers will be thoughtful in responses and compassionate in government. Policies will be implemented which encourage and reflect the aspirations of Territorians.
As Chief Minister, I want to do much more than cut ribbons and manage issues; I want to make a difference to people’s lives. Yes, I have a vision for the Territory. Articulating that vision, however, is only part of what I will do today. I will outline how I, along with my colleagues, can deliver better, tangible outcomes for our fellow Territorians.
A criticism often levelled at politicians is they think more about the present than the future ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Again, on the terms of ministerial statements; the requirement that it be printed. We still have not received a printed copy of the ministerial statement.
Madam SPEAKER: I understand, Opposition Leader, the statement is coming as soon as possible.
Ms LAWRIE: Could we get some advice as to how long it will take? I am going by the standing orders.
Madam SPEAKER: If it could be expeditiously brought to the Chamber that would be appreciated. Chief Minister.
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, it is a criticism that can be levelled at the former Labor government. Good governments must do both: look at the present and what can be done simply and efficiently, and carefully plan for what must be done into the future.
I am a Chief Minister for today and the future, make no mistake. We, as Territorians, must face the future together to address the debt left by Labor as a result of mismanagement and the former Treasurer.
When you owe money you have an obligation to pay. A common mantra from the current opposition, led by the former Treasurer, has been it is normal to carry that level of debt. Debt on the scale left to us by Labor is not normal, it is high-risk debt. It has placed considerable strain on the people of the Northern Territory.
High levels of public debt impact directly on the opportunities for growth. The most negative growth effects of high debt are a dangerous way to govern any territory, state or nation. The potential impacts were ignored by Labor and must be addressed by me and my government. Under Labor, the purse strings were opened to their widest extent, and the Labor Party was blind to the detrimental effect overall.
Paying off Labor’s debt is critical to our future. Debt reduction strategies now will enable us to be better placed to provide services to those in need and provide the range of services Territorians expect from a competent government. Governments, like individuals, must live within their means.
There has to be a thoughtful analysis of competing priorities and interests. The bottom line is we are a can-do jurisdiction. We are young, vibrant and live in a resource-rich land, but a huge percentage of this land has been sidelined.
There are opportunities for many but not all. I am a Chief Minister for all Territorians. Much has been made of the fact I am the first Indigenous territory or state leader. I am an Australian and a Territorian. In the same way, our Indigenous communities are Australian and Territorian. I have decided not to have an Indigenous affairs portfolio because Indigenous affairs permeate all aspects of federal, state and territory government. This belief does not denigrate anybody or overlook any member of our community; instead it emphasises equality and makes Indigenous affairs everybody’s business. No longer will there be a minority department focusing on a minority government. Instead, all aspects of government will be for all Territorians.
Jobs are critical because I have always proclaimed our future in the Northern Territory is about jobs, jobs, jobs not welfare, welfare, welfare. That is the Country Liberal way not the Labor way. If you do not have a job chronic disadvantage can result. Children do not see the point in school attendance if they cannot see a future through a real job. Parents stare at the daily reality of no work, only welfare. Sit-down money is simply unsustainable.
Instead, my government’s approach is to create jobs so income is from work, not welfare. In order to break the cycle it must be clearly recognised good government means governing for everybody.
Public service: in order to govern well my government has a clear policy focus where there is a great deal to achieve. We need educated debate leading to evidence-based decisions and solutions which are developed and made with confidence. Coordination across government is vital, as is drawing on the expertise of our hard-working, highly-skilled public service. I repeat, highly-skilled. Territory public servants have years of experience which equate to huge value and benefit for the Northern Territory.
Every conversation across our departments must, therefore, be open, honest, realistic and informative. When experienced public servants have a voice, delivery and implementation will work, and there is a great deal to be done.
Local government: local government reform must be continued. The hard work and effort of the majority who work in local government is recognised. Changes must be made to find the balance between financial viability, cultural governance and local voice.
In this regard, the Regional Governance Working Group is a key element. The leadership of minister Anderson, bringing together Regional Development and Local Government, ensures a knowledgeable overview of the big picture. Her portfolios of Children and Families and Women’s Policy are another crucial partnership.
Health: minister Lambley will continue the roll out of the new service framework and I look forward to working with her on that. This will see the devolution of decision-making from upper bureaucratic echelons to the grassroots. The reform will establish new statutory service provider organisations. The Top End and Central Australian Health and Hospital Services will operate independent of the Department of Health, and will have their own boards of management. Legislation surrounding these changes will be introduced into parliament soon.
Structural healthcare reform processes will continue. We have to better integrate services between the private, the primary care and the hospital sectors ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 259(1) - the statement be printed. We have still not received it.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, Standing Order 92:
- Notwithstanding Standing Order 90, reports of standing or select committees, papers and ministerial statements may be presented at any time when other business is not before the Assembly.
We are in the process of getting that statement printed out and sent to you.
Mr VATSKALIS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It is clear from Standing Order 258 the member opposite can present at any time when there is no question before the Assembly. However, this order clearly says provided copies of the statement are available for distribution when the minister commences his statement. The minister has already commenced and we have yet to see the printed statement.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker! Why did you not ask this morning when I told you about this? This morning the acting Whip was told about this, did not raise any objection, did not ask for anything, did not say anything other than, ‘Yes, that is fine’. Now, all of a sudden, they are trying to make an issue of this. They talk about protocol - why raise this as an issue unless they are trying to make politics out of it? They have had their fun; the printers are running at the moment, they will be down …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I was going to point out we have just received a copy. Speaking to what the member for Port Darwin …
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, Opposition Leader, there is no point of order. Please be seated, member for Karama.
Mr Elferink: The next time I explain something to the Opposition Whip they can object before this happens.
Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated, Leader of Government Business. The Chief Minister has the call.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise again ...
Ms Lawrie: You are hopeless. No wonder they dumped you.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Members interjecting.
Mr GILES: Efficient private practice specialist clinics will be encouraged. An active private sector working in concert with our current systems will free up services for those in greater need. Choice of and ready access …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: The Chief Minister is making a statement to the House. I ask members on both sides not to interfere or comment. Standing Order 51:
- No Member may converse aloud or make any noise or disturbance, which in the opinion of the Speaker is designed to interrupt or has the effect of interrupting a Member speaking.
Chief Minister, you have the call.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is important I go back to where I started.
Efficient private practice specialist clinics will be encouraged. An active private sector working in concert with our current systems will free up services for those in greater need. Choice of and ready access to a wide range of specialist medical services will benefit Territorians.
Minister Lambley’s portfolio combination of Health and Alcohol Rehabilitation go hand-in-hand. A continued focus on supply management and reduction is important, but we need and have to understand and tackle the reasons for demand. Until we do, nothing is going to change except the type of substance being abused. The damage done to personal health, both mental and physical, due to alcohol abuse cannot be underestimated and reaches right across our society. The negative repercussions on every facet of life can be alleviated, and the plan is to get alcohol rehabilitation up and running as soon as possible once legislative frameworks are right. I have encouraged the member for Arafura to work with minister Lambley to ensure alcohol rehabilitation continues on a steady path.
Education - education has to be focused on the best outcomes for children. All children have a right to be well-prepared for their future, and my personal story proves anything is possible if you are prepared to work hard at it. Minister Chandler is continuing the task of improving educational outcomes in the Northern Territory, and the member for Stuart will draw upon her deep knowledge base and focus on getting Indigenous children to school for a real education based on real standards leading to real jobs.
Community sector - in strengthening our community, my government will engage with the community sector to develop new ways of supporting key service providers.
Arts - arts policy is a consideration for my government. For example, the Museum and Art Galleries of the Northern Territory is currently under review for the best model for the future. The minister responsible, minister Conlan, has wide-ranging portfolios, including Central Australia, and can ensure the Northern Territory as a whole receives a balanced focus.
Housing and land release - housing and land release are vital elements to support economic development and population stability. The Real Housing for Growth initiative is under way. The first round of the audit of Crown land in urban areas is complete.
People will recall land release in the Northern Territory was derailed by the former Labor government causing critical shortages. Labor’s inertia caused pain to families they still face today as they try to afford a place in the ownership or rental market.
However, establishment of the Planning Commission is a critical part of this government’s strategy to provide land for development and housing for Territorians. The government, with minister Chandler holding the Lands, Planning and the Environment portfolio, will look at stronger partnerships with the private sector, stimulating the construction market, furthering opportunities - public and private - housing, and also commercial.
Work is also being done in regard to private ownership of housing for Indigenous people, a reality urgently needed. Land tenure reforms under the Commonwealth’s Stronger Futures legislation are also a subject for discussion.
Power and Water - a healthy Power and Water Corporation is critical for the development of the Northern Territory. A review identified a change in leadership and structure was needed to support the reforms required, therefore, a new managing director has been appointed. Meanwhile, recommendations from the review will be considered by an interim board. This change in leadership places a renewed focus on business and development. Minister Westra van Holthe is the Essential Services Minister and will bring the same serious application to this portfolio as he displayed in his other ministries, including Mines and Energy.
Business and development - the government will support the aims and priorities of local business and business of northern Australia as a whole. Attracting the next INPEX, the next global company, to the Northern Territory is a key priority, including value-adding the downstream processing. However, let me stress, we must continue our strong environmental credentials.
This government is not about digging up and shipping out; we want to add value. Best practice and sustainable and robust legislation are critical. Yes, economic development is a must, but there is no point trumpeting we are the new frontier if there is no infrastructure in place. We must get the structures correct, which is one of the reasons Deputy Chief Minister Tollner holds the portfolios for Business and for Treasury - both sides of the equation which will be clearly defined and understood.
Current federal government rhetoric places north Australia at the forefront of opportunities for the Asian century. National reform will surely follow in support of this objective, but the federal government needs to work with us now on projects that include roads, rails, bridges and telecommunications that include our remote communities, unlike NBN’s current mismanaged plans leading to a fiasco.
There is an urgent need for an industrial harbour - a 24-hour port. Minister Styles is charged with the Infrastructure portfolio and has a clear understanding of the requirement for infrastructure projects and the need to plan properly in order to facilitate business opportunities.
If you do not build the economic infrastructure you will not build the Territory. If investment is made in the Territory’s framework, businesses will benefit in the long run. There will be economic advancement, and creation of jobs is a common theme of this government.
Tourism needs to flourish, unlike under Labor which saw continual downgrades in international tourist numbers. Tourism was in need of urgent action and minister Conlan is working hard to put solid foundations in place, particularly with the start of the Tourism Commission. Tiger Airways is back in Alice Springs, and I met with SilkAir on Sunday and look forward to the day when their flights between Darwin and Singapore run on a daily basis.
Law and order - everybody visiting and living in the Northern Territory wants to and deserves to feel safe. Under this government, those who deserve punishment will receive it and those who will benefit from other interventions will be so directed. The work undertaken by the Attorney-General in this regard is totally supported. Minister Elferink is not only continuing in his position as Attorney-General, he is also Leader of Government Business. It is pleasing to note on this side of the House we have someone so dedicated to the role. Minister Elferink’s passion about being sentenced to a job is absolutely fantastic and something I am really proud to be part of.
Treasury - last but not least, Treasury is charged with working towards balancing the budget - definitely a significant challenge - complicated by less GST income being received from Canberra and the relief given on power and water prices whereby, from 1 May, consumers’ bills will reflect the reduction and appropriate credit. I remind you of a fact we cannot hide. The Northern Territory government runs on a total of $5.5bn a year, yet the former Labor government left a debt tracking towards $5.5bn. That is an uncomfortable perspective, a debt the size of our entire budget - a Labor debt which has to be paid back.
As I said earlier today, the cycle continues. When Labor is in government, no matter which jurisdiction it is, debt and deficits escalate. When the conservatives or the Country Liberals come in, it is left to us to clean up the mess - to remove the deficit and pay back the debt.
In summary, I am proud to be the first Chief Minister whose home is in Central Australia. I will be spending the majority of my time in Darwin, and this is tough on relationships. I thank my wife, Tamara, and my daughter, Tahlia, for their support.
This government will seek to have the budget back in the black by 2017-18. Savings will be made wherever possible, and we will be fiscally responsible, with clearly articulated, united policy visions, evidence-based solutions, pragmatic and compassionate decision-making in an environment which inspires confidence in the Northern Territory and a clarity of purpose that will not be deflected by the toxic political posturing of the Labor opposition which seeks to detract and attack.
There is a great deal to be done, and under my leadership we will get it done. I want to elevate the level of debate in this Chamber. I want us to remember who we are and where we are. We are here representing Territorians in our jurisdictions, and we have to provide leadership to the youth, the future leaders of tomorrow, such as the people sitting in the gallery now. It can be a rewarding journey as a politician, as each of us strives to improve the lives of Territorians who have elected us.
I invite the opposition to join me on this journey to raise the level of debate, hold us to account for policy and programs, and drag the debate out of the gutter and get the Northern Territory parliament up to the standard and beyond of other jurisdictions in Australia, and to sensibly debate the issues which affect us. For my part, I will be focused and decisive, but also thoughtful and considerate. I invite the opposition to hold me and my ministers to account. Territorians expect and deserve them to do their job, just as they expect and deserve me to do mine.
John F Kennedy’s famous comment, ‘To those whom much is given, much is expected’, inspires. The expectations of Territorians are high and we must meet them.
I will ensure the government delivers better, tangible outcomes for Territorians. I say to the Opposition Leader and Labor opposite, game on.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, he ended with a comment which truly reflects him. To quote JFK, a leader who did not take leadership by cowardly knifing his leader in the back, is truly delusional. He ad-libbed a couple of times in the statement. It is interesting; we have the ‘address’ not the ministerial statement - clearly, a complete breach of standing orders.
That being said, so be it. We will debate this shallow and pathetic attempt by the Chief Minister to rewrite history - to pretend. There is not one mention in the statement of the fact he knifed the former Chief Minister when he was representing the Northern Territory on a trip to Japan. No apology, not an inkling of the fact he might be humbled; no indication of humility, or any recognition of the damage he has done to our relationship with Japan - no recognition of the jeopardy he has placed Territory businesses in which are chasing those all-important lucrative contracts coming out of Japan.
This is a shallow attempt to rewrite history - a denial of the facts. On no occasion in the Chamber today has he chosen to step up, be a man, and admit to his actions. Instead, we see the little boy with his address, ‘It is all about me; it is all about what I want to do and where I will take things’. There are shallow cursory glances at some of the ministerial responsibilities, and it speaks volumes for what is missing from this ministerial statement. I will touch on some of the aspects he mentioned in a moment.
You cannot expect us to take you seriously when you will not address the elephant in the room; the fact you headed a leadership coup against the elected Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Terry Mills. At no stage today have you ’fessed up to that, dealt with it in any way, shown any humility, any recognition - as the member for Nelson pointed out - to the work done by the former Chief Minister, the member for Blain. No, it has all been about rewriting history and pretending it was not a grubby, cowardly, despicable and illegitimate way the member for Braitling became Chief Minister.
The Chief Minister’s address does not go to the heart of any of the reasons why he would take on leadership. He was happy to explain to Leigh Sales on the 7.30 Report, ‘Well, you know, I have been dissatisfied for a while about the direction of the government, the direction of the leadership’. However, at no stage in his address did he deal with where that dissatisfaction lay, what was wrong, and which CLP policies he is seeking to tear up and move away from.
It is unbelievable and a very shallow address wanting to rewrite history and ignore the fact he knifed the Chief Minister, his own colleague, when he was in Japan representing the Northern Territory. Instead, he talked about a new order - he will deal with the present and carefully plan for the future. He wants to pretend that in dealing with the present he cannot deal with the very present and real questions people are asking as to how he could get it so terribly wrong when taking leadership. What massive error of judgment, what strong vein of disloyalty or dishonour has been mined in the member for Braitling when he could get it so terribly wrong as to humiliate the Chief Minister while on a formal delegation to Japan and - as the member for Nelson so aptly put it - make the Northern Territory a laughing stock? The little boy opposite, as described by one of his own colleagues, now simply steps past that, steps into his own denial and writes history the way he wants to present it.
He banged on about debt and the impact of debt. I will go to that when we get around to debating the Treasurer’s ministerial statement. The Chief Minister said, ‘High debt impacts directly on opportunities for growth’. You have to wonder where he is coming from trying to spin that, somehow, the actions of Labor have damaged the opportunity for growth in the Northern Territory. In 2001, when Labor was elected to government for the first time in the history of the Northern Territory, economic growth was at 0%. Labor had eight surplus budgets in a row. We wrote down debt by $582m and took the economy to the fastest growing in the nation. Deloitte Access, and now the state reports by CommSec, recognise how rapidly this economy is growing.
We went after the opportunities, secured them and, most critically and importantly, the major one, the Ichthys project - the $32bn investment. In the background, pursuit of that project was providing a government of stability and certainty, and providing a business environment where you could have certainty in investment because of the strength of the relationships. I stress the word ‘relationships’ between the senior leaders of government - Clare Martin when she was Chief Minister, Paul Henderson when he was Chief Minister, and their deputies and the team around them, the ministerial Cabinet - there was a relationship. There is no relationship between the pretender, the member for Braitling, and the key, critically important people to the economic growth of the Territory. Investors are wondering what is next because they have seen so much turmoil in the Northern Territory since the CLP took government.
To say high debt somehow impacts on economic opportunity is absolute nonsense. Quite the opposite has occurred. We were creating surplus budgets and writing down debt to the tune of $582m. Then the global financial crisis hit. You will never hear that mentioned by the CLP because it is a fact they do not like anyone to understand. When the Chief Minister said he is all about jobs, jobs, jobs, during the global financial crisis the Labor government, through doubling the infrastructure spend, created 13 000 jobs.
We hear the shallow rhetoric of the current Chief Minister - jobs, job, jobs – but, in reality, if they had their way - as they called for constantly in opposition - we would not have had that all-important infrastructure spend creating the 13 000 jobs through the hardest years of the global financial crisis, supporting the construction sector and the small- and medium-size businesses of the Territory and gearing them up for the economic opportunities flowing out of the major project. Business and industry understands it, and that is why they are appalled with the behaviour of the current government, which is sending them in the opposite direction.
The Chief Minister’s statement talked about abolishing Indigenous affairs and how it is everybody’s business. Labor says that is a terrible mistake. You need an agency to scrutinise the actions of all agencies of government to ensure they are addressing the most significantly disadvantaged Territorians. The need by Indigenous Territorians across any of the indicators - health, or housing - is fundamental. To abolish an agency which has a central, coordinated role to close the gap on disadvantage as rapidly as possible is a terrible mistake - one, I might add, the Liberal leader in Canberra is at odds with.
Tony Abbott has announced he will assume responsibility for Indigenous Affairs and will task - if they win government - Nigel Scullion with Indigenous Affairs. At the same time as Tony Abbott is in Canberra saying he will have a dedicated focus on it, the Chief Minister is abolishing that focus. From a policy perspective, how at odds could they be?
Jobs, jobs, jobs. Do yourself a big favour, Chief Minister, and engage immediately with the training organisations of the Northern Territory. I have yet to find a training organisation in the Territory that is not in absolute despair about the funding cuts by the Northern Territory government. It is having a very real impact on getting Indigenous Territorians into jobs. You say one thing and the actions of your government are the exact opposite. The Chief Minister spoke about the importance of education. How do you then explain the 10% cut to education? How do you explain the change to the equity funding which has seen teacher positions in remote schools lost?
How do you match your rhetoric with actions? You have turned your back on and are disadvantaging our most needy. Across our education system, children of the Northern Territory in remote schools are suffering from the actions of your government through your change in equity funding for Territory schools. Chief Minister, you have the gall to say it is about jobs, ignoring the cuts to training, and it is all about education, ignoring the cuts to the education budget.
You talk about the importance of health and alcohol rehabilitation and how that has been put into the hands of the member for Araluen. This is the same person you were quite happy to see exit the leadership team of Terry Mills. You were happy to set her up for the work done in the first seven months and make her as loathed, if not more loathed, than the member for Blain, publicly taking the hits for the team.
In health and alcohol rehabilitation, what has been done? Rhetoric and inaction. The only action taken so far has been to dismantle the Enough is Enough alcohol reforms - the BDR et al - and the results are drunks on the streets. We have businesses, cafes, restaurants and tourism operators despairing, arming themselves to deal with the drunks on the streets in Darwin, Palmerston, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. The very proud, ‘I am from Central Australia Chief Minister’, can announce additional police, but they cannot be on every street corner. You can make them stand in front of every bottle shop, but they cannot be in front of every business in Alice Springs. After a few days last week, loud and clear coming from the community and businesses is crime is spiralling out of control under the CLP and the response is, ‘I will put extra police out there’.
Ignoring the grog-related violence as you are, you cannot get your legislation up; you have no legislation before the House to deal with problem drunks. Where is the legislation for the habitual drunks’ policy? You have handballed it from one minister to another; it is now with its third minister. It started with the member for Port Darwin who handballed it to the member for Fong Lim, who has now handballed it to the member for Araluen. I am waiting for the next handball. Meanwhile, people suffer because you have failed to deliver that 100-day promise to immediately rid the streets of drunks.
In health, my goodness, what a debacle - $135m of Commonwealth health funding rejected. It was handed back to Canberra for other jurisdictions to pick up and use. The CLP scrapping Palmerston hospital is unbelievable. This is the same party that campaigned and promised to build the hospital and you are scrapping it. The site is ready, the funding was there - an agreement between the Commonwealth and Northern Territory governments - and you are tearing it up and walking away! The people of Palmerston need and were getting a hospital and you are scrapping it. While scrapping the Palmerston hospital, you are threatening to mothball then scrap Royal Darwin Hospital.
It does not get much worse in mishandling the health portfolio. People are gobsmacked at how bad you are at consideration of the health policy and delivery of health services. I have not even touched on renal services or medi-hotel - $135m handed back and you have the gall to complain about federal health funding which, by the way, was slashed when Tony Abbott was Health minister.
You talked about land tenure, Chief Minister, in this address. That is code - no doubt about it - for a Liberal/CLP attack on the land councils. Your intention to dismantle the land councils is writ large in the rhetoric of this address. It is despicable! You will go after the areas you received support to get into government and break down their rights. I do not understand how you can hold your head high. You are taking away their water rights and you want to take away their land rights. Land tenure - code for dismantling the land councils ...
Mr Tollner: Are you all there? Just keep feeding them welfare, Delia? That is your view.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Fong Lim!
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Fong Lim, ‘Just keep feeding them welfare’. If you understand anything about land rights and the work of the land councils, it is not about welfare. That is the weird, ideological bubble in which you live, member for Fong Lim.
The communities sector in the address got one paragraph:
- … my government will engage with the community sector to develop new ways of supporting key service providers.
The key service providers had a 5% cut to their funding - that is the action versus the rhetoric of the CLP. The community sector has seen your actions. The Northern Territory Council of Social Service had a 50% cut to its funding. Is this the new order the Chief Minister described? Are we expecting, in the budget, a 50% restoration to the NTCOSS budget? Is the new order going to bring back the 5% already cut from the community sector and, in fact, see growth go into it? What is happening in the community sector because you are not engaging with them, even though in this statement you say you will and there will be new ways of supporting them? Everyone is waiting with bated breath because your actions have shown the opposite.
The Arts policy is under consideration. I am sure the arts and museums sector would love a funding injection immediately equivalent to the two-week junket to Europe taken by the minister. Add that up and inject it into the arts and museum sector immediately instead of the self-indulgent two-week junket Matt Conlan went on. Unbelievable!
Mr Tollner: You are just criminal!
Ms LAWRIE: Do not worry; there will be more to come on that.
Mr McCarthy: That really hit a nerve.
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, they are firing up on that.
Power and Water - here we go. They want a healthy corporation. How is dismantling a corporation healthy? I would like to see them explain that. They have sacked the managing director and the board made up of industry and business experts undertaking a rebuild of the Power and Water Corporation because it had been run down by the previous CLP government. We had to, in the mid-2000s, commit to the $1.2bn build to deal with the rundown assets and build new assets required to meet demanding growth. Now we have the Baskerville hatchet job being applied to Power and Water to dismantle it and prepare it for sell-off. You have form; you have been there before, seen it before; and is why you were voted out of power before.
If you believe there are Territorians who do not have a crystal clear recollection of the actions of the ailing CLP in the 1990s, you are deluded. Everyone is saying they can see it going back to the 1990s with these actions ...
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Can we get an orderly in here with a box of tissues for the Leader of the Opposition’s crocodile tears?
Madam SPEAKER: Sit down, member for Fong Lim! There is no point or order. Sit down. Opposition Leader, you have the call.
Mr Tollner: She looks like she is going to break down.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member for Fong Lim cannot help himself. You have to throw the sexist remark in. ‘Oh, it is a woman and she looks like she is going to break down. Get her some tissues’. Dave, do you understand that is why people cannot stand the idea you are in that role? You are this big sexist bully.
In business and development they want to value add with downstream processing. Why not come out and say what you mean? Why not say, ‘We want to have discussions with Dow Chemicals about where we can put the plant’. We know they were interested years ago. We know the government of the day did not want it at Middle Arm, but we are serious about this. Why do you not name the downstreaming, because at some stage you will have to? You cannot keep hinting at things when you are in government. You did it in opposition, but you are in government and will be held to account for what you say and what you mean. You do not like that level of scrutiny, but that is the reality. When you say, ‘value add with downstream processing’, call it out; say you are genuinely interested in meeting with Dow Chemicals and you are going to look at where the plant will be.
Will it be at Gunn Point? Will it be at Middle Arm? You say you are looking at a second port. Where? Will you put a second port at Gunn Point, or are you going back to Glyde Point where you originally intended it to be? Start saying what you mean rather than hint because you will be asked these questions. People value a government that is a little more up-front than you have been - a small tip for you.
I will never forget the interim report of the Renewal Management Board. One of the most laughable aspects of that report - apart from the fact the only facts and figures in it were a repeat of the pre-election fiscal outlook - was the attack on the Marine Supply Base. If you want to talk about value-adding of the broader services and supply to the oil and gas industry, you cannot go past the Marine Supply Base. Yes, that Labor initiative the CLP old boys - the Renewal Management Board - found to be not viable. One wonders at what point they will sell the equity in the Marine Supply Base.
The Chief Minister went on to say, ‘with our strong environmental credentials’. That is an extraordinary statement to make. I ask, Chief Minister, if you are going to change the legislation surrounding the Environment Protection Authority and truly make it independent as had been originally promised, or are you just pretending to have strong environmental credentials? If you say there is a new order - erase the last seven months and he will not be accountable for actions there because there is a new order - is the new order a truly independent EPA? We will look forward to the amendments to the legislation coming forward and to an independent chair of the EPA, otherwise this is shallow rhetoric.
The Chief Minister spoke about the role of his mate, big Dave, as Treasurer. There is much to be said about that and many people have many comments. I will save my comments for my response to the Treasurer’s first statement. Suffice to say, many people are extremely concerned the member for Fong Lim has been appointed Treasurer.
In tourism, he tipped his hat and acknowledged Tiger Airways is back in Alice and he is delighted with that. We welcome that and acknowledge he was with SilkAir on Sunday evening. I, too, was at that function. What he failed to acknowledge is it was a joint effort between the Labor government and the tourism and hospitality industry working together that convinced SilkAir to fly to Darwin with those all-important business class seats. The economic drivers from the INPEX project - again Labor-delivered work - will see SilkAir increase its flights to what could be daily flights. He did not mention the Philippine Airlines announcement of what are colloquially referred to as ‘FIFO flights’ because that seemed to take the government by surprise.
He went on to praise the Attorney-General but did not mention any of justice reform or legislative change in the new order. His summary was he is a good bloke, he is going to change the tone of debate, he is going to set a higher bar and we should all come on the journey with him. For anyone in Question Time this morning, it was Adam of old. It was Adam Giles being a bit of a buffoon, the little boy, romping around - quite the theatre. It was not even remotely a statesmanlike appearance of a new Chief Minister. If that is the tone, Chief Minister, if that is the new bar you are setting for the parliament, one wonders just how low a view you have of this parliament.
I know changes have been flagged, there will be a new order, and what we see today is part of that new order in the way the parliament has been treated with complete disrespect - disrespect to the member for Nelson, an Independent. Like it or not, he is not a member of a party in this Chamber and needs to be afforded the normal courtesies anyone is afforded regarding advice of the business of the House.
When we are provided with advice on the business of the House at 9.30 am on a sitting day, that is not normal; that is not convention. When we are advised the Chief Minister will have an indulgence statement - a term used in the Commonwealth parliament - we saw it for what it was: he was going to seek leave for his indulgence. Instead, they dressed it up and presented it as a ministerial statement. No. Even the paper on which it is printed says, ‘Chief Minister’s Address’. It was not a ministerial statement; it was pure indulgence of the member for Braitling, the illegitimate Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, who knifed the Chief Minister while he was representing the Territory in Japan. He is such a little boy he cannot even recognise in the Chamber today, in the many opportunities he has had - cannot bring himself to acknowledge in his speech the years of work and commitment his colleague, the member for Blain, contributed as Leader of the Opposition, winning the election, and then as Chief Minister. It is just all about his new order.
Debate adjourned.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Budgetary Position of the
Northern Territory
Budgetary Position of the
Northern Territory
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, the government inherited a fiscal problem from its predecessor. Territory finances were running a large annual deficit, and the Territory’s level of debt relative to income was set to be the highest among the states and territories. This situation was clearly unsustainable. This government inherited a projected $5.5bn debt from the former government. Furthermore, due to its fiscal mismanagement, the budget will be in deficit by $800m this financial year alone, and the situation is not better in the outer years.
In order to fund this overrun in expenditure, the government will be forced to borrow more which will result in increased interest repayments. To put this into context for the mums and dads in the community, this is the same as them overspending their weekly wages, racking up a credit card debt, getting another credit card or, in extreme circumstances, refinancing their home to maintain the same standard of living ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ring the bells.
A quorum is present.
Mr TOLLNER: Mr Deputy Speaker, to put the Territory’s level of debt into context for the mums and dads in the community, what the former Treasurer did is the same as them overspending their weekly wages, racking up a credit card debt, then getting another credit card or, in extreme circumstances, refinancing their home to maintain the same standard of living.
In its initial months in office, the government acted to get its finances in order quickly by implementing some strong and difficult revenue measures. We raised power and water tariffs to be more cost reflective. PWC tariffs had fallen to almost the lowest among the states which was threatening PWC’s financial viability. Clearly, PWC had been selling power at a cheaper price than producing it. We lifted some taxes and government charges to bring them into line with other jurisdictions. Independent calculations show the Territory level of taxation effort had fallen to about three-quarters of that of the other states, on average.
We also started a process of expenditure review and the mini-budget saw a range of savings measures introduced. I will not deny the emphasis to date has been on revenue-raising measures rather than expenditure-reducing measures. We understand the various revenue-raising measures have impacted directly on Territory households and businesses. We have listened and acted.
First, as announced recently by the Chief Minister, we have taken steps to reduce the impact of the necessary increase in utility tariffs. The 30% increase to power prices announced in November last year has been reduced to 20%. Water prices have dropped from their original 40% rise to 30%, and sewerage prices have dropped from 25% to 15%. Furthermore, these changes will be retrospectively applied to 1 January this year with customers credited for any additional amounts paid. The remaining and necessary 10% increase will now be phased in over time so Territorians can better manage the financial impact. A 5% increase will come into effect on 1 January 2014, and another 5% increase will be applied on 1 January 2015.
Second, we are pursuing deficit reduction in a sustainable way so as not to cause an economic downturn. The government has refined its fiscal strategy to target a return to fiscal balance in six years rather than four years and alleviating some pain for households and businesses. This will see our fiscal deficit eliminated by 2017-18.
Third, we are committed to shifting the focus of our debt reduction efforts squarely towards expenditure reduction. Some have said the government, to date, has been content to shift its own problems on to others by focusing on revenue-increasing adjustment measures rather than putting its own house in order first by focusing on expenditure-reduction methods. The government, like everyone else, has to live within its own means. It is not financially sustainable or fiscally responsible to be running up debt to the degree projected when we assumed office. It had to stop. The evidence was undeniable: subsidised utility prices and a low revenue-raising effort were significant contributors to the downward spiral in Territory finances.
I recognise we cannot expect Territory households and businesses to bear the fiscal adjustment burden alone. In tackling our fiscal target, we continue to honour our election commitments made in the lead-up to the 2012 election and, as announced in the mini-budget, have already incorporated them into our budget for the current and forward years. These total $97m ongoing from 2015-16 with key commitments including: funding for 100 additional police officers across the Northern Territory to be fully implemented by July 2014; enhanced cardiac outreach and rehabilitation services and the commencement of low-risk angioplasty services; an additional 400 elective surgeries per annum; an increase to school vouchers from $75 per student to $150 per student; and funding to improve housing properties in homelands and outstations.
As such, I confirm the first phase of fiscal adjustment has ended. As a government, we will now turn our focus to tightening our own belt. Details of the further expenditure reductions we intend to make will be announced in the Territory’s budget which will be handed down on 14 May instead of 30 April. Make no mistake, this will be a tough budget but one that is necessary to put the Northern Territory back on the right path. The Territory has traditionally had a May budget, and the revised budget date still provides adequate time to pass the budget before the end of the financial year.
The Territory takes a GST revenue hit. At this stage, I can confirm our budgetary task has been made more challenging by the volatility in the Territory’s largest revenue source - our share of the GST. The composition of the Territory’s revenue is very different from other states. About 80% of the Territory’s revenue is sourced from the Commonwealth compared to about 50%, on average, in other jurisdictions. The Territory’s reliance on Commonwealth funding means our fiscal position is highly dependent on the vagaries of Commonwealth decisions and policies. This is evident in relation to GST, which represents the largest component of the Territory’s revenue.
When the GST was introduced in July 2000, it was intended to provide a revenue windfall for the states. Prior to the GFC, the GST pool grew, on average, by 8.2% per annum. However, following the global financial crisis, average annual growth in the GST pool has fallen to 2.1%. The slower growth in the GST pool reflects changes in consumer spending patterns and an increasing propensity for households to save. The slower growth in GST revenue has been compounded by risk to the Territory’s share of the GST pool.
Earlier this month, the Commonwealth Grants Commission released its 2013 update which recommended a decrease in the Territory’s GST relativity. If accepted by the Gillard government, this cut in our GST relativity will result in the Territory’s share of the GST pool falling from 5.7% in 2012-13 to 5.4% in 2013-14. In dollar terms, this will result in an ongoing $100m-plus decrease in the Territory’s GST’s share. That is the equivalent of ripping $3.7bn from New South Wales or $2.4bn from Victoria. Such cuts would not happen in either of those southern states.
While the GST relativities fluctuate each year, we are disappointed with the Commonwealth Grants Commission’s 2013 update recommendations. The main reason given by the Commonwealth Grants Commission was a fall in the Territory’s share of the national Indigenous population between the 2006 and 2011 Census. Between the 2006 and 2011 Census, the Territory’s Indigenous population increased by 8% compared to 30% nationally. In Victoria and the ACT, the Indigenous population increased by over 40%, largely because more people in these states identified themselves as being Indigenous for the first time in the 2011 Census.
The application of preliminary 2011 Census-based Indigenous population estimates alone decrease the Territory’s GST revenue by $121m. Effectively, the Grants Commission is suggesting the Territory could spend $121m less per annum on services to Indigenous Territorians and still be able to provide an average level of services. This is grossly inaccurate and does not reflect the Territory’s circumstances. You cannot compare the circumstances of an Indigenous person living at Yuendumu with someone living in Sydney or Melbourne.
I will be attending a Standing Council on Federal Financial Relations meeting next month to discuss the Grants Commission’s 2013 update. I will take this opportunity to raise my objections to the Grants Commission’s recommendations. It is likely, however, my plea will fall on deaf ears in Canberra. If so, we will need to focus to an even greater extent on improving the efficacy with which the government provides services and infrastructure, as well as ensuring the outputs delivered by government agencies remain appropriate and effective. Government inefficiency and waste must be eliminated.
Turning to the previous government’s lack of budgetary discipline, the issues we intend to tackle can be illustrated by the following statistics. When the current budget year, 2012-13, appeared in the forward estimates in the May 2009 budget, total expenses in the Territory’s general government sector for 2012-13 were projected to be around $4.3bn. By the time the election came around in August last year, the estimate of total expenses in the 2012-13 year had risen to about $4.8m, an incredible increase of $0.5bn or 12%. Over the same period, total revenue in the Territory’s general government sector in 2012-13 rose by only around 7% between its first projection in the May 2009 budget and the August 2012 pre-election fiscal outlook.
If growth in the 2012-13’s total expenses had been restrained to this growth evident in total revenue, which was around 7%, total expenses in 2012-13, when we assumed office, would have been around $200m less than projected.
Clearly, the previous government found it difficult to control expenditure, and if it continued on the path of overspending and increasing debt it would have resulted in even tougher economic decisions being required now. Furthermore, increasing debt servicing costs are a drag on the economy as they divert previous funds from programs and projects to pay interest. Clearly, the previous government cannot be trusted to manage the Territory’s finances.
I can illustrate this further. Since the May 2007 budget, just before the global financial crisis, the actual outcome for total expenses each year in the Territory’s general government sector has been some 4% higher than the amount budgeted for, for that year. This implies the average overrun each year in operating expenditure in the Territory’s general government sector, relative to the amount budgeted, has averaged around $170m annually.
Furthermore, coming into government we found the previous government left an unfunded legacy expenditure commitment with a cost estimated by agencies of over $600m over the forward estimates period. We considered them all in the context of our government’s priorities and made provision for over half of the commitments, which primarily relate to demand-driven services and are to be funded in the current year and over the forward estimates.
Some of the legacy commitments funded by this government include: over $50m for Police, Fire and Emergency Services; $115m for the Children and Families function; $21m for Correctional Services; and $59m for Health, including funding to operate a medi-hotel, the emergency department in Alice Springs, remote mobile breast screening and secure care facilities.
As I have said, the previous government, under the stewardship of the member for Karama, obviously found expenditure control very difficult. As a government, if we are not focused on responsible financial management, this will continue. The lack of fiscal rigour and economic mismanagement demonstrated by the former Labor Treasurer, the member for Karama, will not happen under my watch.
Turning to enhanced budget monitoring, the estimates of expenditure in the coming budget year 2013-14 will be announced when the budget is brought down on 14 May. We will adopt rigorous processes and procedures to ensure we come in at, or under, these budgeted amounts. Enhancing the existing budget monitoring system is critical as it will provide assurance that individual agencies are properly managing their budget allocations and any genuine emerging trends are identified as early as possible, thereby ensuring corrective action is planned and undertaken at the earliest opportunity. To date, monitoring of agency financial performance in the Northern Territory public service has been limited in its effectiveness. It is not involved in or been preceded by formal before-the-event scrutiny of business plans, let alone agreement on financial objectives and targets, and after-the-event monitoring has often been left until it is far too late - in the final months of the year. Accordingly, I announce an enhanced budget monitoring process will commence from 2013-14.
Key to this will be a Budget Management Committee, a subcommittee of Cabinet with a membership comprising the Chief Minister, Treasurer, and a nominated line agency minister. The Budget Management Committee will review Budget Cabinet submissions prior to progressing to the full Budget Cabinet with a view to ensuring submissions are consistent with the government’s overall priorities and are thoroughly costed, provide ongoing oversight, where appropriate, of the implementation of key budget decisions and of new policy initiatives with significant financial implications, and oversight a rolling program of review of agency corporate or strategic plans to ensure alignment with the government’s priorities and desired outcomes.
More generally, I expect the Budget Management Committee will scrutinise actual performance of each agency against agreed goals and targets on a quarterly basis in December, March, June and September, with greater scrutiny on those where corrective action is required. Furthermore, a mid-year budget review process will be undertaken in September of this year by the Departments of the Chief Minister and Treasury and Finance. This review will look at the resources allocated to agencies in the budget and forward estimates and the use of those resources and their alignment with government’s strategic direction. The review will provide options to redirect resources within whole-of-government existing resources, either within an agency or between agencies, to best meet government’s objectives. The outcome of the review will be provided to Cabinet for consideration in October/November 2013.
I wish to assure the House no more in the Northern Territory will there be unequivocal acceptance of one-off Commonwealth infrastructure grants without a Cabinet-approved appropriation for ongoing operational expenditure. We will work in partnership with the Commonwealth to ensure enhanced services are provided to Territorians in a coordinated manner.
I now turn my attention to the reform of the Power and Water Corporation. The government expects the Power and Water Corporation to tighten its belt by delivering on a range of efficiency measures. The government is committed to minimising the need for future tariff increases in excess of annual movements in the CPI. To this end, PWC has an intense change program ahead of it which requires new people and skills. To facilitate the reforms necessary, the government has moved quickly to appoint a new board and Managing Director in a transition/interim capacity to immediately commence implementation of the changed program. In coming months, the board will be expanded by the appointment of non-executive directors with the necessary mix of experience and skills to provide the ongoing leadership and vision for the new PWC. Refreshing the PWC Board and appointing a new Managing Director will materially assist implementation of necessary reforms within the Power and Water Corporation.
The Chief Minister, the Treasurer, and the Minister for Essential Services will oversight PWC’s reform program with the support of their agencies. Strong central coordination is essential to the reform process as is strong oversight of PWC. This coordination and oversight will centre on a reform road map to be agreed between the government and the PWC Board. As the shareholding minister, I will be holding the new PWC Board to account for delivering on the full range of efficiency measures identified.
Indeed, my expectation is the Power and Water Corporation Board will exceed the targets set without putting in jeopardy existing service reliability standards. The board will be charged with monitoring and enforcing management’s accountability for progress against objectives and targets set by the government as PWC’s owner.
In addition, the new board has been asked to consider the creation of stand-alone businesses …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ring the bells.
We have a quorum.
Mr TOLLNER: In addition, the new board has been asked to consider the creation of stand-alone businesses or, alternatively, the establishment of subsidiary entities within a holding company model. This would provide the opportunity to redefine executive roles within the corporation and introduce further new talent into the organisation.
All these changes are intended to ensure PWC continues to provide a high grade of service at the least possible cost. Privatisation is not on the agenda.
In conclusion, we inherited a projected $5.5bn debt from the former government. We implemented some painful but necessary revenue-raising strategies. We have listened to Territory people and businesses and lessened the immediate burden on them. We have revised our fiscal strategy to target a return of the budget to a fiscal balance by 2017-18, despite also having taken a further unwarranted slug in GST revenue from the Labor government in Canberra. We will tighten our belts and immediately implement rigorous and responsible processes and procedures to ensure government comes in on budget, and have taken action to refresh and reform the Power and Water Corporation. We have put the Territory back on a sustainable path which will provide long-term benefits for all Territorians.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the statement to the House and move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is certainly a terrible statement but not surprising given one of the first things the Treasurer said on taking up the important portfolio was it would be a terrible budget. He did not say it would be a tough budget, he said it would be a terrible budget. What an admission up-front from the incoming Treasurer. In relation to the CLP and fiscal management, we have had three Treasurers in seven months. Could you have got it more wrong? Labor was in government for just over 11 years and had two Treasurers …
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: That got them going; they arced up a bit. They are still a rabble, still shouting. They cannot help themselves. Still going. In your own time. Have you finished yet?
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: Do you want to call them again? In their own time.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: When we are ready, Treasurer.
Ms LAWRIE: Okay. So …
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: Really. Syd Stirling and I ...
Mr Tollner: Clare was the first.
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, I stand corrected. Clare did the mini-budget and very quickly handed it on to Syd Stirling and then, me - Treasurer for five years …
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: I was Treasurer for five years. John Elferink made six days. Is that a record? He was dumped after six days. That is a record, is it not? They took Lia out of Cabinet after six days too. That was a shocker. People are still talking about that. That was unnecessarily mean, but you get that.
It is a terrible statement but the Treasurer, early days, said it was going to be a terrible budget. He did not say it would be a tough budget; he said it would be terrible. That is because he does not know what he is doing.
The first point in your statement shows you do not know what you are doing because the financial position of the Territory is the same as that provided to the CLP in opposition prior to the election. The numbers you quoted are wrong. I will give you a tip - the member for Araluen got it wrong consistently. The fiscal imbalance is not the deficit. The deficit figures appear separately. The fiscal imbalance is the fiscal imbalance. If you want to quote the fiscal imbalance figures at $800m-plus, that is the fiscal imbalance. If you want to quote the deficit, it is around $380m-odd – a big difference. You are going to make yourself look like a buffoon if you keep getting it wrong.
The member for Araluen got it wrong consistently. She got it so wrong we stopped pulling her up on it because everyone knew it was embarrassing. I will pull you up in the early days when you confuse the deficit with the fiscal imbalance. You can either continue to do that and look like a buffoon or start understanding the books.
Presented in the Treasurer’s statement are exactly the same numbers for fiscal imbalance as appeared in the pre-election fiscal outlook. What the Treasurer likes to bang on about is, ‘We had to take remedial action and we recognise it has been on the side of revenue. Do not worry, we have shifted our focus in this new phase and it will be about us tightening our belts and ensuring we constrain expenditure’.
Let us look at the action of the CLP versus the rhetoric. They paid the Renewal Management Board over $1m in salary alone in just six months to assess the budget figures. The figures are exactly as they were in the pre-election fiscal outlook handed down by the Under Treasurer they sacked on coming to government.
They hiked up power and water prices by 30% then we had a mini-budget. We have had three Treasurers and, all along, with every action they have taken, the figures have been the same. They are exactly the same figures that appeared in the pre-election fiscal outlook.
They replaced the power and water price increases with a hike of 20% followed by a further 5% next year and 5% the year after. They then said the budget is delayed because they need more time to assess the position, yet the figures have not changed. The numbers are still exactly the same as they were seven months ago before the election.
All these claims about finding out the true state of the books are made up, and this statement proves it. The only thing they go to are the references in the Renewal Management Board progress report. I am still waiting for the final, but they have left the Territory. What a joke! If you are going to pay people $1m of taxpayers’ funds can they at least produce a final report before they leave the Territory? The numbers they refer to as ‘future liabilities’ - anyone who knows anything about agencies and budgets would understand that across repairs and maintenance and pressure points within budget growth and demand, there is always potential.
Ask the agencies every October for their bids and you will get in the vicinity of $700m to $800m worth. You could call every one future liabilities. They are all demand pressure points; they are all repairs and maintenance requirements. The point of a budget and a Budget Cabinet is to decide what the priorities are. This nonsense of future liabilities makes you a laughing stock to anyone who understands budgets. Talking to professors at different universities, they cannot believe anyone put their name to the Renewal Management Board’s progress report. Where is the final?
The same numbers appearing in the Treasurer’s statement appeared in the pre-election fiscal outlook. These were the numbers the CLP used to campaign on cutting the cost of living. They are using the same numbers as justification now for increasing the cost of living – the same figures the CLP was complaining about before the election saying power prices were too high. Let us not forget the media release where Terry Mills said, ‘Send your power bill to Paul Henderson to pay’. Using the same figures, they now say power prices were too low.
I am glad the Treasurer chose to put our financial position into the context of the mums and dads. How many mums and dads would love it if their entire mortgage and debt was only 66% of their combined annual income? That is our situation. A Territory family on a combined annual income of $100 000 would love to have a total mortgage and debt of only $66 000. How many mums and dads would love it if the interest payment on their mortgage was only 8% of their annual income? That is our situation, the same as it was in the 1990s when Barry Coulter and Mike Reed were describing our financial situation as sound.
The Treasurer is saying any mum or dad who has a debt of more than 66% of their annual income is financially irresponsible. He is calling tens of thousands of Territory families and businesses financially incompetent. The Treasurer’s analogy about getting a credit card to pay off the credit card is totally wrong. He must have stolen that from the Peter Chandler file.
A budget management committee is their fiscal strategy. This means Dave Tollner and Adam Giles, and a minister of their choice, will decide the budget, locking out the rest of Cabinet. I am curious to know if the other minister will be Alison Anderson. In the integrity of process, of course every government has a budget subcommittee. Every budget subcommittee overlooks any bid going to Cabinet with a financial request attached to it - that is normal. That happened under the Labor government and happens under governments around the nation.
One wonders why Dave is beating his chest about this new process of scrutinising corporate reports and business plans of agencies. That is exactly what the Territory 2030 subcommittee of Cabinet was doing. Of course, Territory 2030 is a forbidden term. No planning for the future under the CLP government; scrap that and take it down from the websites. Do not mention it and hope everyone forgets about it. How shallow do you believe Territorians are?
The Treasurer complained about losing $100m as a result of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. When it first occurred, in the relativities and indigeneity resets, he blamed Wayne Swan. In his rhetoric today he is blaming Julia Gillard, when neither is to blame. The relativities and definitions are defined by the Commonwealth Grants Commission not Julia Gillard or Wayne Swan.
You can attend the Standing Council on Federal Financial Relations ministerial meeting in Canberra and hear what Treasurers from around the states have heard from consecutive federal leaders, whether they be Liberal or Labor: the relativities set by the Commonwealth Grants Commission are noted not changed. Unless, of course, Tony Abbott sticks to his word and backs up his rhetoric if he ever becomes Prime Minister of our nation. The one person who has altered from that path - federal leadership - has been Tony Abbott. He has sided with the southern states, his Liberal mates, and says it should be done on a population carve-up. That would be catastrophic for the Northern Territory.
Put your ideological hatred of a Labor government in Canberra aside, Dave Tollner, and get a grip. The Commonwealth Grants Commission sets the relativities, not the federal government of the day - not Julia Gillard or Wayne Swan. When you get it so significantly wrong in your statement you really make a fool of yourself.
Every Territorian would agree our funding should not be cut. The Treasurer talked about the contraction in the GST pool. I heard members opposite berate me about losing money. When we talked about the contraction in the GST pool we seemed to be making it up. We lost $700m in GST as a result of the global financial crisis and contraction in the pool. Yet, all of a sudden it is acknowledged by the new Treasurer. The hypocrisy knows no bounds.
When in Canberra, I challenge the Treasurer of the Northern Territory to explain to his state colleagues why he gave up $135m in health and hospital capital funding. They would find that extraordinary. There would not be a Treasurer around the table who has not been presented with a capital funding opportunity by the Commonwealth which needed to find the recurrent for the program and funding. They do not turn their back on it.
We all take it because there is a dramatic need in our health systems across the nation. Dave, confess to your mates you knocked back $135m and watch how quickly they have a chat to the federal Treasurer of the day offering an opportunity to take that capital in health funding and put it to good use in their state or the ACT. You really are a laughing stock.
The government has suddenly broken the promise to return to surplus within four years. Willem Westra van Holthe broke that promise on a Sunday. Notably, he was not Treasurer; he had been dumped as Treasurer. The Treasurer at the time the promise was broken was the member for Fong Lim, Dave Tollner. However, popping up on our television news was the Primary Industry minister, Willem Westra van Holthe, explaining the government had looked at the figures again and will not be able to reach the fiscal balance in the time frame set - code for breaking the promise on returning to surplus. They made this promise on numbers that are still the same.
You say it will take six years. This statement commits to a surplus in 2017-18. Six years for a surplus - unbelievable. You really are on a spendathon. We will get to the bottom of it when we get to estimates, but stretching it out to 2017-18 - where is the money going? Roughly speaking, $370m has been stripped out of the capital and recurrent budgets already. Where is it going? There are many questions.
We will be enjoying ourselves in the estimates period ...
Mr Conlan: I do not think you will.
Ms LAWRIE: I have to pick up on the interjection from the member from Greatorex. Exactly how many days did you spend on the junket overseas in Europe? Sixteen days on a junket to Europe? That is a record. We will have to do some research on this, but I cannot recollect, even under the previous CLP government, a minister taking a 16-day junket to Europe.
It is extraordinary and unbelievable. Sending your media releases off, ‘Yes, here I am. I am in London with my friend, in Germany with my friend’. A 16-day junket and you expect Territorians to believe you are tightening your belt ...
Mr CONLAN: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! We need to pull up the ex-Treasurer for misleading parliament. It was nowhere near a 16-day trip. She should withdraw because it was not a 16-day trip. It was not a junket, but nevertheless, it was not 16 days.
Ms LAWRIE: You can give a personal explanation if you want, Matt. Off to Europe - we do not even know all the places you visited. By all means, make a ministerial statement explaining what you did on your junket to Europe and let us know how much you spent …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we get back on track, please.
Ms LAWRIE: Let us know how much taxpayers’ money you spent while the Treasurer is telling us you have listened to Territorians and are going to rein in expenditure. Do not worry about the junket the member for Greatorex took to Europe ...
Mr Conlan: I will be going plenty of times, mate.
Ms LAWRIE: It is all good and he tells us he is going again. That is fantastic - going plenty of times, he tells us ...
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Opposition Leader, can you please get to the point and continue. I have had enough of this banter back and forth so let us get to the point.
Ms LAWRIE: That is fine, but I am following Standing Order 51. If he interjects I will pick up on it because that way it gets into the Parliamentary Record and I can ensure it gets out to the relevant people who will be very interested in the comments he is making in this Chamber.
Someone asked me last week how much it cost government to get all the officials required for Budget Cabinet to Alice Springs in airfares and accommodation at the indulgence of the new Chief Minister. How much would that cost? How many different officials would be required to fly to Alice Springs and be put up for however many days? How long did they appear and how much value for money was it? They are genuine questions people ask and I can make rough assessments because, as a former Treasurer, I have an idea of how many officials you need to get to Budget Cabinet for questioning and to provide advice. You could do it on a tight team of six if you wanted to. You would need six return airfares and two or three days accommodation given the amount of time they would need to be there to support Budget Cabinet. That adds up; that is a fairly significant expenditure of taxpayers’ funds and an indulgence of the new Chief Minister. ‘Everyone can come to me, I am in Alice Springs. Everyone can come to me at a whim. I will decide Budget Cabinet will be in Alice Springs with no thought to what it would cost’.
We have a statement committing to a surplus in 2017-18, predicting the financial position in six years time. There is a reason why budgets only have a forward estimates across four years – no one can predict six years time. However, Dave Tollner, the new Treasurer, is resetting the financial predictions that can be made and is predicting out to six years time beyond the forward estimates, certainly beyond the life of this parliament. Go for it Dave; stay in your own zone, mate.
The statement said:
- … we are committed to shifting the focus of our debt reduction effort squarely towards expenditure reduction.
How blatantly untrue. We have power, water, sewerage, rego, bus fares - and the list goes on. There is increasing revenue everywhere. These are recurrent increases. They are not one-offs budget after budget; these increases in revenue are kicking into your coffers.
This is more head-in-the-sand stuff with the statement saying the CLP’s tax and price hikes are lower than the national average, completely ignoring the reality the cost of living here is much higher. How out of touch are you? Electricity price hikes mean people will be paying more than under the Mills scheme in just two years time.
The statement said:
- … to honour our election commitments made in the lead-up to the 2012 election ...
Can you even remember what they are? Do us a favour, be transparent and accountable. Come into this Chamber at any stage and table your election commitments. Show the Territory public what you will honour in the 2012 election commitments. I challenge you to put them on the table in the parliament and be held accountable for them.
I will be looking for the $20m port on the Tiwi Islands, sealing of the road to Wadeye, and the Government Business Centre in Borroloola. I will be looking for the details in all the contracts across the remote communities signed by Terry Mills. Is it because they have Terry’s signature on them they are no longer valid? Table all of those commitments made to people with signed contracts. I challenge the CLP, under the new order of the member for Braitling, to table your election commitments. Come clean. You will not because the commitments you had on paper and submitted to Treasury are not the extent of the commitments - we all know that.
We have seen another promise broken. Suddenly, we no longer have an extra 120 police; it is down to 100 and they are still one-and-a-half years away. The statement is all about funding those all-important fairy-dust promises in the bush, trying to pay for your unfunded signed contracts with bush communities that contain roads, railways, schools, ports, and business centres - billions of dollars worth of promises and nothing costed. We are dealing with cuts across the budgets to pay for it.
Moving Royal Darwin Hospital - what a bizarre thing to say. You are beating the drum saying there are billions of dollars of debt, yet you come up with a pie-in-the-sky $3bn regional hospital - thought bubble from the new Treasurer. Where are you going to get $3bn from? Why would you scrap Royal Darwin Hospital in the first place? Why do that when the private hospital which sits alongside it requires it? You have the Menzies School of Health, the Alan Walker Cancer Care Centre, the hospice, and all the nurses and doctors accommodation there. What on earth was going through that man’s mind when he had the thought bubble about a $3bn hospital? The most expensive hospital we have been able to find around Australia has been $2bn. What on earth were you planning on building with the $3bn? Why are you walking away from and tearing up your commitment to the people of Palmerston to build the Palmerston hospital? There is $70m on the table from the Commonwealth and we will lose it unless you build it. It had better be in this budget or the people of Palmerston will be taking members opposite who represent them well and truly to account.
We know you have scrapped the medi-hotel and cut bush health services such as renal. Your statement talked about further efficiency measures for Power and Water. That is code for tearing it down and preparing it for sell-off. The sacking of the board was preparation for that. More power prices will be a result of privatisation. That has been the path trod; it is in your DNA. That is what Liberal governments do to utilities. The statement said they are ‘minimising the need for further tariff increases’ - weasel words clearly aimed at wriggle room for more increases.
The Chief Minister has been talking up the need for more transport infrastructure but it does not appear anywhere in the Treasurer’s statement. Will it be in the mid-year review? The mid-year review, for those not aware, already happens and is tabled every year in parliament.
It is pretty tough for the member for Port Darwin to have been dumped three times from the Treasury portfolio - twice in opposition and once in government. It was certainly bad enough to be dumped for Willem the first time, and Lambley the second time, but being dumped for Dave Tollner must be the ultimate embarrassment.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this was a terrible statement from a terrible Treasurer who has already admitted he will be handing down a terrible budget.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, once again, she could not help herself; there had to be personal attacks against the member for Brennan and other members in this House. It is like it is in her DNA and as necessary for her to insult as it is to breathe. That is a tragedy and I am not going to engage in it because this is not about her, Dave Tollner, the Treasurer, or me as the member for Port Darwin, it is about the future finances of the Northern Territory.
The Leader of the Opposition keeps talking about the nett debt to revenue position of 66% and gave us an example of how a Territory family, if they had $66 000 in a $100 000 income, would be in a good position. Here is a thought. It would be a much better position to be in zero debt, something she neglected to achieve in government when given the opportunity. The successful censure motion against her fiscal mismanagement this morning was richly and well deserved.
Let us also talk about the nett debt to revenue ratio she refers to. I draw honourable members’ attention to page 8 of the 2012-13 Budget, the last calamitous budget she brought down for the Northern Territory. Of course, it only refers to the general government sector and why that is important. I will return to that shortly. If you track it over the years between 2011 and 2015-16, the nett debt to revenue ratio is 35%, 48%, 66%, 71% and 74%. Goodness, that is debt going up and up and up!
It is also important to think about financial liabilities. Let us talk about financial liabilities rather than just the debt situation because I draw honourable members’ attention to the Leader of the Opposition’s last budget paper, Budget Paper No 2 page 8. The financial liabilities to revenue ratio was 113%; the following year, 2012-13, 127%; the following year, 140%; the following year, 144%; and the following year, 146%. There is a trend. If you graph that - you do not have to, I trust honourable members to understand what I am talking about - the nett debt to revenue ratio and the nett financial liabilities to revenue ratio are both tracking in the wrong direction. They are going up, which means every year for the forward projections we would be carrying more financial liabilities and more debt than the previous year. Unfortunately, that is what we have inherited from this government, which made spending commitments to positions throughout the public service which were not budgeted for. That means the only way they could pay those public servants was to rack it up on debt.
The member for Karama was critical of the Treasurer’s response to comments about using the credit card to pay the credit card. I invite honourable members to read the Northern Territory Treasury Corporation Annual Report. You will see government managed its debt by refinancing loans. Most are for the shorter term of about five years, if memory serves me correctly, which means we are constantly refinancing loans. We are not paying off debt; we are refinancing loans and taking out more loans. That was the path the former Treasurer set us on.
The former Treasurer does not like to talk about the non-financial public sector because that incorporated the Power and Water Corporation. She only talks in general government sector terms, which means she does not have to address the debt impost the Power and Water Corporation inflicts on the Northern Territory budget. When you do, you get some very serious anomalies in the Treasury position.
I draw honourable members’ attention to the uniform presentation framework for the general government sector, where she likes to hide every time she speaks. I compare the debt from 2011-12 to her projected debt in 2015-16 which goes from $1.68bn to $3.62bn. She says that is manageable because we have a wonderful income attached to it. However, if you add the Power and Water Corporation and a couple of other GOCs and GBDs, you suddenly run into the non-financial public sector balance sheet which shifts from $2.8bn to $5.6bn over the same period. Consequently, you end up with a much more serious fiscal position.
I heard what the member for Nelson said in relation to decisions taken by the new government regarding the Power and Water Corporation. I was part of and supported those decisions because they were necessary to help recover the debt situation which is ballooning out of control. We asked much of the Territory population. For the brief time I was Treasurer of the Northern Territory I was mindful of the challenges facing the budget.
The new Treasurer, new Chief Minister and Cabinet revisited the decisions and decided to push out the return to surplus by two years. That was not so much prompted by the situation around the Power and Water Corporation, but more the fall in the GST revenue by virtue of the reallocation surrounding indigeneity in the Grants Commission’s disabilities for the Northern Territory. That is a sad for us because it means we will lose, over the next forward estimates, well over $400m of revenue. That is a massive hit for the people of the Northern Territory. Consequently, you have to decide what to do.
The former Treasurer would talk about - you read it incessantly in the budget papers since the GFC - waiting for everything to return to normal and then start saving money again. I argued in opposition, and continue to argue now, that this environment is the new normal. I have seen no projection anywhere near as optimistic as saying we will return to the halcyon days of the international growth environment of early 2000.
The former government was showered in money from the GST. Not only did it receive extra money every year which was predicted, it also received extra money every year it did not - the windfall. This windfall fell into the coffers of the Northern Territory and it should have been reducing debt to zero over that time. I said it at the time and have been proved correct: the period of wealth accumulation is the period you make savings.
The previous government chose not to make savings but engage in fiscal conduct which was irresponsible at the time, and irresponsible in the sense it was competing directly with the private sector, thus heating up the economy of the Northern Territory at a time it was already growing independently of government expenditure. All the government had to do was save some of that money and it could have reduced our debt to zero.
Had it allowed the public service to increase by half the amount it did - that is not to reduce the public service or keep it at a static level – contain growth to 50% and, over the GST halcyon days, it would have succeeded in reducing the debt of the Northern Territory pretty much to zero. However, the previous government chose to spend it the moment it came in. Despite all that income, it managed to get the Territory population so far offside it determined Labor should no longer form the government of the Northern Territory. We were handed a budget which had spiralled out of control and needed to be contained.
The former Treasurer seeks to hide behind this set of numbers based on the general government sector balance sheet and say everything was sweetness and light. If you read Budget Paper No 2 from the period immediately prior to this financial year - if you go back over the financial years you can see how woefully inaccurate this Treasurer was when determining what would happen in the future. There were wild departures over the forward estimates from the predicted outcomes to actual outcomes. I invite any member of this House to go through the uniform presentation framework in Budget Paper No 2 and, for arguments sake, look at the year 2006-07 and compare the forward projection to what actually occurred. You will see how crazily optimistic the former government was in its budget projections and every single time it would say, ‘The future is rosy. Everything will be sweet; we do not have to reduce debt by too much, we can continue spending money’.
The dreadful, dastardly CLP opposition was always talking the economy down, talking the budget down and talking Territorians down. At that time it was doing nothing more than flagging the dire consequences of a government not making provision for the future. As a consequence of the failure to make provision for the future, the spend-at-all-costs philosophy, when finally a reckoning came in the size of the GST pool and a contraction, particularly in the retail sector nationally, we found ourselves exposed and, suddenly, it was the fault of the GFC. No, it was not. What occurred in the GFC was referred to on many occasions by me, and other people in this House, before it happened.
That is not to say I knew the GFC was coming, but when you have growth you also have cyclical contraction. It is as old as the hills. Whether you are a Keynesian economist or of the more classical schools of economics - both Keynes and other economists of yore would always describe a cyclical nature to the budget. In fact, Keynesian economics is largely based on the presumption of the cyclical nature of a budget and is why John Maynard Keynes had such an influence on the new deal environment in the United States in the 1930s.
However, the previous government chose to ignore the lessons of history, and those who ignore those lessons are condemned to repeat them. That is precisely what has occurred at this point. Despite people flagging caution, counselling caution, counselling restraint, the former government was utterly unrestrained in its approach and, as a consequence, we had to, unfortunately, deal with the legacy left behind.
I point out to honourable members the non-financial budget sector balance sheet projections for 2015-16 in the mini-budget reduced the forward projected debt of $5.5bn to an outcome, in 2015-16, of $4.3bn. That is concerning because the debt is still going up over that period. Of course, I am referring to the non-financial sector balance sheet rather than the general government sector balance sheet because it incorporates the effects of the Power and Water Corporation, a major contributor to our financial situation. You will see that is a reduction of about $1.3bn in the projected debt.
The decisions taken by Cabinet will affect that outcome somewhat, but we will still be $1.1bn or $1bn better off under a Country Liberals government in 2015-16 than under the Labor government. We will still be in a much better fiscal position because we have taken the necessary steps - not only external and asked people to shoulder the burden heaped upon them by the former government’s fiscal mismanagement, we have also looked inside.
We heard the Leader of the Opposition screeching about the dastardly Country Liberals and the decisions we have made. It is because she never had the intestinal fortitude to make them herself and, as a consequence, it was always about being Santa Claus. It was never about the credit card, always being Santa Claus; always trying to roll out the Labor Party message that everything was sweetness and light and do not look at the bank card.
We see the ultimate result of that fiscal conduct in Greece, Ireland, Portugal, and, more recently, Cyprus. These are not good outcomes for the people living there. We are trying, as a government, to avoid being in a situation where the implied fiscal underwriting of the Northern Territory by the federal government has to be relied upon. That is, essentially, what all those countries have - go to the central bank of Europe and look for bail-out packages.
I am dreading the idea, as Minister for Statehood, of having to say to Canberra, ‘Please give us statehood and, by the way, we need some more money to run the place’. We would be laughed out of the room. I am concerned that unless we control the fiscal irresponsibility of the former government, not only will we lose the opportunity of statehood in the future, but will face the unenviable position of a territory and have the Commonwealth try to take over financially because, as a jurisdiction, we are not showing the adequate restraint required. The Commonwealth could conceivably do that; it is within their powers to do so. In the most extreme expression of that management, they could repeal the Self-Government Act. This Chamber would make a nice library or something - perhaps an art gallery or museum. If we do not contain this, the implied underwriting of the Northern Territory’s debt by the Commonwealth is something the Commonwealth will use as a vehicle to intervene in the operations of the Northern Territory.
If we want to be taken seriously as a player on the national stage, as I do, we have to behave that way. We should not roll out the credit card and say we can do what we like in borrowings because we do not have to worry about the consequences. We, as a jurisdiction, may have to wear the consequences in ways we never predicted.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the statement by the Treasurer. I lament this Treasurer and this government have not been handed a budget in a sound condition. I lament the former government, the Northern Territory Labor Party, abandoned its fiscal responsibilities so completely that these tough decisions have to be made. I hope we could find our way through this, despite the challenges presented by the former government and, more recently, the Commonwealth Grants Commission.
Mr CONLAN (Central Australia): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I support this statement. You say it is a terrible statement. What is wrong with it?
Mr Styles: No interjections now.
Mr CONLAN: It is a big tick so it must be okay. It was delivered well. Dave speaks well. It was written well; the punctuation and grammar are good. He spoke well, he delivered it well. Perhaps the message from this statement is not so great. If that is what you mean by, ‘it is a terrible statement’, we all agree. It is a hard message to sell and talk about. The perilous state the Northern Territory budget is in, tracking to a $5.5bn debt an $800m deficit annually - that is before we have looked at the debt.
Yes, it is a rough statement. It is hard, as Treasurer of the Northern Territory when you have inherited such diabolical fiscal circumstances, to deliver good news. Yes, Dave, terrible statement, we all agree. It was beautifully written and delivered but boy, I feel for you. It is hard work to explain to Territorians there is some good news in the Territory coffers because there is not. We are tracking towards a $5.5bn debt if we continue the spending rate undertaken by the previous Labor government.
Thank goodness they are sitting over there and there is a government prepared to do whatever it takes to rein in spending and waste and, as the member for Port Darwin, the Attorney-General has highlighted, potentially save the sovereignty of the Northern Territory. The federal government will be saying, ‘You guys are hopeless. We gave you self-government 30-odd years ago as part of the push for self-governing colonies and territories. It is part of what we stand for. We gave it to you in 1978 and thought you would be able to handle it. You have turned the Northern Territory bank balance into a $5.5bn debt’. This may become a shrine when democracy in the Territory is dead. It might not become an art gallery; it might become a shrine to all things that were - the great belief and dream that was statehood, or at least self-government, destroyed by the Labor Party and those sitting opposite. Thank goodness we have people over here prepared to do the hard yards necessary to arrest this diabolical situation.
I agree; it is a tough statement. I would love it if he said, ‘We will have a wonderful cash splash on all types of things Territorians want and need’. I am sorry, we cannot do that.
We had a lecture in economics from the worst Treasurer of the Northern Territory, the fourth Treasurer in the Labor Party and easily the worst. I agree with the member for Fong Lim and have said before, sitting in opposition all those dark and lonely years - I wish the Labor Party a long stay in opposition because it will take us quite some time to get out of the hole you left. Nevertheless, we would look at your side of the parliament and see all the best players had gone. You lost Syd, lost Clare. How good do you guys make Syd, Clare and Jack Ah Kit look? Jack was pretty good. Compared to you guys, he was fantastic. Even good old Bungles Burns - he was one of the real solid blokes on your side. Hendo left. You could not count the member for Karama, clearly the worst Treasurer in the history of the Northern Territory who left us with the $5.5bn debt ...
Mr VATSKALIS: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Mr CONLAN: I am trying to pull a crowd.
Mr Vatskalis: Obviously, you are not that good.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ring the bells.
A quorum is present.
Mr CONLAN: I was commending the current Treasurer on having the intestinal fortitude to deliver bad news, look Territorians in the eye and say, ‘I am sorry, it is pretty rough’, as opposed to the former Treasurer who delivered a $5.5bn debt and an $800m annual deficit.
Team Labor, between 2001 and 2005, was pretty good because when I look at the current team and the team between 2008 and 2012 - what a mess. What a calamitous bunch. You had a team which made Clare Martin look fantastic and Syd Stirling look like a solid performer. Peter Toyne was a great member from Alice Springs who did a good job as Health minister. These were quality guys.
It was your best time, best era, and best days in the sun. You lost a big hitter in Chris Burns. Even Marion Scrymgour was okay for a while but went a little wayward. She walked away from the table, which was extraordinary. She was one of the most powerful women - an Indigenous woman if we are going down that path - in Australian politics - Deputy Chief Minister and she walked away from the table. In the lead-up to the 2012 election she retired then wanted to come back as a Senate candidate. She would have much more pull and much more to say - if she wanted to be part of the conversation, why did she retire in the first place? I could not get my head around that.
Marion, you had a seat in parliament. You were a minister and you walked away from it. Then you wanted to come back to the parliament. You wanted to come back to the conversation and debate via the Australian Senate. Why not stay where you were? Your voice was strong in the Northern Territory parliament. Many more people would be listening to you in the Northern Territory parliament than in the Australian Senate.
Today we have highlighted the $5.5bn debt we are tracking towards. This government is doing everything it can to ensure we eliminate the fiscal imbalance and the fiscal deficit by 2017-18. That is realistic. Why is everything a problem for you guys? There is always something. Crikey, you do not like too much. Talk about oppositions being a miserable lot – you take the cake.
Nevertheless, let us look at the last decade of Labor. This is how we reached the point of you sitting over there and us with a $5.5bn debt.
Law and order was probably one of the greatest failures of the Labor government apart from child protection, which was a shameful episode in Northern Territory and Australian political history. What happened with child protection under the Labor government - we all know; it is clear and was seared in the minds of all Australians how bad the Northern Territory Labor government was with child protection and how close we came to a national disaster, if not there already.
If we look at the first 10 years of the Labor government, crime rates in the Northern Territory were twice as high as the Australian average and, in most categories, significantly higher. The Police, Fire and Emergency Services Annual Report 2009-10 shows the rate of violent crime in the Territory continued to climb. There were 570 more crimes against the person in 2009-10 than in 2008-09. The rate of violent assaults rose by 80% during Labor’s decade of denial - and you are still in denial. In the last financial year previous - we are talking 2010-11 - there were 7296 crimes against the person in the Territory compared with 6226 in the previous financial year - an 8.5% increase in 12 months. On average, there were 18 crimes against the person in the Territory every single day under the Labor Party. That is why we have reached this point. Things were so out of control all they did was throw money at them.
I still hear it, it is still part of the Labor DNA, if you tune into any radio interview or television program with a Labor politician the answer is, ‘We have just put X billion dollars in. We are proud of the amount of money we put into this program’. You are so proud of the inputs but there are no outcomes. You are not proud of the outcomes because there are none. There are very few outcomes and it is, ‘We have put so many billions of dollars into such and such a program and we are very proud of it’. This is the status quo of Labor around Australia. ‘Let us put the money in and walk away from the problem. We can say we have put so much money in and have done our bit’. You have not done your bit and have come up very short.
I turn to tourism - so important. We are investing in tourism. We have seen a rapid decline - an industry which haemorrhaged under the Labor Party. Tourism is vitally important to the Northern Territory and, clearly, an industry underestimated, overlooked and not respected under the previous 11 years of Labor government. It is so much so that the Opposition Leader accuses people of junkets. Sixteen days is why our finances are in such a perilous state! I do not know how Thursday one week to Wednesday the next week equates to 16 days. Perhaps that is why we are in such a disastrous state with our finances - she cannot add up. Thursday of one week to Wednesday of the next week is somehow 16 days and equates to a junket! There will be many more trips.
The day the Minister for Tourism and Major Events of the Northern Territory, or any other minister, cannot conduct business, internationally, on behalf of the Northern Territory government is the day we pack up the books and go home because there is no hope. If we are not prepared to get on an aeroplane, go someone, and conduct business on behalf of the NT we are not helping ourselves.
You cannot do it from your desk. You tried and that is why we are in such a disastrous state. We have a disastrous state with gas to Gove, in our tourism industry, our cattle industry - the list is endless. The Montara oil spill is one of the great legacies left by the former Minister for Resources. It was a wonderful thing - the crowning glory of 10 years in government. It is disastrous. Everyone is too scared to get on an aeroplane because Nigel might write a column in the newspaper. I do not care about Nigel; I care about the Northern Territory. The work conducted on that 16-day trip, which was about six days, was …
Mr Chandler: That is how hard you worked – 16 days worth of work.
Mr CONLAN: That is what you must be confusing it with. Good point, Peter. What was undertaken felt like 16 days.
It is vitally important; we have one of the greatest products in the world. It is clear, and all you have to do is travel - if you guys bothered to leave your office, your Taj Mahal, and look at the rest of the country and the world you would see how important and valuable our asset is. Our tourism asset is, if not the best in the world, a hair from the best in the world. It is up there with the pyramids or the Amazon forest. Whatever it is, the Northern Territory and Australia is just as good. People love it. It is one of the most sought after destinations, if not the most sought after, anywhere in the world. They all want to come here, particularly Europeans.
Apparently I was lying on a banana lounge in subzero temperatures in London, having snow trickled on my head, in my speedos, for God’s sake. Yes, it was a wonderful holiday we had in freezing cold Europe.
We have the product. There is a marketing term I learnt from the guys I travel with, people from Tourism NT, a highly-qualified, highly-skilled bunch of people. We are in wonderful hands with our Tourism NT team at all levels across the board, headed by our Chief Executive Officer, Tony Mayell. The marketing term is below the line and above the line. This is probably a bit rudimentary, but is the way I understand it. Below the line is the product, which is what we have to offer. Our product is world-class. It does not get any better than the product in the Northern Territory and, broadly, in Australia. That is what everyone wants to see; everyone wants a piece of Australia. Above the line is how we get that out there - how we make our product known. You have to make some noise above the line is what the marketeers say. We need some bandwidth, some air time. It is all marketing lingo, but it is very important.
If we are not working hard showing off the Territory, marketing the Territory, this wonderful product will be underutilised. That is what we have experienced because no one bothered to get off their backside, get on an aeroplane and start making noise above the line. We do not have the budgets to compete with other countries. Singapore spent $1.2bn advertising their new casino into China - just into China. That is one country spending $1.2bn advertising their brand new casino into China. How do we compete with that? We cannot; not on a financial scale. We have to work harder and smarter.
That means getting on an aeroplane and start shaking hands with people, letting them know we exist. It is called making noise above the line, something Labor never did. That is why we have experienced this rapid decline in international tourist visitation. It is no coincidence in the last 10 years international visitation has declined. It has coincided with Labor’s failure to make some noise above the line! That is what you have to do. No one is making any noise. You were not creating the space, showing the flag, flying the flag; not showing off the Northern Territory.
Talk about junkets - there have been a few. There are some horror stories of previous Tourism ministers. Regent Street in London is a wonderful place to buy shoes. All this took place so I do not care what you say. Yes, I might grab some extra time ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, members.
I do not care what you say; it does not drag me down. I am trying to do a job on behalf of the Northern Territory and it is incumbent on all of us to do whatever it takes to bring visitors to the Northern Territory. Tourism is currently a $1.4bn industry to the Northern Territory. It is vitally important and is one of our three hubs.
We have a golden opportunity to reinvent ourselves as one of the great tourism destinations on the international market. They know about us and they love us. They do not know enough about us any longer. They are not sure. ‘How do we get there? What can we do there? Are there museums there? How big is the Northern Territory? How far is it from Darwin to Alice Springs?’ We might have a chuckle about this, but Europeans do not understand and need to know. Germany and the United Kingdom are our biggest markets. If you live through a European winter you will want to come here quick smart - it is not pleasant. It is freezing cold and you do not see the sun for six months. No wonder they want to come here and we have to ensure the lines are long.
As I was saying, it is no coincidence that decade of decline coincided with the time you guys were petrified of jumping on an aeroplane and going somewhere to do business, whether it was interstate or overseas, on behalf of the Northern Territory. You were afraid to spend a dollar to generate more. It is pathetic. How do you do business? It is like not having a telephone on your desk. The old days of, ‘Do not make any phone calls. Do not give him a telephone. He might make an international or an interstate call’. Give me a break! It is a vital tool. This is what we should all be doing and something this government is not afraid to do.
It is not about having holidays or having fun. You guys were very good at turning an international trip into a holiday. None of us who have travelled overseas have had two minutes to rub together - no time to ourselves. These things are worked pretty hard. Look at the diary of any minister who has travelled abroad or interstate and see what has been lined up for them. You will see this team, including me, like to get down to business and make every moment count.
Life is too short. This term is too short to be travelling overseas for the fun of it. I have a family as well. It takes two days to get home from Europe. It is not the most pleasant thing. I will be going to China, Hong Kong and the United States to deliver the same message. Do you know how many Northern Territory representatives we have in Europe? Does anyone know? Hello? Is that a tic? No one knows. Let the record note no one in opposition, including the former Tourism minister, has any idea how many Northern Territory representatives we have placed around the world.
It is frightening to think how little emphasis you place on this, yet you are the first to kick and scream when international visitation is down. The member for Johnston will be jumping up and down saying, ‘Conlan has been doing this for 12 months. Look at the figures, international visitation is still down. What a waste of time, what a hopeless minister Conlan is. Do not go overseas to drum up business, do not do that. I want you to stay in Alice Springs. Come to Darwin occasionally for parliament, but stay in Alice Springs. Do not go anywhere. Do not meet anyone. It is your fault if international visitation is down’. It does not work like that. The Northern Territory, being a small jurisdiction, has to work that much harder. All the states have to work that little bit harder to generate business into the Northern Territory - inbound travellers, international visitation into the Northern Territory - because we do not have the money to compete with the rest of the world.
I went to ITB. Has anyone in Labor visited the biggest international tourism fair in the world? Hello? Has anyone been there? Any former tourism ministers go to ITB? Do any former tourism ministers know what ITB is? I did not think so. You can see why we are at such a disadvantage and have such a problem on our hands. No one over there knows what these things are.
ITB is the biggest tourism trade fair in the world. It is enormous. The scale may be 10 Sydney Convention Centres layered on top of each other. The Europeans do not mess around; they take it seriously. ITB is like a tour of the world. Tiny countries - Zanzibar - have massive stands full of operators. All the tourism operators from this tiny country have huge, colourful stands with dancers and acts - they were belly dancing. It is unbelievable. It shows you where we are in the world.
You have little old Northern Territory with very little budget. We shared our stand with Tourism Australia, New Zealand, Qantas and all the operators. Other tiny countries are making noise above the line because they recognise their product is pretty good - not as good as ours. They get visitors because they are making noise above the line. They are there and, occasionally, even their minister turns up. You would be surprised how many ministers have travelled internationally promoting the Northern Territory in the last decade or so - very few. I was amazed at how well-received a minister was on these trips.
Conducting business on behalf of the Northern Territory is one thing. You can send a number of people but, if you are there as head of government or the top of the tree - that is the way they see ministers travelling around the world - they think, ‘These guys are serious and super-enthusiastic. I will give you the time of day’. That is how you strike up deals and build relationships. Tourism is about relationships and price. If you can develop a relationship with someone - an airline, a high commissioner, an inbound or outbound tour operator, a wholesaler – if you forge a relationship with that person and come back to see them again, you would be amazed what you are able to achieve. It is all about putting yourself in that space at a ministerial level and making some noise above the line. I make no apologies for it. I will be doing more of it. It is incumbent on all of us to be out there, wherever it is – internationally or across the Territory - making noise above the line to ensure the Territory is recognised as the great, incredible tourism destination it is. There is nothing like it anywhere in the world. We are up there punching above our weight and have to ensure people know about it.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend this statement to the House. It was not a good statement because it was full of home truths - Labor left us with a $5.5bn debt. Shame on you.
Debate adjourned.
SERIOUS SEX OFFENDERS BILL
(Serial 18)
Continued from 14 February 2013.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to this bill and intend to raise a number of concerns the opposition has about the proposed legislation. I thank the Attorney-General’s office for accommodating me with a briefing on the bill last week. I have attended a number of briefings in the Attorney-General’s office in the last six months given the new government has been very busy and very clear about its justice reform agenda. The Attorney-General has brought many bills before the House, some routine, some not so routine, some supported by members on this side of the House, and some not. I suspect many of these bills are the Attorney-General’s personal agenda rather than a broader Country Liberal Party agenda.
As the Attorney-General himself noted during the last sittings, he knows I will always seek a briefing on any bill he brings before the House. With officers from the Department of Attorney-General and Justice, I will examine and ask questions generally of a technical nature but will leave, by and large, the bigger questions around the philosophical basis of law and its legislative instruments to the continuation of the second reading debate on the floor of the House. Today is no different.
At the outset, I express my concern about the lack of proper consultation and the absence of comprehensive legal advice around the shaping of this bill. I would be much more comfortable if the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee report, commissioned by Labor in government and provided to the new Attorney-General, was made available to us. It would be most helpful to see what the experts think. However, this bill has been rushed to give the impression of action and we have no idea if it will work.
The potential for expensive legal challenges where the cost will, no doubt, be worn by Territory taxpayers is heightened by the central role of the Attorney-General in his proposal. We should not let politicians interfere in the effective operation of justice no matter how enthusiastic they are to don wig and robes for the cameras. This is a classic case of political interference.
I understand this bill follows in the footsteps of four other jurisdictions - New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia and Victoria - in introducing legislation which seeks to allow for the continued and preventive detention or supervision of serious sex offenders post-sentence. Whilst I note similar legislation exists in these other jurisdictions, it does not always follow the Northern Territory needs to, or should, fall into line with other states and territories. That, in itself, is not always a reason to adopt legislation unless it comes via COAG through reforms implemented with Commonwealth legislation which does require states and territories to come on board. This aside, each jurisdiction must consider its own law reform agenda within its own legislative environment and context.
Why should we be beholden to the legislative approach of southern states when it comes to sentencing? Indeed, at times they should be looking to us for guidance. In my opinion, tinkering with Queensland legislation is not good enough. We need laws which suit Territory conditions and are reflective of our sentencing regime which is effective and often quoted as the toughest in the nation.
There is no evidence to confirm the principle of this bill:
- … to enhance the safety and protection of the community, particularly victims of serious sex offences.
and:
- … facilitate the treatment and rehabilitation of such offenders.
will be met by the proposed legislation as it stands. This bill delivers on a commitment of the Attorney-General to introduce a private members’ bill which he put before the House when in opposition, which was not supported and, ultimately, failed.
It is important for me to note we, on this side of the House, are as passionate as anyone, irrespective of party political allegiances, to the protection of members of the community, including those who are most vulnerable, from individuals who would inflict harm on the innocent, be it violent offenders or sexual offenders. I must be very clear about that.
The opposition understands the intent of this bill and has no argument with its stated goals. However, we believe enhancing our existing laws will be more effective and less open to legal challenge.
Shortly, I will address some of the important and much-debated issues associated with preventative detention. First, I need to raise why there is a need for this bill in the first place, and why the Territory’s existing legislative framework cannot accommodate this matter of detaining serious sex offenders.
Why could amendments not be made to the Northern Territory Sentencing Act, Division 5, Subdivision 4, Indefinite sentences for violent offenders, which already has provisions in place to deal with the detention of violent offenders? Could not clause 65(1) of the Sentencing Act be amended by adding the offences set out in Schedule 1, Class 1 offences, of the Child Protection (Offender Reporting and Registration) Act 2004 to the existing list of offences which define violent offence for the purpose of this subdivision? Further, by amendment, then replace the term ‘violent offence’ in the subdivision with the term ‘serious violent or sexual offence’ and rename Subdivision 4, Indefinite sentences for serious, violent and sexual offenders.
It is not only me who suggests looking at using and amending the Sentencing Act; this is legal practitioners in the Territory, including the Criminal Lawyers Association of the NT, which considers this a good option and better alternative to this current bill. To this end, I ask the Attorney-General to explain which experts and stakeholders he has consulted and what advice he has taken on board from legal practitioners.
I commend the Attorney-General for the round of public consultations held in November 2011 to address seven proposed bills. Consultations were held in Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs and Darwin, but not in Nhulunbuy because, according to the Attorney-General, we are not on the Stuart Highway and, therefore, will not be included in consultations even though we are a township of 4000 in a region of 10 000 people. Whilst these were labelled ‘consultation sessions’, they were really information sessions with some questions and answers, and held when most bills were still being drafted and not introduced in parliament.
Both the Criminal Lawyers Association of the Northern Territory and NAAJA approached the Attorney-General, me and, I suspect, the member for Nelson, to voice their concerns and objections to this bill. We have yet to understand what happened to the reference to the NT Law Reform Committee. A major concern is the direct involvement of the Attorney-General in the judicial process, whether it be in the Territory or the other four jurisdictions which have this legislation. This bill allows the Attorney-General to make application for continued detention or supervision of an offender rather than leaving such judgments in the hands of the judiciary. As long as we have a politician with that power, I remain, as do others, unconvinced the separation of powers is clear and untainted and judicial independence is free from political interference.
The Attorney-General in his second reading speech points out:
- … it is essential that any legislation creating a regime that allows for detention does not encroach to an unacceptable extent on the principles of the justice system and the rule of law. It must also contain safeguards and ensure the legislation is not abused.
I appreciate these sentiments of the Attorney-General. Indeed, there must be safeguards in place to ensure the legislation is not abused or used to political advantage. I would like to hear more on this from the Attorney-General when he responds because I am not convinced. As I said, I am not alone.
For that matter, nor was Justice Michael Kirby, one of the seven judges who presided over the 2004 Fardon v Attorney-General (Qld) case which was heard before the High Court and which held that the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 Queensland was constitutionally valid.
Justice Kirby, the only dissenting judge in that pivotal case which opened the door for such legislation noted:
- Recent, and not so recent, experience teaches me that governments and parliaments can, from time to time, endeavour to attract electoral support by attempting to spend the reputational currency of the independent courts in the pursuit of objectives which legislators deem to be popular. Normally, this will be constitutionally permissible and legally unchallengeable … Evaluation and judgement are required of judicial decision-makers responding, as they must, to enduring values, not to immediate acclaim.
Correspondence to me from the President of the Criminal Lawyers Association of the Northern Territory, Mr Russell Goldflam, stated:
- CLANT is seriously concerned at the potential politicisation of what are in effect sentencing decisions. Such decisions should be kept at arm’s length from government: that’s what the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is for. Although this legislation is not, strictly speaking, concerned with sentencing or criminal procedure, the effect on an inmate made subject to a custodial supervision order will be indistinguishable from having a further sentence of imprisonment imposed.
Under this scheme an elected politician could, in the final days of an offender’s lengthy sentence, institute proceedings to prevent the offender being released to the community. This could give rise to a reasonable apprehension that such proceedings had been commenced at least in part for political or electoral reasons.
Furthermore, it is unfair on prisoners, and inimical to their rehabilitation, for them to serve their entire sentence without knowing whether or not, just as the sentence is about to expire, the government of the day will seek to have them further detained, and for an indefinite period.
I know the Attorney-General will want to point to the four other jurisdictions which have introduced similar legislation - under Labor administrations what is more. However, the point of contention around the role of the Attorney-General in making the application for continued preventative detention or supervision remains not just for the opposition or Justice Kirby but for the Territory, particularly the judiciary and the legal profession.
We have a new Attorney-General with a law degree and a prior career in policing who is hell-bent on reform at all costs and has adopted what some might describe as an interventionist approach to law reform, and one which is not always based on evidence but rather his opinion.
This is exactly what he said when I put it to him during the February debate around minimum mandatory sentencing laws. In the face of so much evidence saying it was not the right path to go down, he said he pursued it because it was his opinion. This smacks of not only a degree of arrogance, but a disregard for the competency of the legal profession and the judiciary, and a total lack of regard for the separation of powers.
This has been further highlighted by the Attorney-General recently appearing in court, much to the amazement and a degree of bemusement of the legal fraternity, to assist the Solicitor-General of the Northern Territory in a case. The legal water boy is how he described himself during this most unusual episode of what can be described as little more than work experience.
The introduction of this bill, which sees a process initiated by the Attorney-General to extend the detention or supervision of serious sex offenders, serves only further to highlight his interventionist and populist approach overriding the processes of the judiciary, presumably because he has no faith in them to do their job.
Let me turn to the contentions of the philosophy and premise of the bill associated with preventive detention and sentencing. The opposition has less of an issue with continued supervision orders for offenders because they are not entirely unreasonable. However, the main concern comes from the proposed preventative detention of offenders on the basis they have already served a sentence for an offence they have committed, but will be further and indefinitely detained for a crime they have not committed, but might commit.
Preventive detention regimes for persons regarded as dangerous already exist across many jurisdictions both here and overseas. Suspected terrorists, individuals with severe mental illnesses or intellectual impairment, those with certain infectious diseases whose detention is in the interests of public health, and high risk offenders, can be detained in order to prevent serious harm to people in the wider community. Controversially, and topical currently - it has been for the past few years - has also been the detention of unlawful non-citizens for the purpose of either deportation or waiting processing of an application to determine eligibility to enter or remain in Australia. This preventive detention regime breaches some serious principles of law, not the least of which is that of liberty.
In his second reading speech, the Attorney-General alluded to this when he noted:
- Legislation that allows for the detention or supervision of an offender post-sentence clearly touches on important legal principles.
And further:
- The High Court has held the purpose and application of this type of legislation to be lawful.
No argument there.
While this may be the case with the ruling of the High Court in the 2004 Fardon case, it does not mean the issue of preventive detention is a closed case. While the High Court has affirmed the legal and constitutional validity of such legislation in Australia, it is most unlikely to be the last word on it.
Professor Bernadette McSherry is a leading Australian academic who has written extensively on the issue of preventive detention and is unrelenting in her criticism of statutes such as those this bill will deliver for a number of reasons; in particular, because it breaches Australia’s human rights obligations pursuant to international law. However, she also warns:
- The High Court decision signals the opening of the door for preventive regimes across Australia and may also lead to the enactment of legislation allowing for the preventive detention of other categories of prisoners.
That is a valid point. Professor McSherry and others also go to emphasis placed on risk and assessing risk:
- Preventive detention and supervision regimes relating to sex offenders rely on the evidence of psychiatrists and psychologists in assessing the risk of future harm.
While she notes there has been growth in the risk assessment techniques used, it remains a ‘notoriously difficult task’.
The issue of predicting dangerousness is taken up by many academics and researchers, including a paper from NSW by Honor Figgis and Rachel Simpson, who stated:
- The dangerous person with a career of seriously injuring others is relatively rare and virtually impossible to identify in advance. Research studies have pointed consistently to the conclusions that individual assessments of dangerousness are more likely to be wrong than right, and that errors largely result from the exercise of excessive caution.
Back then to McSherry, who stated:
- No assessment procedure can predict risk with certainty, and this can have serious repercussions when a person’s liberty is at stake.
I look at Part 8 Division 1 of the bill which deals with medical assessment orders and reports. I need to clarify one matter within Part 8 Division 1. The second reading speech refers to an independent expert but that distinction is not made here. I need to clarify that, as per the briefing I was provided with last Friday, that these experts are independent and not employees of the Northern Territory public service.
The reliability of forensic psychiatric assessments and the measuring of risk will remain to be seen beyond what is contained in the bill. I appreciate the bill cannot encompass everything, but we will be watching to see how these assessments are identified and how they are proposed to work.
Part 8 Division 2 of the bill deals with victims’ submissions. I welcome the fact victims of serious sex offenders have a voice in the process. Clause 84(1), the content of victim submissions:
- In a victim submission a registered person may set out his or her views about any of the following:
- (a) the impact the offender’s offending has had on the victim or other persons;
(b) whether the offender is a serious danger to the community;
- the submission is admissible as evidence …
While we would welcome giving victims a voice to describe the crime and its impact on them, the court is required to take account of a victim’s opinion of whether the offender is, perhaps years after the crime, a serious danger to the community. Is that opinion reliable? Under well-established rules of evidence, would such opinion be received in evidence?
One legal opinion I received asserts this is rather extraordinary and contrary to usual legal principles and may make this part of the legislation invalid as, potentially, an impermissible distortion of the judicial function and, as such, could invite legal challenge. Again, I would like the Attorney-General to comment on this matter when he comes to closing debate.
Rehabilitation of offenders is the second object of the bill, but the bill says nothing about that. Presumably, it would be captured within regulations somewhere - I suspect within Corrections. I want to raise this issue because NAAJA raised it with the Attorney-General in a letter dated 27 November and, obviously, sent me a copy as well. I would like to quote from that letter around rehabilitation:
- It is essential to recognise that Aboriginal people face particular disadvantage in accessing relevant prison programs and rehabilitation services. NAAJA clients are frequently not able to participate in programs because they are not run often enough, do not provide access to interpreters, and exclude clients who have hearing impairments, mental illness or intellectual disability. It is vital that rehabilitative programs are accessible and culturally relevant before adverse conclusions are drawn such as whether a person represents an ongoing serious danger to the community.
The primary objective is less about rehabilitation and more about punishment and it is punitive, and punishment is reserved for the judiciary for breaches of the law. Under this bill we have no offence, no charge and no trial. Decisions will be made on the premise of what an offender might do post-sentence.
Again, I quote some of the comments of Justice Kirby in the Fardon case on this aspect of law.
- Properly informed, the public understands the role of judges in ordering the depravation of liberty on the basis of proved breaches of law in the past. The introduction of a power to deprive persons of liberty, and to commit them to prison potentially for very long, even indefinite, periods on the basis of someone’s estimate of the risk that they will offend in the future, inevitably undermines public confidence in the courts as places exhibiting justice to all, including those accused and previously convicted of serious crimes.
The opposition supports the intent of this bill to protect the community from serious sex offenders. However, we maintain this bill is rushed and brought before the House driven less by a legal platform and more a populist approach following in the wake of other jurisdictions. With an effort to genuinely engage with key stakeholders, especially in the legal profession and via their peak bodies such as the NT Law Reform Committee, we believe there is a way forward by exploring amendments to the Sentencing Act. Therefore, the opposition calls on the Attorney-General to defer this bill until such a time as alternatives are fully explored.
Madam Speaker, the less political interference in the making of new laws the more robust, independent and fairer our legal system will be for all before it.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nhulunbuy for her contribution to a serious issue and a fairly difficult piece of legislation to work through. At the outset, I quote from Ronken and Johnston, the people involved in Bravehearts, which supports the victims of sexual assault and abuse. I am quoting from a PowerPoint presentation from Dr Lorraine Johnston who was dealing with the ethical and professional issues associated with lifelong sentences. This was in Scotland in January 2009. She used a PowerPoint presentation which said:
- Indefinite sentencing legislation must be transparent with the appropriate checks and balances in place to ensure that all offenders are afforded a just process. In addition to ensuring an offender’s access to review and appeal, strong procedural guidelines and safeguards must be built into any legislation that allows for the indefinite detention of sex offenders.
Ronken and Johnston also said in another paper which I do not have with me:
- Community members are entitled to be protected. If this protection is attainable through the legislation of indefinite sentencing laws, then surely the continued detention is justifiable.
I agree with that and hope, in this debate, things are not misinterpreted because we have a different view to the Attorney-General. I support the general principle put forward, but this bill deals with some very serious matters which have to be analysed to see if this is the best way for the Northern Territory parliament to go. This needs an independent body to look at it.
I have looked at the final report from the Victorian Sentencing Advisory Council. To show how serious it is, this is double pages, back to front - a document produced after issuing a Discussion and Options Paper called High-Risk Offenders: Post-Sentence Supervision and Detention. They then issued their final report. It is not only me, other jurisdictions say it is a serious issue and have looked at whether this is good legislation. I will show you how difficult it is. I will read two paragraphs from the Preface of the Victorian Sentencing Advisory Council Final Report under the heading ‘The Merits of a Continued Detention Scheme’.
The Victorian Sentencing Advisory Council consists of: Professor Arie Freiberg, chair; Ms Thrse McCarthy; Ms Carmel Arthur; Ms Carmel Benjamin AM; Mr Noel Butland; Mr Bernard Geary OAM; Mr David Grace QC; Professor Jenny Morgan; Mr Simon Overland, the previous Police Commissioner; Mr Jeremy Rapke QC; and Ms Barbara Rozenes. A fairly qualified group of people looked at this. They said:
- A narrow majority of the Council has concluded that regardless of how carefully a continued detention scheme is to be structured, the inherent dangers involved outweigh its potential benefits. This view particularly takes into account the existence of less extreme approaches to achieving community protection, such as extended supervision. Members of the Council taking this position were concerned about the inability of clinicians accurately to predict risks, the potential of such schemes to limit human rights and due process unjustifiably, the lack of evidence to support claims that continuing detention will reduce overall risks to the community, and the availability of other, more cost-effective means of reducing risk.
It went on:
- However, a significant minority of the Council was of the view that a continuing detention scheme should be introduced in Victoria to deal with the ‘critical few’ offenders who pose a serious risk to the safety of community members. These Council members believe such a scheme can be crafted to ensure that the competing rights and interests of offenders and of the broader community are balanced appropriately and orders made in only the most compelling cases.
I read that because this bill should be deferred.
I quote the Attorney-General when he introduced the bill last year. The minister introduced a bill quite different to the one we have today ...
Mr Elferink: That is true.
Mr WOOD: If you read the way it is constructed it is different.
Mr Elferink: That is what I am saying; it is true.
Mr WOOD: The problem is we could have, in theory, passed it. However, the government said it had referred it to the Law Reform Committee, and the Attorney-General said:
- I do not mind the fact this has been referred to the Law Reform Commission. I will be checking with the Law Reform Commission. Indeed, that referral has taken place because that is probably not such a bad suggestion.
Where is the report from the Law Reform Commission? We have a fairly substantial report from Victoria and know a large amount of work was done in Scotland on similar issues. I have a desk full of documentation relating to this issue, and we are introducing a bill which needs to be tested by people in the business of law - not just the Attorney-General, but a range of people to ensure the law we are putting forward today is a good one.
I have spoken to two eminent lawyers and both have concerns with this bill. I ask the government to delay introduction of the bill until it goes before an independent body to see the ramifications of what has been put forward.
As I go through my concerns with the bill I hope the Attorney-General will see I am not asking for the concept of the legislation to be defeated. Some basic philosophical issues need to be looked at to see whether the legislation the Attorney-General has brought before us today is the best.
What has been put forward is a sentencing act and I will explain why. There are two possible models of this type of bill and I will go into those later. One is the Scottish version which allows an indeterminate sentence be made at the point where the person being convicted can be sentenced. That indeterminate sentence can have a nominal sentence within it. That means the person is regarded as a high risk. The judge has decided that because they are possibly a high risk to the community he will give them an indeterminate sentence but will also declare within that a nominal sentence which could be five or 10 years.
We already have that in our Sentencing Act. Section 65 of the Sentencing Act relates to indefinite sentence. We allow indefinite sentence at the beginning not the end. Section 65(2) says:
- The Supreme Court may sentence an offender convicted of violent offence or violent offences to an indefinite term of imprisonment.
Section 65(5) states:
- The Supreme Court must specify in the order imposing an indefinite sentence a nominal sentence of a period equal to the period that it would have fixed had it not imposed an indefinite sentence.
We already have an act which provides for the indefinite sentencing of violent offenders. In Scotland, the legislation is for violent offenders and sex offenders.
If you take the concerns the member for Nhulunbuy had in relation to the High Court, then look at this book called Sex Offenders and Preventative Detention by Bernadette McSherry and Patrick Keyzer - Bernadette McSherry has a BA (Hons), an LLB (Hons), an LLM (Melbourne), a PhD and a Graduate Diploma in Psychology from Monash University. She is the Australian Research Council Federation Fellow and a Professor of Law at Monash University. Patrick Keyzer has a BA (Hons), an LLB (Hons), an LLM, a PhD (Sydney), is a Professor of Law and Director of the Centre for Law, Governance and Public Policy, Faculty of Law, Bond University. They looked at three versions of preventive detention and believe, even though it has its flaws, the Scottish system is the best because it overcomes some of the criticisms given in other parts of the world. They said, ‘There have been no criticisms of the Scottish regime on the basis it inflicts double punishment or arbitrary detention’.
The Attorney-General mentioned the issue of double punishment in the second reading stating:
- … the bill is not intended to undermine these well-established legal principles.
However, by having a final continuing detention order at the end of the sentence that is exactly what is happening. You are receiving double punishment.
We have already developed a system like the Scottish one and it is already in our Sentencing Act. Why can we not include this bill – do not deal with it as a civil matter - and put it into section 65 of the Sentencing Act? That would make good sense. The same issues you deal with in relation to holding a person are looked at in section 65(9) where it says:
- In determining whether the offender is a serious danger to the community …
This is very similar to what you are trying to do in the Serious Sex Offenders Bill:
- … the Supreme Court must have regard to the following:
(a) whether the nature of the offence is exceptional:
That is what we are all about. Why do we need a new bill when we can place most of what the Attorney-General is trying to do into an existing bill? Some of the most eminent people in Australia have said the Scottish system is much better. It is not the same because when they finish their nominal sentence they are supervised from then on. That does not mean we could not adjust our legislation to allow continuing detention using the same scheme.
The other advantage is the Attorney-General does not have to be in the bill. Reading section 65, there is no mention of the Attorney-General. If so, it is rare. In the bill the Attorney-General is mentioned at least 38 times. Why do we need that? If we put it into the Sentencing Act we do not need what can be seen as interference from the Attorney-General when it is the role of the Supreme Court and the DPP to look at these issues. That already happens. If it is good enough for violent offenders who, I understand, are the more repetitive in our society; violent offenders are more of a problem than sex offenders. That is some of the information I gained from reading this book. Why can the same law not apply for both? They are both a concern to our community. The risk of serious physical harm to members of the community and the need to protect members of the community is what we are about today.
The other area I am concerned about is reintegration programs. I am unsure if there was any mention in the second reading about reintegration programs. Again, I read from a book by Bernadette McSherry and Patrick Keyzer, page 72, where they studied the Queensland, Washington and Glasgow versions of preventative detention. They say:
- At present there are some reasons to be pessimistic about the prospect of effective sex offender treatment being given within a corrective facility in Queensland (Keyzer and Coyle, 2009). First, sex offender treatment programs are only made available to a limited number of prisoners even though they are practically compelled to attend by the DPSOA ...
That is the act:
- Second, offenders must wait long periods of time before they have an opportunity to participate in a sex offender treatment program ...
It goes on to say the facts of Gough v Southern Queensland Regional Parole Board illustrate this problem.
I received a letter recently from someone in prison for a sex offence who is now permitted to have a one-on-one program but they cannot say when the program will start because they do not have enough people. It would concern me, if we are bringing in these laws, that we ensure we have the wherewithal to have programs to assist people. It would be interesting to hear what programs are in place and if we have the finances to ensure there are sufficient people to run the programs. It was raised as an issue in Queensland, and I have recently received a letter saying a person has been cleared to participate in a program but cannot say when it would start. That is important because it is one of the matters in the new Serious Sex Offenders Bill.
The other issue goes to the philosophy of what we are doing. We are detaining people beyond their punishment, something which requires careful thought. Nowadays, it is used for people suspected of terrorism. We use it through the Mental Health and Related Services Act but those people have not committed a crime. We have the issue - as I read from Ronken and Johnston, who said offenders are afforded a just process - how do we ensure the wrong people are not …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time for the member to complete his remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: I did not realise it had gone so fast; it is a difficult area to get through. I lost my train of thought …
Mr Elferink: You were at Ronken and Johnston.
Mr WOOD: They said everyone should be afforded a just process. What systems will ensure we do not put the wrong people in prison?
Again, I go to the Scottish process. They have the Risk Management Authority, an independent body set up by the government. We are only a small jurisdiction, but the issues still apply. You need to ensure, before someone is given an indeterminate sentence, the process ensures only people who need to be kept in prison are. The Risk Management Authority has this great book - this is only Version 2 - called Risk Assessment Tools Evaluation Directory. That tells people the various assessment tools available to look at if you are judging whether a person is a risk. They bring out standards and guidelines for risk assessment and also help with risk assessment plans.
When a person is in prison for serious sex offences, do we have independent processes which enable assessments to be done properly and ensure that person is not kept in gaol when they should not be? This is the fine balance we have in this debate.
We also need to know, when judging or assessing somebody, what system will be used to assess them. There are many ways of assessing people. I will not go through them all now, but one is the Static-99 coding rules used in America for white offenders. How do you assess the risk of reoffending by Indigenous males? Do we have programs specifically for those?
I quote from Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice document of July 2004, No 280, issued by Alfred Allan and Deborah Dawson. A note from the Acting Director says:
- Modern corrections practice requires an assessment of the risk of reoffending on at least two levels. First, risk assessments are necessary to decide which offenders should be targeted for rehabilitation. Second, risk assessment is necessary to deal with the increasing demand by the public and politicians that offenders who are at a high risk of reoffending, especially violent and sexual offending, should not be released prematurely. This paper reports on a risk assessment tool that has been developed specifically for Indigenous offenders.
I highlight my concerns because this needs to go to an advisory council such as the one in Victoria - minister, you mentioned a Sentencing Advisory Council in other jurisdictions - or the Law Reform Committee. I am not putting these up as obstacles, but this is fairly serious legislation which goes against our normal judicial process. I do not have a problem as long as the system has been put together in the way Ronken and Johnston were asking for: that the offender should be afforded a just process and that community members are entitled to be protected. I support that.
Time is of the essence. Another area we have not touched on is facilities for people in longer detention. What happens when people get out of prison? We have not discussed that either. What programs do we have? Do we have enough people on the ground to supervise these people? What happens if they are out bush; if they are sent to a remote community? Can we ensure they are supervised correctly? In Queensland, the front page of the document will show you. It is called The management of convicted sex offenders in Queensland. You can have tracking devices and keep an eye on people. I did not see anything in the second reading describing what processes and systems will be in place to ensure supervision is proper and is working.
Not only are you saying people should have supervisory orders, the community wants to know who ensures it is working. Do we have sufficient staff to ensure people are doing what they should? The Territory is a big place. Again, there is not much in the second reading. They are issues a Law Reform Committee or a Sentencing Advisory Council could have looked at to ensure this bill could be amended, could be put into the Sentencing Act, has enough safeguards and processes for rehabilitation, and ensure those outside prison are adequately supervised and have access to programs. There is not much of that in the second reading. Perhaps the minister believes this is only about the bill; however, the bill has ramifications outside many letters on a piece of paper.
When you read this book, you realise it is not a case of copying Queensland, which had its issues. They rushed the law through in 72 hours then found it was not such a good idea. A few issues should have been looked at. It has taken time, because this legislation went through some years ago. By now, they have probably sorted out any issues and I hope we do not have the same problems. If you went down the path of the Victorian model, there is a better chance to come up with legislation checked by an independent body. I am not an expert on this and imagine it could not be said the Attorney-General is not an expert in the area. Perhaps he is knowledgeable about the law, but this deals with far broader issues than just the law.
We need to send this to a body of learned people to assess the bill, see if it can be improved, and see whether it could be part of the Sentencing Act - part of section 65. There is the same issue with violent offenders in our community as with sexual offenders - danger to the community. We already have it in our legislation. The minister says, from time to time, we have too much legislation and regulation. If that is the case, let us reduce it by including it in existing legislation. We would come up with partly what you are after - having less legislation but very good processes to ensure the community is protected.
Madam Speaker, I support the philosophy behind the bill: the community needs to be protected from offenders who we believe, if let out, could cause harm in the community, but we need to be very careful how we do it. That would be a good reason for sending it off to an independent body for assessment.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I have a confidential briefing note in front of me. I will place this in context and selectively quote from the confidential briefing note. We are talking about a three-year-old girl:
- The defendant took the victim to a concealed area and penetrated the victim’s vagina with his penis. The victim suffered injuries including bruising, swelling and lacerations, cuts to the vaginal opening as a result of the offence. The defendant had previously been convicted of two offences of a sexual nature for which he served periods of time in prison. A psychiatric report stated that the defendant had an antisocial personality disorder, exhibited sexual interest in children, and had a high risk of recidivism for both sexual and violent crimes.
That crime occurred during a period that, if the bill I had brought before this House in opposition had been passed, it is unlikely that person would have been released into the public whilst continuing to exhibit those behavioural patterns, and the three-year-old girl may well not have suffered those injuries. I have heard, at length, from both the shadow Attorney-General and the member for Nelson about the rights of the offender ...
Mr Wood: You are exaggerating, on purpose.
Mr ELFERINK: What do you think those reports talk about? The freedom of people to be at liberty and those types of things. You cannot come into this House and bang on about the rights of the offender and the rights of people to be at liberty, saying, ‘We agree with the philosophy of this bill’. This is the nonsense which meant this legislation was not in place to protect children at the time of the offence because we have to send it off to the Law Reform Committee to look at, then send it off to some other committee to look at. This is a way of burying this and sticking our head in the sand saying we were waiting for lawyers to decide. Would you like me to read that out again? I suspect not because it is a disgusting and reprehensible thing ...
Mr Wood: Of course it is. Do not tell me I do not agree with what you are saying.
Mr ELFERINK: You did not. You defended this. I will pick up on the interjection. ‘Do not say we do not agree with what you are saying’. Why are you arguing passionately giving all the reasons we should not do this?
Mr Wood: Because it should be in another bill.
Mr ELFERINK: We will get to that, but that is now the context of my reply.
Mr Wood: Do not go putting the wrong emphasis on me.
Mr ELFERINK: The member for Nelson likes to have a bet each way and talk about all the things he cares about, but is never prepared to be answerable to the people of the Northern Territory and make a decision. It always has to be somebody else’s decision or opinion which drives the member for Nelson. He seems to be incapable of making a decision for himself. That has been resplendently evident in the last few years; in fact, ever since he entered this House. The member for Nelson would like to have a bet each way on this issue and the government will not give that comfort.
I will respond to some of his comments. If the member for Nelson had prepared his speech, he would not have had to say the same thing 16 times and seek an extension. Why is this not in the Sentencing Act? This is not about sentencing, it is about restraint. The comment was also made by the shadow Attorney-General and I want to cover off on it so it is abundantly clear. The suggestion to place it in the Sentencing Act was made to me by certain parties and I looked at it. The reason I was very cautious about adding it to the Sentencing Act was I do not want it to be a sentence. It is not in the nature of a sentence and not designed to be a sentence. It is designed to be an order of restraint.
I hear the member for Nelson chortle and laugh, but this is an order of restraint and, for that reason, specifically not in the Sentencing Act. Orders of restraints from court can come in all shapes and sizes. They come in orders and injunctions and sentences for criminal offences. They come in the form I am seeking now. Restraining orders probably still exist in the Justices Act which prevents a person from doing something. There are orders of restraints surrounding domestic violence orders and such things. They are all orders of restraint issued by courts which are the independent oversight body of this jurisdiction.
There is an unclear understanding, I suspect, from both the member for Nelson and the shadow Attorney-General as to the way this system will work. It will work because the Attorney-General, or their delegate, makes an application. In the case of a criminal offence, the person who brings the prosecution against an offender is the Crown, yet I do not see Queen Elizabeth II strolling into every courthouse in the country starting a prosecution. It is a vehicle to get into the courthouse, but this is not a criminal matter and, therefore, not subject to the operation of the Department of Public Prosecutions because these are not prosecutions, these are applications for orders of restraint to be placed on people. I do not want them anywhere near the Sentencing Act and it would not be appropriate to put them in the Sentencing Act.
The member for Nelson quite rightly pointed out there are models in the Sentencing Act which allow for indefinite detention. In fact, there are a number of prisoners in custody in the Northern Territory at the moment who are subject to indefinite detention orders. I could probably name three or four off the top of my head. However, I am not talking about that because they have to be introduced at the point of sentencing.
A prisoner may well present to a court, at the outset, as a person who requires an indefinite sentence. Where that occurs, that person may well be held indefinitely in custody and will not be, in all likelihood, subject to one of these orders because this order is different. This order is about a person on a definite sentence which is reaching expiration who then presents to the community a high degree of probability of risk of offending again. We are not asking for a court to cast a low standard in this House, we are asking the court to, upon application, adjudicate on a simple notion: the person in custody will and does represent a threat to the community to a high degree of probability. Often these people can be identified. In regard to the nature of the person I spoke about, that high degree of probability could probably have been outlined in this person’s sentence.
The person who has been sentenced may, and I hope will, see the error of their ways and reform whilst in gaol. I hope that occurs. The question that will bother me, however, is if that person, or a person like him, finds themselves reluctant to rehabilitate and represents a risk to the community of a high degree of probability - not might but a high degree of probability - that person should be restrained.
Regarding the Law Reform Committee report, this matter went to the Law Reform Commission but, during the period of the election, the government took it to the public of the Northern Territory as part of the issues we wanted to deal with because we believed there were shortcomings in the legislation surrounding this issue. We formed a government on the basis of being successful in that election campaign, so we determined to keep our promise to the people of the Northern Territory to go down this path. Having said that, there was little point in the Law Reform Committee reporting on this issue, therefore, the line of inquiry was discontinued; it was not reported on. There is your answer. By the way, if you had asked me or the staff during the briefing, you probably would have received the same answer ...
Mr Wood: We were having a good briefing.
Mr ELFERINK: That is good. That answers the question which seemed to be front and centre. It had gone to a higher authority, the people themselves. This was part of our policy platform, well-advertised and pursued on a prior occasion in this parliament. There was no secret of our intention to introduce this legislation in the Northern Territory. Therefore, even if the Law Reform Committee said it did not recommend the legislation we would have pressed on because we had been open, honest, and accountable with the people of the Northern Territory and would have rightfully claimed a mandate to do so.
The member for Nelson referred to a report from Victoria which I did not quite get the name of. There is no doubt this is potentially contentious legislation. A narrow majority of the council that reported had a problem; a substantial minority determined this was worth doing. You end up with some of the best legal brains in the country, according to the member for Nelson, almost equally divided on the issue. That means there are many eminent people - jurists, lawyers, professors - who agree with what we are proposing in this bill.
For that reason, we continue to press on with this and some people will criticise. There is no doubt people in the legal profession who regularly defend people tend to see their role as resisting legislation which would have a negative impact on their clients. I understand that; I do not agree with it. The government understands it and does not automatically agree with it.
I understand the reservations of these organisations, but my concern is not about their clients so much as about potential victims. Those victims are real, and the scars and the imposition on their liberty are lifelong. Often, the damage done, particularly to children, will result in circumstances where that child may never be able to bear children herself. Those are the things we are dealing with. The lacerations referred to in the document I read from before - I have seen lacerations like that and they are not small abrasions we are talking about. This is nasty, brutal horrible stuff. These people are often the ones about whom you will hear prison guards or police officers say, ‘Goodness, when they let so-and-so go at some point in the future, we will see them again shortly’. All too often, sadly, that is correct. There is no psych report attached to that; nothing other than the opinion of a prison guard or an officer involved. That is, obviously, not sufficient to allow for continued detention.
What do we do? We make an application to the court for continued restraint. That is an entirely appropriate thing to do. People are concerned with the Attorney-General name being out the front. It is fairly unlikely I will be in the courts pursuing these things myself. However, even if I did, I would only be there as an applicant.
I am curious about the argument constantly being run that if the Attorney-General, for some reason, walks into a court, they are, in some way, breaching the separation of powers. Says not, the Solicitor-General of the Northern Territory; says not, Robert McClelland QC, former Attorney-General of this country; says not, the Labor Attorney-General of South Australia, John Rau, who appeared in court last month. None of that is a breach of the separation of powers because there is no attempt, when the Attorney-General or any other applicant walks into a courtroom, to interfere with the process of justice. You are there as an applicant, like any other applicant.
If you were to follow the logic put forward by the shadow Attorney-General, if I, as a victim of crime and also Attorney-General, sought redress from a court somehow that would mysteriously become, because of the status of my victimhood, a breach of the separation of powers and I should not appear in court. A victim of crime is, essentially, an applicant for a court seeking justice and redress from the court. An applicant, whether it is a lawyer or a citizen at the bar table, is merely an applicant. The Crown, in the form of the DPP when lodging a complaint or information before either the Court of Summary Jurisdiction or the Supreme Court, is an applicant. They make an application. They are seeking adjudication, which means they have no power to influence the court other than by the arguments and evidence they place before that court.
There is no diminishing of the judicial power of the court. Indeed, the only way that could be is if a person attempted to supersede or underwrite the court’s authority by climbing on to the front bench and doing the adjudicating themselves. No such concept is entertained in this legislative instrument. Indeed, if such a concept were entertained by any legislative instrument in the Northern Territory, I would be very quick to amend it in defence of the separation of powers. To introduce the concept that, in some way, an applicant before the court is breaching the separation of powers is to introduce a nonsensical concept. It does not work that way; it is not how the system is put together.
I keep hearing references to an independent body oversighting this. That is called a court. Courts are an independent body, and that is the oversight constructed all the way through this legislative instrument. Not only that, but the legislative instrument restrains itself, particularly on the threshold question of whether this person is a risk, not to the balance of probabilities which is the civil standard, or to beyond reasonable doubt which is the criminal standard. This goes further and says there has to be a high degree of probability. That is the standard being applied.
Not only that, I have been mindful to look at other jurisdictions, particularly Queensland. We have restrained ourselves from the same interpretative structure as Queensland because the Queensland model is broad. We have deliberatively sought to tighten it in this environment because I do not want to capture a broad group; I want to capture those individuals who represent a clear and present danger to the people of the Northern Territory - women and children in particular.
I want to address a couple of issues. First, there is the Fardon case in which the shadow Attorney-General recounted the determination of Justice Kirby. If I recall that case correctly, it was a 6:1 majority in favour of the lawfulness of the Queensland legislation. That means you were quoting a judge who was in the minority by a factor of 6:1. Where you were quoting one judge - as wise as he may be - in relation to this legislation, six other equally wise judges disagreed with Justice Kirby in that instance. As I recall, the Queensland legislation was found to be lawful.
This legislative instrument is not quite as broad as the Queensland legislation so I am comfortable we are on the right side of lawful. I do not want to make it a form of sentencing because if we introduce it into the Sentencing Act, I am nervous it could extend to breaching the principles of double jeopardy. We have heard several references to double jeopardy from the member for Nelson. Double jeopardy, in this instance, is the restraint on the state or a court of sentencing a person twice for the same offence.
This is not about sentencing and I want to make that abundantly clear. Members opposite, this is not about sentencing. This is about applying restraint on a person who has become a threat. An indefinite sentence can be done at the point where the head sentence is handed down. That is no problem. I do not want this to look, smell, feel or in any way touch on a sentence for a crime that has already been adjudicated on. This is about preventing something happening into the future ...
Mr Wood: What about violent offenders? You already do it.
Mr ELFERINK: I will pick up on the interjection. If at some point I, and this government, am convinced violent offenders should be added to this I am happy to do it ...
Mr Wood: No, they are already in it.
Mr ELFERINK: This is the problem I have with the member for Nelson. He still cannot separate the two issues I am talking about. He is talking about violent offenders being in the Sentencing Act. Yes, that is right; you can get indefinite sentences for that. This legislation does not refer to violent offenders other than violent sexual offenders. We are talking about two completely separate structures ...
Mr Wood: Put them together.
Mr ELFERINK: No, I cannot. I do not want to otherwise this takes on the nature of a sentence. This is not a sentence; this is an order of restraint ...
Mr Wood: It is continued detention and you said it yourself in the second reading.
Mr ELFERINK: Unfortunately, sometimes I get the feeling I am trying to explain algebra to a slug.
I do not want this to be argued in any way that we are sentencing a person again for an offence they have already been sentenced for. This is about an order of restraint to prevent a person from doing certain things should they be at liberty, or alternatively, being restrained from being at liberty at all because of the risk they pose to the community. I do not want to have to read another briefing note like the one I read out before because we have not had the intestinal fortitude as a parliament to make a decision. Apparently, we have to spend our time deferring to all types of authorities, whether they are intrastate, interstate or international. Our opinions count for nought despite the fact out of all the organisations quoted this is the one elected. We seem to be afraid of making decisions and sticking by the policy commitments we make.
I pick up on the member for Nhulunbuy’s comments about public consultations. Yes, this was part of the public consultation process. The outrage was clear when I went to the consultation. That is part of my interventionist style of Attorney-General - I attend public consultations. I went to the one in Alice Springs and the one in Darwin. In Alice Springs, there were two or three people from the legal fraternity and one interested member of the public. They were able to ask questions of the staff, which outnumbered the people at the consultation.
A similar effect was noted at the Darwin one. Yes, in future if we do the trip around the Territory we will go to Nhulunbuy. I am mindful of that and you are quite right. In the meantime, in the round of consultations we did, the public was not there in force raging against this injustice. In fact, whilst those consultations were well-advertised, even the profession was not there in force raging against the injustice. Some people made critical comments and observations no doubt, but it was a handful of people. I did not sense a strident movement in the profession or beyond to resist this legislative instrument.
The shadow Attorney-General asked a question in relation to Part 8 Division 1. I draw the member’s attention to clause 79(6) of the bill which says:
- A medical expert cannot be named in a medical assessment order if he or she is a public sector employee in the Agency administering the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act.
I hope that deals with the issue raised by the member for Nhulunbuy.
I have to advise the House of a clerk’s amendment, clause 95(1) which says:
- The standard of proof as to whether a person is a serious danger to the community is as mentioned in section 6(3).
That should read 7(1); there is no 6(3) and 7(1) refers to the standard and onus of proof issue. That will be a clerk’s amendment if that does not cause too much grief to members opposite.
I thank honourable members for taking the time to do the research they did. I have been in opposition and know how much hard work that can be. I am grateful we have restrained ourselves, rather than forensically trying to examine full stops, colons and commas in the bill, to the process that we should be applying ourselves to this House - the big picture stuff; the policy settings we are putting in place.
I take heart from the fact members opposite agreed with the government despite the fact they spent 99% of the time telling the government all the reasons the philosophy is wrong. I trust the staff of the department, and the legislative draftsmen, to capture the essence and desire of government intent. I hope this will have the effect of restraining potential offenders from raping or committing sexual assaults whilst at liberty when we have an opportunity to prevent their liberty giving them that opportunity.
Of course, we will never know if this bill has been successful because we will never know about the rape that did not occur. It is like saying the Traffic Act prevents car accidents. I am sure it does, but you will never know about the accident that did not occur on the corner of Cavanagh and Daly Street at 7.30 am because it did not happen. That is a hard thing to do with legislative instruments of this nature - they are preventative in nature. If they have the effect of preventing a crime from occurring, the only way you can point to it in some longitudinal way is to look back after three or four years and see if there has been a change in offence rates among prisoners who have been subject to orders under legislation of this nature.
Madam Speaker, It is for those reasons this is not included in the Sentencing Act. I hope this will, in some way, prevent a crime from occurring in the future. I anticipate it will. I will probably never have the satisfaction of knowing which crimes it has avoided, other than knowing we, as a government, were prepared to stand up and be counted despite resistance from the profession and other members of this House to protect and prevent potential victims becoming actual victims.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
______________
Statement by Speaker
Pairs for 26 to 28 March 2013
Pairs for 26 to 28 March 2013
Madam SPEAKER: Whilst I am waiting for the Deputy Speaker, I have noticed pairs for government, Mrs Bess Price, and for opposition, Michael Gunner, for the period 26 March 2013 to 28 March 2013 inclusive, signed by government and opposition Whips.
_______________
In committee:
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole:
Mr WOOD: Mr Chairman, regardless of what was said before, I will continue, as a member of parliament, to question the government on its legislation regardless of whether it has been a public policy of the government. The issue is whether it is good legislation and what we are trying to determine today. I re-emphasise, I support the philosophy behind the government bringing this legislation forward today.
Because I believe it should be done in a different way does not make me a fence-sitter. It is simply me asking government if it could be done better. Government might not agree, but it is my right to see whether it is better.
I question the minister in relation to the distinction between the indefinite sentence for violent offenders, which holds a person in prison for longer than the offence they received a nominal sentence for. That is keeping someone in prison under the Sentencing Act and doing exactly what the minister is doing through his bill - keeping someone in detention longer. That is what he called it in the second reading. What is the difference between keeping a person in prison for a violent offence and keeping a person in prison for a sexual offence?
Mr ELFERINK: I thank the member for Nelson for his question. I will tell you what my thinking was when this issue arose. The concern I had was the rules of double jeopardy. You cannot sentence a person twice for the same offence. This issue came up while we were debating and discussing how we should proceed. The government is being uber-cautious - very careful - about this. I do not want to invite the argument that we are seeking to further sentence a person for a crime they committed in the past. That is not what this bill is about. Therefore, to place it in the Sentencing Act was to invite the argument run in this House on two occasions by you and the shadow Attorney-General - this was a form of double jeopardy. That is not what this is. The practical component is yes, we will detain people in prisons, but we are not sentencing them twice for the same offence. I want to make it abundantly clear to any future court that may choose to look at any comments made in this House that the mind of the Attorney-General is utterly and unequivocally clear on this issue. This is not a sentence; it is an order of restraint - a completely different thing - which is why it is not even in the criminal system. That is why the DPP is not prosecuting it because they prosecute criminal matters. This is a civil action taken to restrain. It is like a domestic violence order. No criminal history or criminality flows from the issuing of a domestic violence order. A domestic violence creates a system of restraint and that is what this bill is seeking to do.
I understand you see this from a practical point of view. You cannot see the difference between a person in gaol and a person in gaol. I understand that.
Mr WOOD: The prisoner will not know any different.
Mr ELFERINK: The prisoner, I hope, will. Even if they do not, that is not the issue for me. My issue is to avoid the argument this is a form of double jeopardy. This is not looking back in time and saying we will punish a person again for something they did in the past. This is about saying, ‘Gee whiz, this person is really a risk to the community. We believe, to a high degree of probability, this person will go into the community and possibly rape a child. To prevent that rape from occurring, we are going to put an order of restraint on that person’. We are not talking about what they did in the past; we are talking about what that person is like today.
If that person is not subject to an indefinite sentence - and the vast majority of the people in prison are not - there is a release date. Even if we refuse parole and run them to the very end of their sentence, when you hit that day there is no power to restrain that person. Yet we look at them from time to time and think to ourselves, ‘Goodness gracious me, the moment this person gets out they are going to commit a sexual crime. They are going to rape somebody’. Often that assessment, non-expert as it is from a handful of police who will make a comment like that, or a prison officer, is right. We will go through a process of identifying these people and assessing them so we can identify people who fall within this environment. We are not going to worry about what they are in gaol for, necessarily. We are going to worry about what they are going to do when they get out of gaol. I do not want to see rapes occurring, particularly when we say to ourselves, ‘Oh my goodness, that person we are about to let go will do this’. It is about their future.
I know there is no obvious practical difference between a person in a cell who is a sentenced prisoner and a person in a cell who is under a restraint order, but the legal difference is the reason I wanted to keep this out of the Sentencing Act. I did not want to invite the argument of double jeopardy and that is the rationale behind this.
Mr WOOD: Attorney-General, you have a law which is exactly the same for violent offenders, and they can be just as bad as sexual offenders. You have the ability to detain violent offenders for the same reasons you want to detain a sexual offender. That is the law as you have it now; you have an indefinite sentence to protect the community from serious danger, which is exactly what you are doing with sexual offenders.
In this case, Attorney-General, we make the decision up-front at the point of sentencing. I know you do not like me quoting other people, but this is an Australia document and I have to research as much as I can. I have spent many hours working through this. I am not an expert but I do my research. It says - these are the learned people, Bernadette McSherry and Patrick Keyzer:
- The Scottish scheme which is the sentencing at the beginning…
Which is the same as we have in section 65:
- … avoids some of the difficulties associated with the Washington and Queensland schemes because it comes into play at the time of sentencing eliminating the retrospectivity problem and the double punishment problem.
Mr ELFERINK: You have not listened to a word I have just said.
Mr WOOD: That is right.
Mr ELFERINK: You have not listened to a word I have just said.
Mr WOOD: The bill you are putting forward is sentencing at the end.
Mr ELFERINK: No, it is not.
Mr WOOD: It is. You are making a decision six months from the time the person is perhaps to be released. The Scottish system is where you make a decision about a person - whether they are on an indefinite sentence - at the beginning, which gets rid of the issue you said before and in your second reading - gets rid of the problem of double punishment.
Mr ELFERINK: You have made your point. I will answer it.
Mr WOOD: Yes.
Mr ELFERINK: I need some butcher’s paper and crayon, I suspect. This is not about sentencing. You keep saying the answer is in the Sentencing Act. To do that, you have to do it up-front; you said so yourself. An indefinite order for a violent offender has to be at the front, which means - by the way, the sentencing stuff applies to sexual offenders as well - you have a sexual offender and you give them a head sentence of four years for a rape but there is no indefinite sentence. They serve the four years. What happens at the end of those four years, under your proposal, when it becomes very clear that person will get out and rape again?
Mr WOOD: I am not sure you understand this. That does not say they can get out.
Mr ELFERINK: No, you misunderstood me. For an indefinite sentence to be imposed it has to happen at the time the sentence is handed down. Right?
Mr WOOD: Yes, that is right.
Mr ELFERINK: Good. We agree on that point.
Mr Wood: Yes.
Mr ELFERINK: What if the court does not issue an indefinite sentence? They only do it rarely. The vast majority of sentences handed down are definite sentences. You say we have to identify these potential risks up-front, add it to the Sentencing Act and it becomes part of the sentence and avoids double jeopardy. I get that. Some of these people are identified whilst in custody. What do you do with them? You cannot take them back to court because that is double jeopardy. You have a person serving six years for rape or they are subject to an indefinite sentence, in that case it is fine. This legislation will not be invoked but if they are not subject to an indefinite sentence - which is the vast majority of offenders - that is where this comes into play. This is the ‘keep them in gaol’ card we are seeking to play. You have in mind we can do this up-front and will not identify anybody as a potential rapist whilst they are in gaol. There are people in gaol today who will say, ‘The moment I get out of here I am going to do it again’. They are not subject to an indefinite sentence. What do we do with those people? How do we explain that to the three-year-old victim when it happens? That is the point of this legislation.
I hear what you say, ‘Do it up-front’. We do; we have it there now. This is about capturing people who need to be restrained at the other end of the sentence. If they are subject to an indefinite sentence, this legislation will never come into play as long as they are on that indefinite sentence. If they are subject to a definite sentence - which is 99.9% of the prison population - that is where this legislation fills a hole.
Mr WOOD: I realise we could go on for a long time. Attorney-General, a system exists in Scotland called the Risk Management Authority which looks at people at the beginning. They are assessed - I have asked what assessment processes we have for these people - which sets up management plans. A prisoner would be assessed on a continual basis because they have two forms of sentencing. They will be sentenced at the beginning, and we know they will have to be assessed because they will be serious sex offenders. You mentioned three serious sex offences and you would be looked at seriously. They have a nominal sentence and, during that period, the risk management authority would have a management plan in place which would look at those people with the concept of letting them out, which is the system they have in Scotland. If they are not ready to be let out, they have to be left in. If you remove the concept of double jeopardy, you assess them and ensure people are not released into the community. We do that now …
Mr ELFERINK: We do.
Mr Wood: Then why …
Mr ELFERINK: It does not capture a particular group of people.
Mr WOOD: That is right. The Scottish system realises the two offences sometimes overlap and said it was much better to deal with the two as one.
Mr ELFERINK: I understand what you are saying and know where you are coming from. Perhaps we can deal with it another way. Pretend for a moment you are Attorney-General and you receive a report from the Commissioner from Corrections, with psych reports and everything else, that prisoner blogs is on a sentence. This matter will not come to your desk because he is on indefinite detention so that will never happen - he is already indefinitely detained for the crime committed. Prisoner blogs is on a definite sentence and is at the tail end of six years for a rape he committed. Prisoner blogs is presenting as really high risk - this person is going to rape again. In that circumstance, what do you do under Territory legislation?
Mr WOOD: Tell me if I am wrong. If you had a serious sex offender in prison for sex offences that prisoner would be adjudicated at the beginning. The people you are talking about are obviously serious sex offenders and you said that in the second reading.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes.
Mr WOOD: I am saying yes, they should be assessed at the beginning. I know where you are coming from …
Mr Elferink: Answer the question, minister.
Mr WOOD: If I want to look like the acting Attorney-General I will have to swing this chair around, put my hands in my pocket and chew on my glasses, but …
Mr Elferink: Answer the question now you have done all that.
Mr WOOD: They use it in Scotland. I am not the lawyer so I have to go on what other people do. They are already using it in Scotland and have had it running since 1993. They have set up a process which deals with the issues you are talking about. It is regarded as the better system according to these people because it gets over double jeopardy.
Mr ELFERINK: It does not get past the problem I have just presented you with.
Mr WOOD: You will have that with any case, will you not?
Mr ELFERINK: We can close that loophole and that is what we are attempting to do.
Mr WOOD: Looking at what the Scottish system has done, they have the same issue. If you release someone into the community on supervisory orders, they have a management plan, they assess them - there must be times when things do not work out like any judicial system. They have a system that has been running for a long time and the more I read about it, the more it appears to be a good system …
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Mr WOOD: All right. We are not going to change our …
Mr Elferink: Can you answer the question I have put to you, Attorney-General? Can you answer that question?
Mr WOOD: Ask the question again?
Mr ELFERINK: You are the Attorney-General and have a person on a definite sentence - not an indefinite sentence, which is the vast majority of sexual offenders - and the advice you receive from psychologists and other reports is if Joe Blogs is released by you he will, in all likelihood, rape again. Under the Scottish system, you cannot do anything about it. What are you going to do about it, Attorney-General? He is on a definite sentence, you have been told this guy will rape again. What are you going to do?
Mr WOOD: My understanding from the Scottish system is that people - not just the people on indefinite sentences - would be under some form of assessment.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, but they are coming to the end of the sentence, double jeopardy applies now, and you cannot sentence them again. He is about to let go, what are you going to do, Attorney-General?
Mr WOOD: I understand what you are saying …
Mr Elferink: Well, what are you going to do?
Mr WOOD: Do the assessment orders - and I have not been able to go through all this - that apply in Scotland cover that?
Mr ELFERINK: No, Attorney-General, they will not.
Mr Wood: I do not know …
Mr ELFERINK: No, they will not because this person, Attorney-General, is coming to the end of their sentence. There is no mechanism under the common law, or under any law, under which you can hold that person any further - no mechanism at all. This person will rape again, Attorney-General, what are you going to do?
Mr WOOD: It is not an issue that seems to have come up. I am going on the evidence I have read. If that has been an issue - and it is an important issue you raise - it certainly has not been raised as a concern within the Scottish system.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay. Can I read that opening briefing note again to you? It was raised in this House by the Country Liberals when we were in opposition, because we saw it as a real and present danger. If that legislation had been operational, there is a high likelihood that person would never have been released, and that child would never have been raped.
I have an answer to that question. It is called the Serious Sex Offenders Bill (Serial 18) 2013. I and this government have the answer to the question you are struggling with right now. That is the crux of this discussion.
Mr WOOD: All right. Minister, can we go on to what assessments you would apply to these people? What programs do you have when assessing whether somebody will be a danger to the community?
Mr ELFERINK: The process of assessment - I will tell you how this stuff operates in the practical environment. Prisoners who are serving sentences for sexual crimes will come to notice, from time to time. Prison officers will have dealings with them, and they will start to think, ‘Goodness, gracious me, this person is coming to the end of their sentence, and we think this person is trouble. We think this person is a real problem. He will go out and rape again’.
At that stage, there is an assessment process which is a psych report, and several other reports will be done. A file will be put together, and that file will be comprehensive. The reason that file is put together is because a court has to be convinced this person is that dangerous. It has not only to be convinced to a low civil standard of proof; we are saying that court has to be really convinced. That is why we use the expression ‘to a high degree of probability’.
We walk into court with a file. It would be psych reports, evidence from prison officers who have heard the prisoner boast they will commit a sexual crime again, or a prisoner who may have written some documents. The normal rule of evidence in relation to civil matters will apply. The court then adjudicates independently on the strength of the argument that the government makes, or the applicant - in this case the Attorney-General, or the Attorney-General’s representative normally.
The Attorney-General’s representative with the delegation to will walk into court, walks in with file and says, ‘We have these psych reports, we have all of this evidence to support it’. That evidence will change from time to time, depending on what evidence is there. It will be whatever evidence is available, but I am certain a psych report will be in that mix - evidence from prison officers and other physical documentary, circumstantial, and other evidence of a probative value. It has to be to such a standard that the court says, ‘There is a high degree of probability’.
Mr WOOD: I understand that. Again, I refer back to the Scottish system. I am not saying we have to have the Scottish system but, obviously, they have put much emphasis on making sure the risk assessment is very independent, and also very professional. Do we have a risk assessment process that is backed up by people who know about these things?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, there is an administrative assessment committee involved with this. To give you an idea of the sort of evidence, 10 sex offenders, last year alone, declined to be assessed for treatment. That might be part of it. This is real numbers by the way; 10 prisoners refused to be assessed for treatment in prison. Therefore, they will not be treated, just released at the end of their sentence. That is the type of evidence which will support.
I am not just saying because you refuse to do a course you will represent a high degree of likelihood, but that, combined with other things you may have said - possibly even the evidence of other prisoners - goes before an assessment committee. The assessment committee then goes, ‘Oh, sugar. This person is a real risk. We better put it to the Attorney-General’. So, it goes up to the Attorney-General’s Office with a recommendation, and the likelihood is the Attorney-General will sign off on that recommendation one way or another, because the Attorney-General relies on that advice from smart people. If it is a positive, ‘Yes, we have to try to restrain this person’, then the application will be lodged. That is the process and those are the things that will be taken into consideration.
Mr WOOD: Again, I refer back to the Risk Management Authority. It sets up, or helps set up, risk management plans for those being, I presume, sent out under supervisory orders. Do we have those sorts of plans as well?
Mr ELFERINK: We run similar things all the time. Community Corrections of the department has field officers who often work in the field. There are two ways to do those sorts of things. You either do them actively where you go and knock on the door and say, ‘Hello Billy Bob, you were supposed to be here at home and it is nice to see you here at home’, or there are potentially passive ways to do it depending on the nature of the order that is being given. If an order is given by a court which says you are not to go near certain places like kindergartens, for instance, and then we find out, because a member of the public has complained that Billy Bob has gone near a kindergarten, that is another way to breach those orders. They are very similar to parole orders, good behaviour bonds, or other conditional orders a court imposes.
Conditional orders are very common. They happen all the time, and they happen in a raft of different environments, including domestic violence orders and orders of restraint. Conditional orders are very common. They are either policed passively - that is, we wait for a complaint to come in through the door - or actively, when that particular person has to be case managed. There are people who do that now.
Mr WOOD: The other area I raised was the number of courses that are available at present. I mentioned a case where someone had been admitted to a course but they could not say when that person would be able to attend. Has the government a program within its policies in relation to this particular bill to increase the number of services in prison for these people?
Mr ELFERINK: We provide them now to the point where 10 people last year were able to say, ‘No, I am not going to one’. We do provide them. Offender management plans are drawn up for all offenders. If you have people going out into the community, we still try to manage these people in all sorts of ways. Just because a person has committed a rape in the past, it does not automatically follow we will apply this legislation to them. This legislation will be applied in such a fashion as to target those people who are of a high degree of risk.
A person who has committed a rape but then can demonstrates they have seen the error of their ways - have gone through all the courses, and perhaps have found God or whatever - and gets an offender management plan, upon their release are still managed through the parole system until the end of parole; they are released into the community and they get on with their lives - what is left of it.
That is not what this is about. We will apply offender management plans to people who are released under this system but are subject to effective control.
Mr WOOD: If those people come from a remote community, is it likely you have enough staff to supervise in that community, or will it be a case of, ‘No, you cannot go to that community because we have not the staff to supervise’?
Mr ELFERINK: It may be. We have staff in remote communities by the way, through the Corrections Department. We do have them placed. Sometimes it is hard to fill those positions and that is the practical and pragmatic issues of running a corrections system in remote communities. But we do have them. We also, let us say in Alice Springs, have a number of Corrections staff who travel quite a bit and visit remote communities.
It may well be the case that a control order will prevent a person from travelling to a particular community. I am interested to know what sort of evidence you would be able to adduce to a court which would demonstrate this person is only likely to commit a rape in Yuendumu, for instance, rather than in Hermannsburg or Papunya.
There is the latitude built into this to enable the court to make an appropriate order of restraint, either if they are in the community or - the ultimate form of restraint - under the physical restraint of a gaol.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, Attorney-General. I mentioned in the management of convicted sex offenders in Queensland they have a document relating to that, and some of that is to do with bracelets. There was discussion in the news …
Mr Elferink: I am so glad you asked this question.
Mr WOOD: … last year because we had bracelets once. The biggest concern was when there was lightning they were likely to get zapped. Some people might say that is good. The point is I have heard that type of equipment may be coming back. What sort of means do you have of keeping an eye on some of these offenders?
Mr ELFERINK: This is a great question.
Mr Wood: I have one good question.
Mr ELFERINK: The reason it is a great question because I can comfortably answer it by saying I was in Adelaide last Friday looking at exactly this type of equipment. There are several different types of bracelets that are available and, depending on the technology you need, there are bracelets which now enable you to track prisoners wherever they are. There are bracelets where a prisoner is sent to work, for argument’s sake; they are released into the community and they have one of the bracelets on. The Corrections staff can come by with a remote monitoring system, drive past the shop where the person subject to the bracelet order is and check the person is in the shop, because it communicates with the bracelet directly. So, it can be completely unobtrusive. This person can go to work. There is no probation and parole officer walking in and saying, ‘Just making sure you are at work here’ because that would be very difficult for some prisoners who are trying to amend their ways. You can check them through that sort of technology.
Much is done through landlines. There is a little unit in the house where, if you walk 30 m away from the unit, it sends off an immediate alarm which is centrally managed through a system that is run by South Australian Correctional Services.
There are also bracelets which you can apply in such a way that you can exclude people from areas. Let us say a person is told they are not allowed to go near Braitling in Alice Springs then, if that person goes within 300 m of the boundary of Braitling, then an alarm goes off immediately, warning that person they are close to their exclusion zone. There is an inclusion zone that is an electronic parameter fence which can be done, or an exclusion zone, which is where you are allowed to go anywhere but there.
There are GPS bracelets which means you can track any person anywhere in the world. They are a little hungrier on battery life, but the technology is improving. The batteries in those only last for about 24 to 25 hours, but in the other bracelets the batteries last for weeks and there is a simple recharge.
There are all sorts of technologies available. We are looking at them very carefully. They are an option in tracking people who are under all sorts of different orders.
There is legislation within the Correctional Services portfolio where bracelets are already contemplated. The former government wisely passed that legislation. If there needs to be amendments to that legislation because of changing technology, we, as a government, will be happy to change that. We are looking at it. I was in Adelaide last week looking at these things, had them in my hands and chewing on the back of them, trying to find ways to get around them. They are pretty solid units, in the technology, and it is very hard to deceive the system.
I saw the computer backup system as well, which supports it, and it is instantaneous. If somebody breaches a geographic area on their order, the computer lights up and you know about it instantly. So, yes.
Mr WOOD: I imagine they are not cheap. Would you have any indication of how many people you think would need such supervisory controls in the Northern Territory?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes. Part of the problem with Corrections is like health; you are running a demand-driven area. Because the courts are independent, they make orders which are independent of government, so we have to provide resources in accordance with the determinations of the court. Can I stand up here and say 315 people would successfully qualify? No, I cannot say that because it is up to the court to adjudicate that on each individual case.
In regard to sentencing - now we are talking about sentencing which is off topic here - if the courts were able to be convinced of the usefulness of this technology, yes, it is not that cheap, but it is much cheaper than putting people in prison cells. As an alternative to imprisonment, that is where you would look at bracelets and those types of things.
In relation to bracelets for this type of legislation, if a court determines through the orders we give them discretion to make tracking a person rather than keeping them in gaol is the option, then that is written into this legislation - the court has that capacity.
Mr WOOD: That is where, without going too far off the track, the Glasgow system is because they have management plans and they release their people. That is part of the way …
Mr Elferink: That is contemplated by this legislation.
Mr WOOD: All right. I have probably worn you out, but you have given me time to think about a response to your question. It is a good question. I am not trying to shy away from the fact that is a real issue. However, if it is an issue for sex offenders under the changes, why is it not an issue for violent offenders? A violent offender could also go in with a determinant sentence and the same problems you have with a sex offender could occur.
Mr Elferink: Yes.
Mr WOOD: To me, there is no difference between the problem to the community of a violent offender and a sex offender. Do we have an issue with violent offenders?
Mr ELFERINK: We may well do; I certainly have not discounted it. I have been asked by the media why not violent offenders, and the answer has been at this stage we are focusing on sex offenders. However, should this bill pass the House with the support of the majority of members, I am happy to look at it. If you want to make submissions to me this should extent to violent offenders, I am happy to listen to you.
Mr WOOD: I might take my one overseas trip to Glasgow and look at what they do. One thing I found from studying this - I am not an expert or a lawyer - as a member of parliament, regardless of whether you have a legal background, one needs to, as best as possible, get as much information as you can.
I do not have any other questions. I am a bit disappointed you had a go at us because you believe we support offenders against the terrible crimes you mentioned. That, to me, is nearly an insult. I look at the legislation, I go to briefings, I ring up lawyers, I study as much as I can, and I work on the Internet. That is not because I disagree with what you are trying to do, but I remember -this might be a minor issue - the member for Brennan arguing about cash for cans. I remember him saying, ‘It is my job as an opposition member to scrutinise this bill’. That is all I am doing; trying to ensure the bill you have before us is a good one.
I do not want to be classed as somebody who is sticking up for rapists or people who play around with children. That is not what this is about. This is about you putting in legislation to stop those people. My job is to see whether this legislation will do the job in a way - as I said at the beginning from the people from Bravehearts - that we have a judicial system which is fair for the offender but, at the same time, protects the community. Surely, that does not make me appear to support people who commit terrible crimes? I do not support people who commit those terrible crimes. I am here as a member of parliament to test your legislation, and that is all I was trying to do. I feared, as soon as I stood up, you or someone would say, ‘Look at that bloke supporting those terrible people’.
The first thing you did was quote the Tennant Creek matter. That was a terrible thing and not something I support. I wanted to ensure your legislation stood up to scrutiny, just as the member for Brennan did. That is all I was trying to do.
Mr ELFERINK: I appreciate what you are saying. The problem is sometimes events overtake scrutiny. I am not saying we should not scrutinise, that is what a parliament is about. Despite people trying to dress up this government as trying to shut the thing down, I am doing no such thing, particularly in this instance.
We have to find a balance between the abundance of caution, which is advocated by you and the shadow Attorney-General, and the reality of these crimes. The reason I was a little upset at the outset was the very type of crime I was seeking to prevent when I brought this or similar legislation into this House a couple of years ago may well not have occurred. That rests on my conscious deeply.
We can push this through a million committees. You referred to the Victorian committee, which was divided on it. I understand this is a divisive issue. You have to strike a balance somewhere. For me, the balance falls in favour of the potential victim.
Ms WALKER: Mr Chairman, I did not want to interrupt the member for Nelson as he was going through his questions, so forgive me if I overlap a bit here, Attorney-General.
I have listened very carefully to what you had to say throughout this debate, but I still do not remain convinced. Call it a restraint or detention - whilst technically, for all intents and purposes, it is not sentencing and it avoids the legal tag of double jeopardy - it still detains people. It still keeps people in prisons. On that premise, I still maintain the contribution of my debate about the fact that it still is detaining people. You are emphatic that it is not sentencing but, for all intents and purposes, it is.
I make another observation as well. These are really complex matters. The member for Nelson and I have read extensively on this and discussed it with people. I am disappointed. I made the comment during my contribution that, sometimes, I wonder if this is very much the law reform agenda of the member for Port Darwin, or the CLP’s. So few on your side participate in these debates. On so few occasions with Justice bills have we had second speakers. Off the top of my head, I can remember two. One was the member for Drysdale in the National Uniform Evidence Bill and the other was the member for Stuart in the minimum mandatory sentencing. If we wonder why this is not an agenda shared by the broader government, there is that.
There is also the fact it is within your prerogative as the Attorney-General to not have to accept the report or the recommendation or, for that matter, to even make a referral to, the NT Law Reform Commission. I contend, when you say the people are a higher authority than eminent lawyers in the Northern Territory, that is somewhat dismissive of legal experts with cumulative years, decades, of experience. That borders on offensive. The terminology was that the line of inquiry which had been initiated on this particular issue with the Law Reform Committee was ceased or terminated, and that is a great shame. You are, obviously, entitled to accept or reject that report, and there is nothing that obliges you to release it. However, to have a closed mind to that - and I quoted from Justice Kirby. I have the whole Fardon case here; what all seven judges had to say. I went to Justice Kirby because I wanted to know what it was about the Fardon case that saw him raise objections. My role on this side of the House is to be the devil’s advocate and find those points of difference.
I quoted from the letter from NAAJA which you would have received. The member for Nelson has asked you questions about rehabilitation. I want to know what rehabilitation will be made available - it is a difficult issue, pre-election, post-election - for those offenders in our Corrections systems who have conducted sexual offences - terrible offences - yet they are incapacitated on a number of levels, not the least of which is that barrier of language.
Whilst the government has done away with an Indigenous Affairs portfolio, there is no denying the fact that 30% of our population makes up 80% of our prison population, and that is a real concern. If we have a government which is hell-bent on alcohol reform, then what is the way forward with reforming individuals? I have asked much there, but perhaps you could go to the point around rehabilitation for disadvantaged people.
Mr ELFERINK: We provide courses for sex offenders, and many sexual offender prisoners take advantage of those courses. Some do not do the courses - last year 10 refused to. We do our best - you can lead a horse to water. Let us be honest, of the prisoners who do these courses how many are just trying to get through the parole system and how many are paying attention? You will not know the answer to that question because you cannot interrogate what is happening between a person’s ears if they are trying to jump through some hoops. I understand the language barriers. If this was a perfect world we would have zillions of dollars to pour into this, and be able to provide one-on-one mentoring and all that. The fact is we cannot, so we have to do it within certain parameters, and we provide the requisite courses. More generally speaking, we do our best.
The response from this government in relation to prisoners generally is I want to keep them away. I pick up on 80% of the prison population being Indigenous. I believe it is 82%. If you are looking for a correlation between offending and a particular class of people, Indigenous is not the most common. The most common is welfare dependant. More welfare-dependant people end up in gaol than Indigenous people. I prefer to use that correlation because it gives me a better potential to plan in that area. That is speaking generally.
Speaking more specifically about this bill, whilst I appreciate people have asked critical questions - I understand you are here to ask critical questions – you are not playing the devil’s advocate. The devil’s advocates job is to ask difficult questions to test the quality of something. You are doing more than that. You are resisting this bill; you are saying, ‘We do not like it for several reasons and these are the reasons’.
Justice Kirby did not like it despite the comments of six other High Court judges. Justice Kirby has often been a dissenting judge because, I suspect, he sees his role as an activist judge. That does not always accord with the law of the land according to his colleagues, which is the case in this instance. He makes his observations. I have read a number of judgments of Justice Kirby where he likes to pursue these things. It is his business how he goes about that. However, the law of the land says these legislative instruments are lawful and are supported in other Australian jurisdictions.
It is not just a case of you playing devil’s advocate. You will, I presume, vote no on the basis of your comments so far because you do not like the structure of this bill, or the fact it has not been pushed through half a dozen different organisations for their approval.
I hesitate at the suggestion people are, in some way, the great unwashed, and the wisdom of judgment and smart people is the better form of judge on these issues. I do not accept that because, if you follow that argument to its logical conclusion, you can do away with democracy and we can have a bunch of professors running things. We do not do that because the great unwashed often have informed opinions. As the member for Nelson pointed out from the report he quoted, even the smarty pants, the clever guys, the professors and the QCs, still form, on these types of legislative instruments, narrow majorities and substantial minorities. Even when they are informed up to the 100th floor, you still get a pretty clean divide. There comes a point where you have to make a decision and that is what this government has determined to do.
In relation to the member for Port Darwin’s law reform aspects, this went through the Country Liberal Party’s policy committee and was ticked off. It has been before the parliamentary wing of the Country Liberal Party and been ticked off, prior to and subsequent to the election. It has been before Cabinet and been ticked off. This has gone through all the processes my party demands of me before it came into this place.
Consequently, it is not the member for Port Darwin’s opinion. Yes, the member for Port Darwin does drive these things. I got into politics because it would enable me to do certain things and, hopefully, in this case to protect victims from becoming victims. That is why we all get into politics. But it does go through processes. This is not just John Elferink’s or the member for Port Darwin’s opinion. This is the considered policy position of the Country Liberal Party, parliamentary wing and Cabinet.
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, although, traditionally, at this time of year it is often quiet in the Territory ahead of the Dry Season, in the Nightcliff area it has been far from quiet. I will update the House on some of these activities.
Only yesterday, the member for Johnston and I hosted a seniors’ Easter morning tea for local residents in our area. It was a wonderful morning with over 80 people attending, sharing a cuppa and some laughs. Many residents commented that it was wonderful to catch up with each other. Some residents have known each other for years, but had not caught up recently.
There was also a number of attendees who, in recent years, had moved to the Territory to join family here, so different from the days when, upon retirement, people moved south. I thank everyone for coming along and sharing the morning with me and the member for Johnston.
One concern senior residents asked me to raise, as their representative in this parliament, is how much the Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme assists them. They were horrified that any changes to the scheme were being contemplated. I call on the government to ensure this scheme is not cut in the upcoming budget, as it means a great deal to many people.
Last Friday, I was at the Nightcliff Primary School to share Harmony Day. What a wonderful celebration! Nightcliff Primary School has a strong multicultural community and it was great to see this on display.
I also congratulate the Nightcliff Primary School for the recent election of the Student Representative Council members. I will read their names, and you will have to excuse my pronunciation. I congratulate Ethan Colless, Sofia Krepapas, Daniel Morgan, Bella Yates, Dae Gerschwitz, Gabbie Ma’afu, Toby Papworth, Eve Sprite, Ben Goldney, Emma Gonzadi, Joshua Butts, Elizabeth Argoon, Timor May, Steffanie Ligno, Seth McGregor, Kimberley Levett-Olsen, Oscar Williams, Lena Petterson, Theofanis Kokkinomagoulos, Stacey Phillips, Jonty Beard and Nika Wironika. The group recently visited my office to share their thoughts and ideas for the area with me. It was a pleasure to host them and I thank the Student Representative Council from Nightcliff Primary School for their visit.
I also had the pleasure this last weekend of presenting awards to the participants in the Royal Life Saving Swim and Survive Water Safety Program. This is a wonderful program run by the not-for-profit Royal Life Saving Society. It has been running for many years. In the Territory, with our outdoor lifestyle where we spend so much time in or around water - mainly around water - water safety is so important. I acknowledge the efforts of not only the participants who have been completing activities over the last six weeks, but the parents and carers who have given up their Sunday mornings - a very early start - to ensure their loved ones have vital water safety skills for life, and the trainers who have given up their time to pass on skills. Many of these people work full-time but give up their Sunday mornings to come along and teach the programs.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the program runs twice a year at Nightcliff Swimming Pool and encompasses programs from infant aquatics - babies of six months of age who are participating in the Northern Territory government Water Safety Awareness program - through to the bronze medallion level. Over 100 children participated in the program and Royal Life Saving appreciates parents’ active participation. I congratulate the Royal Life Saving Society and all involved in running this vital program.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, this evening I will give a brief summary of one of my constituents and the achievements she has gained through archery.
Joy Wood has been an archer for most of her life. She is involved with the Wandering Archers at Humpty Doo, and recently was a participant in the Australian team for the World Field Archery Championships held in Argentina in November 2012.
Joy was the only person from the Northern Territory to participate in the Australian team. She met up with the team at Sydney airport then flew direct to Buenos Aries, spending several hours at the airport learning life in Argentina is very different to the Northern Territory, particularly Humpty Doo.
They had a little mix-up with cars but, eventually, found their way to the hotel. They had to travel about 450 km to 500 km south to Miramar on double-lane divided highways. She told me they were pulled over by the police for not having their lights on, which is required in the country areas. When the traffic lights were red, if there were no cars coming the other way it was fair game and they were allowed to go through the red lights - or perhaps they just went through the red lights.
They were welcomed into the town with a march through the main street the next day. She said the sight of all the different country competitors in their uniforms was quite spectacular.
They set up a small practice range later but then realised, when they started to use it, the arrows went straight through the material and out the other side, which is not desirable. So, they had to find more reinforcing for the practice range. She said the tournament almost did not go ahead but the International Field Archery Association hierarchy could not do or say much or the Argentinians may have just pulled the pin and told everyone to go home. They day before the competition was due to start the ranges were not set up and only a few target butts were in place.
About 10 Aussies, most of them with range fighters, followed by some English, Scottish and Americans, went out to measure the distances and hammer in the shooting pegs themselves while others erected the butts. She said there is nothing like a do-it-yourself campaign for a World Field Archery Championships, but they were glad to help out. Most of us would understand Aussies, English, Scots, and Americans - and everyone for that matter - were prepared to pitch in.
There was a delay but, finally, they headed out to the range just before lunchtime and got back before it was too dark. On her first shoot she did not shoot well; the long trip over had played havoc. As we know, it is a fair way away. There is much walking when you do field archery and no short cuts, so they were pretty tired before they had even started. Also, she said it was misty and foggy, which does not go well with the arrows.
The English and Scots shot and for the first two days were brilliant. The course was up and down hills, and the animal round was all set at maximum distances - a five-yard walk up with first peg set between 60 to 45 yards. All started at 60 yards. Even the close ones, the small targets, were supposed to be between 10 and 20 yards and were all 20 except for one.
There was only one other competitor in Joy’s division, a woman from Argentina who had not shot a field round before. Most South Americans shoot indoor but not much outdoor, and it is very different given the conditions you can experience in an outdoor range. The Argentinian lady had many difficulties with the shots over 20 yards.
Joy did not shoot particularly well but they had fun and improved their language skills, given Joy probably could not speak Spanish and the Argentinians probably did not speak very much English.
On the fifth day, all the scoring was done in Spanish so people could understand what was going on. After the competition finished there was presentation day. Most of the Australians won medals. Joy won the gold and, therefore, the World Champion Patch in her particular division in field archery.
Before returning to Australia seven of the team travelled to other parts of South America. Joy went to Peru, which she said was amazing climbing lots of steps and looking at many fascinating parts of the country. The whole trip, she said, was very busy, and it was a long way away with long air flights.
She recently competed with others from the Wandering Archers in the IFAA World Indoor Male Match, in which shooters participate at their local club and send scores to an international score recorder for collation. She has been helping out with coaching at the latest course for beginners.
Interestingly, the Australian National Championship have been held in Alice Springs on Sunday 24th. It is the first time the nationals have been held in the Northern Territory and many interstaters have travelled to Alice Springs to compete. Joy will be continuing south to do some cooler weather practice. She also intends to travel to New Zealand for the IFAA Pacific Region Championships held on 26 and 28 April. She sent me some photos of the Australian team which acquitted itself very well.
Joy is a passionate archer and is keen to share her skills and knowledge about this particular sport with people of many ages. The Wandering Archers is a club based in Humpty Doo, primarily on Joy Wood’s property. I have been there, and it is not as easy as it looks. It is not like when you were a kid playing bow and arrows and pretending to be Indians and cowboys; it really is a professional sport. I wish her well, and I know she will continue to compete well into the Aged Championships and bring back gold and prizes, not only to Australia, but particularly to the Northern Territory to her Humpty Doo club. Congratulations to Joy Wood, and I wish her and the Wandering Archers all the very best.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is with great pleasure I talk about my electorate schools, Alawa and Nakara schools. Alawa Primary School’s new Principal, Robyn, advised Alawa had a great start in the year. I enjoyed attending Alawa Primary School special literacy group assembly last year, and also hosting my annual welcome to staff morning tea and meeting up with all the staff, especially Principal Robyn and the new teachers.
Last Friday, Alawa Primary School celebrated Harmony Day with a breakfast which, unfortunately, I missed because I had to be in Alice Springs. The breakfast was a huge success. The atmosphere, music, food and coffee was great. Most importantly, it allowed parents to celebrate a special day with their children and the Alawa community before they went off to work.
Recently, Alawa Primary School launched a national wellbeing initiative, KidsMatter. Also, the school acknowledged National Day Against Bullying with a slogan competition. The new slogan for Alawa is, ‘This is Alawa school, so don’t bully, that’s our rule’. Well done to all the kids who participated in the slogan competition. It is great to see the initiative from the kids themselves.
Nakara Primary School also had a great start to the year, and the principal advised that the enrolment numbers are what they expected, but the preschool numbers are really high with 78 students. I am very proud to advise Nakara Primary School is listed in My School 2012 website as the top government school of the Northern Territory across Year 3 and 5 and is at or above national average in all areas. That is a fantastic record. Well done to all the students and teachers at Nakara.
It has been a very busy first term at Nakara. The school is fully implementing the Australian curriculum in English, maths, science, and history this year.
I have to say this is my first time reading directly from a computer; I actually do not have a piece of paper. It is a good start, but the letters are too small, so if I make a mistake, apologies.
Last Friday, Nakara hosted a wonderful Harmony Day celebration for the community, with many beautiful performers in the assembly hall in a special multicultural lounge. They usually get the students who come from different cultural backgrounds to dress in national costumes and perform their traditional songs and dances. Then, all of them contribute, bringing food from their countries, which is fantastic.
The recent Crazy Hair Day - yes, they do things different in Nakara - raised well over $500 for the Leukaemia Foundation.
Their school had new carpet and vinyl laid throughout over the holidays, and that makes the school look really good. The basketball court was resurfaced, with new backboards and hoops, and a full internal repaint of the school has been approved to commence soon.
Nakara also received 20 new PCs and 20 new iPads this year. More good news for Nakara Primary School with the introduction of music classes. The classes are up and running and so is the senior choir. I will be going back to Nakara soon to present my achievement awards as I do every month to recognise the students for their best efforts.
I have another school in my area, the Nemarluk School. They started the new school year very well in their new fantastic school they have in the Alawa Primary School grounds. The new Principal, Lorraine, advised they have 12 preschool students, 128 primary school students, 59 DECS teaching staff, six non-teaching staff, as well as a lovely group of casual support staff.
They celebrated their first school event, Harmony Day, with an informal evening celebration to allow everyone to mingle. The celebration focused on student performances and displays of the students’ work. The theme was, Everyone Belongs, Many Stories, One Australia. The evening was just as everyone hoped it would be, relaxed and colourful, allowing families to catch up with other families and school staff, and allowing the children to have fun in a safe family place.
On a sad note, we lost one of our really lovely legacy workers recently, Peg Thompson, from Tiwi. Peg and her daughter, Jan, were regular visitors to my electorate office and very good friends. You could see her nearly every day in Casuarina. Her daughter, Jan, was always looking after her mother who recently lost a lot of weight and still looked very well.
I attended the funeral and I was very impressed when they read the eulogy and showed the photographs. I was very impressed because Peg came from South Australia and settled with her husband in the Northern Territory. They raised not only their own children but an extended family when they adopted a couple of Aboriginal girls who they raised as their own daughters.
Madam Speaker, I have been to many funerals and gatherings, but this time the family were so united which spoke so well for their natural and adoptive mother that I had tears in my eyes. My sincere condolences to Jan and all the Thompson family. Peg will be dearly missed by us all.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016