2015-11-17
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of two Year 6 classes from Parap Primary School, accompanied by Temira Wallis and Rebecca Dearden. On behalf of all members, welcome to Parliament House and I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received Message No 29 from His Honour the Administrator notifying assent to the bills passed at the August sittings. The message is dated 5 October 2015.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table a warrant appointing the members for Blain, Nelson, Karama and Araluen as Deputy Chairs of Committees pursuant to Standing Order 12. It is dated 17 November 2015.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I would like to also acknowledge and welcome into the Speaker’s Gallery our guestS from the island of Niue, which is our twin sister parliament. We have Hon Joan Viliamu, Chairperson of the House Committee and Common Role; Crossley Tatui, Vice Chairman of Bills, Committees and Common Role; and Hon Dion Taufitu, a member of the Bills Committee, a member of the Public Accounts Committee and the Toi Village constituency.
Welcome to Parliament House and Darwin, Northern Territory.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table a letter circulated to members this morning. Pursuant to Standing Order 83(3), an order of continuing effect dated 23 May 1996, I give my reasons for granting precedence to the member for Goyder to immediately move a motion concerning privilege.
I determine that this is an occasion where the Assembly’s power to adjudge and deal with contempt is required to provide reasonable protection to the Assembly. Today is the first opportunity as the Assembly meets for the first time since the advertisement referred to appeared in the media.
In applying the order of continuing effect, I note that if the Assembly does not deal with this matter immediately it may be construed as encouraging the author of these advertisements to continue to act in a manner which may tend to obstruct members in the performance of their functions. I do not find any other remedy in existence apart from this matter being dealt with immediately. I now call on the member for Goyder.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: No, there is no point of order.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! We had no notice of this whatsoever. This is a clear trap and connivance that has been introduced into this House. Frankly it is deplorable conduct from the members opposite …
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, which standing order?
Mr ELFERINK: … and this is politics at its most base. Welcome to the parliament of the Northern Territory, ladies and gentlemen.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Member for Goyder, you have the call.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that:
1. the Assembly refers to the Committee of Privileges the publication of two advertisements appearing in the Northern Territory News, dated Friday 18 September 2015 and Monday 21 September, which alleged that named members of this Assembly prevented the passage of legislation which still remains on the Notice Paper
2. the committee investigates whether the creation and publication of the advertisements may constitute a contempt of the Legislative Assembly
3. the committee considers whether the Chief Minister or another identifiable person is responsible for the publication of the advertisements
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, the advertisements I am referring to claim that certain members of the Legislative Assembly blocked the passage of legislation. The Speaker has tabled copies attached to the correspondence circulated in the Assembly this morning.
As members are aware, on Tuesday 15 September the Attorney-General gave notice of the introduction of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill 2015 (Serial 136) to occur on Wednesday 16 September, and also gave notice that he would move on the next sitting day – 16 September – that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill 2015 (Serial 136) passing through all stages during these sittings.
On Wednesday 16 September the Attorney-General presented the bill and moved it be read a second time.
The debate was then adjourned on the motion of the member of Nhulunbuy in accordance with the established practice required under Standing Order 178, which requires a period of one month must elapse between presenting a bill and putting the question that it be read a second time.
The Attorney-General then proceeded to move the suspension of standing orders, in particular the requirement of Standing Order 178, which was debated throughout much of Wednesday and eventually defeated by a majority vote on a division. The second reading debate on the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill remains on the Notice Paper today.
The members who voted against the motion to suspend standing orders did not vote against the second reading of the bill. To claim they did so is misleading the community at large, and to frame the advertisements as they have the person responsible has attempted to interfere with the orderly business of the members of this Assembly and attempted to obstruct those named members in the course of their duty.
Publication of the material, which is aimed at unduly influencing a member and disruption of a member in their role, is a possible contempt of this Assembly. This is what I am asking members of this Assembly to have the Committee of Privileges consider and investigate in detail, and I can give personal examples. I received a couple of e-mails pleading with me not to block ice legislation. I spoke to the people personally and said that is not what it was. The ads were completely misleading, false and inaccurate.
I ask all members to support this motion to allow the committee to consider this serious matter in the context of the independence and integrity of the institution of the parliament, and make recommendations for a report back to the Assembly.
The power of the Assembly to punish contempt arises under section 12 of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 and section 5 of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act.
If it is established that the advertisement was aimed at directly impacting upon the named members of the Assembly who the advertisement claimed blocked drug laws from being passed, then contempt of the Assembly may have been perpetrated. This advertisement reflects the attitude of its author, or authors, who appear to be the Chief Minister or his agents. The Assembly does not exist to do the bidding of government. It is where all Territorians are represented through their elected member, not just a place where the executive is formed.
While the NT News has published the paid advertisements, I maintain the responsibility lies with the government because the advertisement carries the crest of the Northern Territory government. The Northern Territory Flag and Emblem Act outlines the authority for use of the Northern Territory coat of arms at section 6, and the relevant minister with the control of the act under the Administrative Arrangements Order is the Chief Minister.
It is time for the government to realise that in our Westminster system the government exists as a grouping of members of this Assembly who form the executive, not as a group of members of this Assembly who can hold the Assembly itself in contempt and can publish untrue advertisements about what occurred in this Assembly.
I reluctantly use the word ‘lie’ in this debate due to the motion I am moving. We do not use that word lightly in this Assembly. It is only in this context, by way of substantive motion, that any member may allege that the act of lying has been deliberately perpetrated by another member. The lie is that the laws which remain up for debate were blocked. They were not blocked. They remain a matter for consideration of this Assembly.
I commend the motion to honourable members and welcome their contribution in debate today.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that debate be adjourned.
The Assembly divided:
Debate adjourned.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I table the Public Accounts Committee report on the funding of rugby league facilities in Darwin. This Assembly directed the Public Accounts Committee to inquire into all matters relating to the funding of rugby league facilities in Darwin, particularly ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! The normal process for tabled papers can be found at Standing Order 90. In relation to Tuesday’s and Thursday’s, papers are No 8 on the Routine of Business and should accordingly follow the Routine of Business. There is no motion before this House to upset the Routine of Business, and I urge that we get on with the business of the House in accordance with standing orders.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The chair of a committee can table a report at any time. There was no question before the chair. The member for Araluen has the call and is able to proceed.
Mrs LAMBLEY: This Assembly directed the Public Accounts Committee to inquire into all matters relating to the funding of rugby league facilities in Darwin, particularly the original budget allocation for new facilities at Marrara and the decision to spend $20m to upgrade Richardson Park. The object of the inquiry was to ascertain what the original plans for rugby league at Marrara were, to investigate why there was a change to Richardson Park, who made that decision, who else had a say in that decision, what due diligence occurred before that decision was made and whether Cabinet was involved in the decision.
I regret to report that on a key point of the terms of reference we have failed; we do not know why there was a change to Richardson Park. On the other points, however, the committee was largely successful in answering the questions posed by the Assembly. We were asked to look at the original budget allocation for new facilities at Marrara. In asking this, the Assembly erred for there was no budget allocation for Marrara ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Behind the scenes I have just …
Madam SPEAKER: What is your point of order? What is your standing order number?
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, this is out of order by virtue of the fact that this …
Madam SPEAKER: Sit down. It is not a point of order.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker! The committee has not yet agreed on a position in the report.
Madam SPEAKER: It is not a point of order. Sit down!
Member for Araluen, you have the call.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Department of Sport and Recreation …
Mr Elferink: Madam Speaker, the …
Madam SPEAKER: You do not have the call. Sit down, member for Port Darwin!
Member for Araluen, you have the call.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. You have no standing order. Please be seated, member for Port Darwin.
Mrs LAMBLEY: The Department of Sport and Recreation had developed a business case for a $100m stadium at Marrara, and Cabinet decided, quite rightly, that was too big a drain on the public purse. Instead, Cabinet made a provisional funding decision for a stadium, with its location not specified, for up to $42.5m. As far as the committee could determine, this was the original and only Cabinet decision on the stadium. That decision was made in March.
The budget needed to be finalised. As is usual, Cabinet gave the Treasurer authority to finalise the budget. There are many decisions required to finalise the budget, and they cannot all go through a complete Cabinet process. The Treasurer needs latitude to make last minute tweaks …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 22 relating to reporting progress. I have not heard anything so far to suggest this is a progress report. The advice I have received from the member for Blain is that the PAC has not resolved the issue of this report yet.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, the PAC committee has met and, as I understand it, has deliberated and heard from witnesses. The NT government has not appointed members to the PAC. I have received no advice that there are two new members on the Public Accounts Committee.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Speaker, I can clarify this point for the member for Port Darwin.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Speaker, this is the final report on funding of rugby league facilities in Darwin, not a progress report. I will continue with my statement.
The combined government agencies’ submission to the committee explains that:
The submission further outlines:
As to why this decision was made the government submission stated:
To the casual observer that sounds like an acceptable reason. However, it is relevant here to mention the first two findings of the committee.
Finding one is that the government did not undertake any consultation with sporting bodies, residents or other interested groups, or hold any public discussions on upgrading Richardson Park before deciding to do so.
Finding two is in a similar vein. The government did not ask for or receive any advice or analysis on upgrading Richardson Park from any of its agencies.
Let me be clear, the committee did not simply find there was inadequate consultation but that there was no consultation. The committee did not find that the analysis by government agencies was inadequate; it found that no government agency had been asked to provide any analysis on developing Richardson Park. The government’s reason for developing Richardson Park was that it is better value for money, but there was no attempt to compare what value $20m spent elsewhere could provide.
This leads the committee to its fifth finding:
The next question referred by the Assembly was who made the decision. The committee’s fourth finding was:
This leaves open the question of who the relevant ministers were who considered this issue before it was given formal approval by the Treasurer.
The Minister for Sport and Recreation was the only minister to appear before the committee, despite the Chief Minister and the Treasurer also being invited. The minister made it clear he would not lift the veil of Cabinet confidentiality and discuss the internal decision-making of Cabinet. However, the minister told the committee the Treasurer convinced him of the Richardson Park upgrade. Given that Treasury told the committee it was advised of the proposal after the decision was made, that leads to two possible conclusions: either the minister was involved in the decision but disagreed with it until Treasury convinced him otherwise after the fact, or the minister was not involved in the decision.
The Assembly also referred the question of who else had a say in the decision. The committee knows it was not any Territory sporting body, all of whom were surprised by the decision. The committee knows it was not Treasury, the Department of Sport and Recreation, the Department of Infrastructure or the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment, all of which were advised after the decision was made.
The final question referred by the Assembly was what due diligence occurred. To answer this question one must define what diligence is due for a government-funding decision. It is an important principle for our system of government that Cabinet is free to make whatever decisions it thinks is best for the Northern Territory, but that does not free the Cabinet to act unreasonably. Ministers are bound by the Legislative Assembly (Members’ Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards) Act, which sets in law minimum standards for decision-making for all members, including ministers. Clauses 10 and 11 are particularly relevant. Ten is about responsibility:
Eleven pertains to public interest:
This leads to the committee’s ninth finding.
Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I table this report today. The process has been undertaken with some degree of urgency given the fact that tenders close for the Richardson Park upgrade this Friday, 19 November. The Public Accounts Committee felt that to ensure that this report was relevant we had to produce and table it this sittings. Originally, as the member for Port Darwin mentioned, there was talk of a progress report, but given the fact that we completed our public hearings into the matter last week, we spent considerable time deliberating over the information received. We felt we had enough information to complete the inquiry and the report.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be noted.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Whilst I appreciate members would like to speak now, the normal tradition is that the matter be adjourned off so other people get to read the report before the matter is debated out. In fairness to all members of this House, and in accordance with the normal procedure of this House, this debate should be adjourned. In fact, I move that the debate be adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, you had the call for a point of order not to adjourn the debate.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, the Public Accounts Committee …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move that the debate be adjourned.
Motion negatived.
Ms FYLES: Madam Speaker, perhaps the minister would care to listen. If the government had cared to listen to the community it would understand the need for urgency with this report into $20m of taxpayer funds being spent without any consultation. Both Northern Territory Rugby League and the National Rugby League, in their words, were surprised $20m was being spent at Richardson Park. That sums it up.
We are not talking about whether an investment in sport should happen or not, because everyone agrees rugby league deserves a home. We have Marrara Sporting Complex, where a number of sports are based, which is a fantastic facility. What is being debated today is that the government did not seek advice or consult with the community or the sporting community before it decided to spend $20m of taxpayer funds. It did not follow process or seek any evidence. There was no analysis, so we are potentially wasting millions of dollars of taxpayer funds and we do not know how much this facility will cost to run. It was necessary for the Public Accounts Committee to look into this matter urgently. The Public Accounts Committee has already had some indication that costs will blow out by $2m.
With tenders closing in the next few days, it is important this report is tabled. Everyone can see the clear evidence that there was no consultation. What summed up the lack of consultation was when the minister for Sport, who came to the Public Accounts Committee hearing when requested – as a member of the committee I thank him for speaking to us – when speaking about consultation highlighted the opposition’s media releases as part of the consultation phase. I love that my media releases are hitting home, but when they are part of the government’s consultation serious questions need to be asked.
When every sport says it was surprised at the announcement and there is huge community angst, it means there are concerns with the proposal. Ludmilla school was told only hours before the announcement that a large part of its oval and playground would be taken. We are now talking about potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars to rework the school playground in order to build a stadium that keeps changing. Originally it was one field, but all of a sudden we need to build two fields.
The Public Accounts Committee heard evidence from a number of rugby league organisations, including the National Rugby League, about some of the parameters they need to play the top level of the game. Have those been taken into account? Has 5 m on each side of the playing field before any hard surface been taken into account? There was no government department advice prior to this decision being made. This decision has already seen significant changes, will impact hugely on a small community and is taking over education space. We have no advice as to what will happen in the school grounds. There is no indication of who will pay for it. Will it come from the school’s budget or will it come from government?
The government is spending taxpayers’ money, but at the moment you would think it was their own. The Public Accounts Committee became aware the government was trying to rush this through. On some of the tender documents they could not even get the closing date right; they had two different dates. That shows how rushed it was.
The Public Accounts Committee met. Evidence was provided to us from a number of sporting organisations – Northern Territory Rugby League and the national body. We received evidence from touch football, AFL and over 50 submissions. Interestingly enough, two people who could have perhaps enlightened the committee on why this decision was made refused to come – the Treasurer and the Chief Minister. As I said previously, the Sport minister was able to enlighten us a little. It was quite clear a decision had been made that is not necessarily in the best interests of rugby league or the Ludmilla community.
It is worth noting that I attended a community meeting, probably about a month ago now, which the Treasurer also attended. He wore his Parramatta Eels jersey and quite arrogantly told the small community gathering – well, it was probably a larger community gathering, there were 60 to 80 people there – that the reason we have to rush this through is so that in August next year he can see the Parramatta Eels play. That is an absurd reason. Wearing that jersey showed arrogance and upset the small community. He is sitting across the Chamber laughing at me right now.
Minister, perhaps if you listened you would understand that large amount of concern in a small community. You are proposing a massive expansion. We are not talking about redoing a field and upgrading the 1500 seats there. We are proposing a facility that could cater for up to 10 000 people near suburban streets. Imagine if you had a 10 000-seat stadium proposed for your back yard; it literally is in this community’s back yard. We are talking about sound systems and lighting capable of televising, so you can imagine the issues that causes for the community. We are talking about a site that, yes, is the historical home of rugby league, but 65% of rugby league players now come from south of the Berrimah Line, from Palmerston and the rural area.
Fifty-odd years ago Ludmilla probably was the central point of the Darwin area, but not now. It is a small suburban oval, and this is a significant upgrade. We still have no clear answer on whether this will be for sport events or simply $22m a year for one rugby league match. Currently the Parramatta Eels are contracted to play for two more years. We are potentially building a stadium at a cost of $22m, and climbing, that will have a huge impact on the community and could be used for two more rugby league matches.
Some of the evidence presented to the committee shows that rugby league needs a home where they can play every night of the week and have double headers on Saturday nights. Imagine the impact on the surrounding residents, who have had no consultation. Some of them were aware of the budget decision made by the government, a decision made without any consultation with the sport this stadium will be home to. Some of them chased the department and were told that there would be proper consultation.
To date, the Public Accounts Committee has seen no evidence of that. In fact, opposition media releases were referred to as consultation. It shows how disorganised and arrogant this government is, thinking it can push through what it wants without any consultation.
The committee found a complete lack of analysis by the government of a number of issues, including how people will get to the facility. Will that be on buses which will bank up on Bagot Road and they then walk through the school to get to the facility? Will another road be built through mangroves costing millions of dollars? These serious issues need to be addressed before the facility goes ahead.
Prior to this decision rugby league wanted to move to Marrara. They had some concept plans and a number of planning proposals. Marrara is the home of sport in the Top End and it made sense to go there. Traffic plans can be put in place there and rugby union is already housed there. If there were adjoining league fields both sports could use them. We could have an important asset for rugby league and rugby union.
The government has yet to provide evidence why league should stay at Richardson Park. The fact that the Chief Minister and the Treasurer did not attend the committee hearings is interesting. The committee was told Marrara would cost over $100m – $42m for a 5000-seat stadium. Those figures are inaccurate. We are not comparing green apples with green apples; we are comparing avocados with apples. Common sense would suggest this proposal for Richardson Park – redeveloping the field and providing one grandstand and a large amount of temporary seating – could be replicated at Marrara for a similar cost. It is completely inaccurate for the government to say Marrara would cost over $100m and Richardson Park $20m. That is ridiculous.
The committee also found it interesting that no analysis had been done on the ongoing costs of the facility. Rugby league walked away from this facility some time ago citing – they gave the committee evidence – that it cost them $270 000 a year to run the facility. No preparation or analysis of ongoing costs has been done by the government. We are spending a huge amount of taxpayer dollars – $20m to $22m, and climbing – on a facility which could require hundreds of thousands if not more to run each year. Who will pay for that? Treasury likes one-off infrastructure spends. It indicated recurrent operational costs for the facility would come from the sport and recreation budget. This will impact on all Territorians because sport and recreation has a limited budget, meaning other sports will miss out.
Many questions were left unanswered. The evidence indicates this was a bad decision. The spend for rugby league is welcomed by everyone, including Labor. We have first-class AFL facilities and are getting a tennis centre, and rugby league deserves a home, but where that home should be needs discussion. We need to see evidence and some analysis. To date, all that points towards Marrara. There were serious questions about why the government suddenly changed its mind, but we were unable to ask those questions as the Chief Minister and Treasurer did not appear after being requested to do so by the committee.
This decision highlights an arrogant government failing to consult again. Building this facility could have a huge impact on the small community there. Dead-end streets could possibly become through streets. Nobody could accurately describe how they would deal with the noise and light issues, although the Treasurer suggested we could use the big concrete walls you see on the side of freeways.
The committee spent a number of hours questioning a range of sporting groups, which indicated the benefits to them. For example, AFL was keen on the temporary seating and having a facility to host the AFL 9s, which is a growing competition. However, they indicated that location is irrelevant.
Rugby league indicated they had been planning to go to Marrara. The figures they presented showed many players are from south of the Berrimah Line. Rugby league believed investment in Richardson Park is past its use-by date.
It is important to note the concern of the local community. People were very surprised and angry. They were worried by this decision and how it would impact on their lives. They gave evidence that when it was a facility for 1500 people they could hear pretty much everything. This expansion would have a huge impact on their lives.
We were unable to get to the bottom of whether this would be used for sport or be a multiuse facility. There was talk that it may hold concerts and other events. We have one event a year, with a contract in place for two more years and the potential to house a number of events. Lights would be on every night of the week and there is potential for a huge impact on the community.
The government, interestingly enough, when trying to sell this decision to the community after making it without consulting anyone, has said touch football and soccer would go to the facility. The Public Accounts Committee heard that touch is homed at the racecourse and hopes to stay there. We heard evidence from AFL, as I mentioned earlier, that the facility itself is important but not the location.
We do not believe the facility would suit soccer, and the member for Nelson might speak on that point. We spoke to many stakeholders and to residents who still feel they have not been heard and are powerless. We came up with a number of findings in the report.
I urge the government to listen to the community. A large amount of sporting infrastructure dollars is being spent and you have not consulted anyone. Potentially you are leaving Territorians with a white elephant of a sporting facility and they will be unable to manage the ongoing operating costs.
It will have a huge impact on a small suburban community. It will potentially have an impact on a school which, although numbers are low at the moment, everybody acknowledges that the capacity of Parap, Stuart Park and Larrakeyah schools will mean, with redevelopment infill, the numbers at Ludmilla will increase.
There are so many concerns yet such a lack of evidence, consultation and research by this government. I urge members to read this report, look at the key findings and urge the Treasurer and the Chief Minister to stop rushing ahead to build air-conditioned boxes so they can watch the Parramatta Eels before the election next year and do the right thing by Territorians.
As a Public Accounts Committee member I thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak and raise points. I encourage people to read this report, and I really encourage government members opposite to listen because the community is very upset. This decision could be switched to Marrara or the rural area – Freds Pass – but there needs to be consultation. We need evidence and some analysis of the ongoing cost to the community because there is potential to make a very costly mistake.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, Prime Minister Gillard made a captain’s pick and choose Nova Peris to run for a seat in parliament. Prime Minister Abbott made a captain’s pick when he gave Prince Philip a medal. Our captain’s pick was the Treasurer giving $20m to Richardson Park.
I support some money going to develop rugby league in the Northern Territory, especially the Top End. They have been the poor cousins of the AFL for many years. This is not a discussion about supporting rugby league and advancing that code. It is great, and we need to say that up front.
For too long they have had second-grade facilities, and to bring top-grade rugby league to the Northern Territory they require facilities to do so. However, it is more than that; it is about the future of rugby league. We are talking about the Top End, and I will not try to advance it for the rest of the Territory. Katherine has good rugby league facilities, so does Tennant Creek. Katherine plays rugby league, so does Tennant Creek, Nhulunbuy and Alice Springs, but we are referring specifically to the Darwin region.
I thought before the government spent money on the future of rugby league a proper, independent report would be done, enabling all involved – supporters, players, officials and the national body – to say where we should site a facility that could not only host local games, but also NRL games. We would then know the site was supported by the rugby league community. Frank McGuiness, who unfortunately passed away, as Auditor-General continually spoke about auditing to reduce the chance of something happening that would cost the government a great deal of money. In other words, do a risk assessment.
With regard to the Richardson Park funding, I do not believe the government has acted with due diligence to look at the broader requirements of rugby league, which include population growth and suitable areas it could be housed at. Nor has the government looked at the running costs of this facility, something missing from this debate. NT Rugby League was paying $5000 a week and was in debt because it could not cover costs.
The Treasurer decided, and then cloaked it in the government, to spend this money without any of the sporting groups knowing it would happen – to spend $20m on Richardson Park. A few people knew, but unfortunately the Treasurer did not appear before the committee so I could not ask him who said Richardson Park would be a better site. That is fine, Treasurer, people are entitled to lobby anyone but there is a bigger responsibility. Even though people might lobby you and say that is the heart of rugby league, the responsibility is if we spend money we must ensure this is the right place to do it.
Is this the future of rugby league? It is 55 years old. Then it was the centrepiece of sport in the Darwin region. At that stage we were running the speedway at Bagot Park and dust was everywhere. We moved Bagot Park to Hidden Valley, as we moved AFL to TIO.
We have not considered population growth. Palmerston did not exist when Richardson Park first opened, nor did most of the rural area. I am not saying Richardson Park should not be the site, but was due diligence taken by the government when it said it would spend $20m there?
Can the government say how it will make enough money to cover the cost of running Richardson Park? My rugby league place at Freds Pass does not get funding from the Northern Territory government ...
Mr Tollner: What about how the AFL makes enough money to cover the AFL oval? What about how you cover the Leanyer water park?
Mr WOOD: Hang on. It seems the government wants to take over the running of Richardson Park because rugby league cannot afford to run it. If you look at the key findings, NT Rugby League and the National Rugby League were talking about Marrara. The Treasurer might debate this, that and the other, but he highlights the fact that this debate never happened. It is only when we decided to investigate that we had some debate because this was the Treasurer’s decision, the captain’s pick. ‘Knock, knock, captain, we think Richardson Park is the place to go.’ ‘Beauty, $20m.’ That is what appears to have happened.
If the Treasurer thinks I am wrong please show us the facts and figures to say this is a good decision. Not only show us, but present the documents so people can analyse whether the decision makes good sense, because that is what we are trying to do.
I do not care if it is at Richardson Park or not, but so many questions have not been answered that one would have to say there has not been due diligence. You would expect the Treasurer, of all people, to make sure that money would not be wasted on a facility that had not been budgeted for.
I believe the budget for repairs and maintenance or the running of facilities in the Top End is about $4.5m. What is the estimated cost for the government to run Richardson Park per year? Do you have that figure? How much will it cost and how much do you expect to recover? I ask that because when the government said this is what it would do, four sports were mentioned, being NT rugby, soccer, touch and AFL.
We know that those sports were not consulted before the government made a decision. We know from the hearings that they are not interested in going there. If touch football gets an agreement with the Fannie Bay race track they are quite happy to stay there. They might go there for a state game. Soccer would prefer to stay where it is. Rugby union had the option of upgrading their part of the world and developing rugby union in conjunction with developing Warren Park. AFL, as has been said, wants to use it for ALF 9s, which could be played anywhere, but that facility would be available.
We were told it would be used for events, including concerts, and then told at the hearings that it would not be used for concerts. There is another revenue stream that will not exist.
Again, Frank McGuiness would be asking what due diligence occurred before making the decision. What is the risk of this, as the member for Nightcliff said, becoming a white elephant? I do not want it to become a white elephant.
There have been changes since the first announcement was made. It was a one field Richardson Park that turned into a two field Richardson Park. We also know that $20m will not cover things like car parking. What about the Nemarluk Drive extension which has been mentioned? Listening to a representative from the department of Lands and Planning, they may have to purchase land from Anglicare, which is another cost.
What is the true cost of developing Richardson Park? What are the ongoing operating costs of Richardson Park? They are reasonable questions that a Public Accounts Committee should be asking. To a large extent, except for the $20m, we do not know what those extras will be.
Also, was enough effort made to look at alternatives? The classic alternative that was missed is whether the government considered Berrimah when looking at this? The government has just announced tenders going out for the development of Berrimah. Many people will live at Berrimah so what recreation facilities are planned for Berrimah Farm? Would this have been an ideal place for a new facility, halfway to Palmerston and the rural area and halfway to Darwin and the northern suburbs? Was any thought given to that? It appears not.
The government and the department looked at an alternative based on a rugby league field at Mudgee estimated to cost about $25m. It would have 5000 permanent seats and enough temporary seating to bring the numbers up to about 12 000 people at Warren Park. That appears, on the surface, to be a good idea. Another idea would have been to upgrade Rugby Park, which is next door.
We need a reality check in this debate. We are upgrading one rectangular park for one or two games a year, being NRL. We have no guarantee anyone else wants to use it. How could we upgrade and get the best value for money for that short period of time? Rugby Park has and is being used by rugby league for grand finals. It has a grandstand that could be added to and embankments for temporary seating. It has some terrible facilities which could do with upgrades.
One issue raised about Warren Park was that it could have been the centre for sports medicine. I have not heard that about Richardson Park, and do not know why you would put a centre for sports medicine away from the main sporting facilities at Marrara. We have athletics, cricket, football, soccer, rugby league, tennis will go there, and it would make a lot of sense. That was in one of the reports which said we should look at the possibility of including a sports medicine facility at Warren Park.
Unfortunately, the government has made a decision which is not based on reasonable analysis. If it used reasonable analysis it will not release information on it. We do not know on what basis the Treasurer decided to approve $20m. We have some facts and figures about the $100m reserve. Obviously, that was too high. We have facts and figures about a $42.5m proposal, a $25m facility, and an old plan from 2009 that rugby league did which worked out at about $10m. We do not have anything before us to show what due diligence the government took before it decided to go with the $20m option. Many people feel it is a fait accompli.
The government puts out tenders then asks people what they think. That is fine, but we do not believe those views will have much weight because if the Treasurer wants something to happen it will. There should have been general discussions about the future of rugby league and the effect upgrading Richardson Park would have. I did not find too many residents who said Richardson Park should continue as is or get the feeling people were anti-rugby league. It is more that you are moving from a weekend sport with a few games to something that could have a much greater impact on residents.
That is where you have consultation and talk to people about your views. I knew nothing about an extension to Nemarluk Drive except what a rugby league supporter told me. That came out on the last day of our hearings, so issues which I do not believe have been discussed need to be thought through. Ludmilla Primary School and the school council – the Education department only recently found out that was an issue. Consultation has to be genuine.
Theoretically, minister, if the DCA or residents felt that this proposal was heavily weighted against the amenity of the area, would the government say it would not go ahead? Would the government say, ‘We will listen to what people say and make a considered decision. We will work with the community if it needs adjustment, and listen to people sincerely to deal with the concerns they have’? At the moment you feel it is, ‘We need a rugby league field ready by the Eels match in August’. By hell or high water the Treasurer wants that to happen. Thankfully, the Minister for Sport and Recreation said he is not sticking to that time line.
Thank you, minister, for attending. It is good to see a minister at a PAC meeting. One issue with the Council of Territory Cooperation was complaints that ministers were not required to attend committee meetings. The PAC asked three ministers to appear and two did not, which is extremely disappointing. You will see the findings say that goes against the Members’ Code of Conduct, and I have the same feeling.
Clause 11 says:
Clause 10 says:
By attending the hearings ministers would have had an opportunity to put their point of view. I am happy to hear the Treasurer’s point of view because even though the Minister for Sport and Recreation will comment on this report, the Treasurer had a lot to do with this decision and we were not able to ask him questions. Therefore we can only presume that he does not want to provide the information.
It is a good report. I thank the staff who worked tirelessly to get this done. We needed to get this out quickly because the tenders are out. We have heard the Treasurer wants a game there next August so we needed to make sure that people knew all the issues. I hope the government accepts the recommendations and is not in a hurry to go down a path which could cause future cost to the Territory. Recommendation 6 says the committee recommends that the government avoid any undue haste in development of the new stadium.
I also thank my fellow members of the committee because it is an important report. It shows the value of the Public Accounts Committee because it is doing exactly what is required, and that is investigating public money being spent. It has done a good job. I believe due diligence has not occurred here, and people need to be reminded of what the Auditor-General would say about making sure there is little or no risk when the government spends our money so it is not wasted. There are plenty of examples where that has happened before.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of a Year 6 class from Parap Primary School accompanied by Tania Hardy. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, I support the report tabled by the Public Accounts Committee, an extensive body of work. It has been a very busy period. There has been much to get through, with a huge amount of work pursued by the committee and staff of the Legislative Assembly who have supported the work.
From the moment Richardson Park was announced it generated a lot of debate and confusion within the community about the government wanting to invest $20m of taxpayers’ funds into the facility. I do not think anybody is against investment in rugby league. We all appreciate what a wonderful sport it is in the Northern Territory, its benefits to people who participate in the sport, the love that Territorians have for seeing the big games, the week to week local competitions and people being able to participate in their beloved sport.
There is a great deal of support for further investment in rugby league. However, some very significant questions were raised regarding how the government made the decision to invest $20m in upgrading Richardson Park, which seemed to come out of the blue. The Public Accounts Committee scrutinised this expenditure and looked at the reasons for the government’s decision to invest $20m into upgrading Richardson Park, the process which has been followed, whether it is value for money and if it is the best investment in rugby league in the Northern Territory. What people want to see when government invests in sport is value for money for the community and a sound investment.
Many questions have been raised about the process government followed in deciding to invest in Richardson Park. The committee called for submissions and arranged public hearings so members could get a grasp of the advice agencies were putting into the Budget Cabinet process in advising government, to ensure government was making informed decisions and following due diligence. We received a great deal of information and had the opportunity to speak to several agencies regarding the process, because Richardson Park is not wholly a Department of Sport and Recreation agency responsibility. Other agencies have a role, such as the Department of Infrastructure and also Treasury.
It was very helpful to listen to staff from those agencies, especially the Minister for Sport and Recreation, who presented evidence to the committee. We welcomed and appreciated it. It was a shame we could not hear from the Treasurer and the Chief Minister, but it was good to have the minister there and hear his point of view and the process followed.
It became extremely apparent the information and advice that went into the Budget Cabinet process, as well as the decision to invest $20m to upgrade Richardson Park, was not based on advice, guidance or analysis presented by the agencies. The agencies were working on completely different locations and projects, and that raised a few questions.
With regard to the consultation process there were a few questions within the agencies, as well as the sporting bodies which would benefit from the move to an upgraded rectangular field facility. It seemed the sporting clubs which would ultimately stand to benefit from the rectangular field investment were not consulted about the move to Richardson Park. They were shocked that the government had decided to invest in upgrading Richardson Park. That was telling in regard to the decision-making process.
There were also many questions about the analysis done to ensure the government was achieving the best value for money by investing in the Richardson Park project as opposed to other potential options. The committee heard that other options had been explored at an agency level for Marrara with about $25m for 5000 permanent seats and the capacity to expand with temporary seating up to about 12 000 seats.
There was also an option around $40m. Then, of course, the $100m all-bells, all-whistles, fully-decked-out stadium option had also been explored. More information from the government that it was making a fair comparison of what was available would have been good to see.
The story from the government initially was, ‘Rather than investing $100m in a whizz-bang flash stadium, we decided to invest $20m in upgrading Richardson Park’. That seemed comparable to the $25m option for Marrara that had been considered at an agency level, but it would have been good to see more analysis of that since most of the sports had been working towards the fact that Marrara was where rugby league saw the investment going to upgrade their facilities and build and grow their sport.
Consultation was a constant theme throughout this. We heard from the agencies that they provided advice with regard to rugby upgrades, none of which was followed in the Cabinet decision. We also heard from other sports that prior to the decision they had not been consulted about the Richardson Park move, and that it came as quite a shock and surprise to them. They are very welcoming of the funding, love seeing big money invested in sport and they want to see their sport grow. However, it was not in line with their expectations or the planning they had been doing, and going back to Richardson Park was quite a surprise.
The community was a big issue throughout the PAC hearings. The local residents impacted by the decision to invest in upgrading Richardson Park had not been considered as part of this decision, and consultation was happening after the decision had been made. In fact, the budget decision announcement was in May and the committee heard that a communication strategy had just been prepared. You would think the community would be a top consideration in plans to redevelop Richardson Park, but consultation came months after the decision had been made. There is a great deal of angst in the community about how this will affect residents, who said they felt they were not being listened to by the government.
One thing that really stood out throughout the committee hearings was whether $20m will get the government there. It is clear that the tender process has not been completed; tenders are yet to come back. That raises questions about whether $20m will deliver this project. The committee heard other studies were being conducted which could ultimately lead to more money being invested in this project.
Also quite alarming is the fact the goalposts keep changing. From the initial announcement of one field it has gone to two fields, yet the bucket of money remains much the same. You wonder if we will have a compromised end product to meet the $20m Richardson Park upgrade, or will we see significant budget blowouts because the true costs of delivering this project have not been considered and included in the $20m? Tenders are yet to come in. I do not believe we will get the full upgrade the government has sold to the community for $20m alone. Many outstanding costs have not been factored into this.
It will be interesting to see how the tender goes and to closely monitor other costs associated with redevelopment of Richardson Park. It seems this project has been moving on the hop, and that government made a call outside Cabinet to invest in Richardson Park without the appropriate analysis, information, advice or consultation which usually goes into informing ministers and government, though the Budget Cabinet process, how to best invest Territory money. In this case that process appears not to have occurred. What will be delivered at Richardson Park for $20m is of great concern, and whether that is a true reflection of the cost of the project.
It is also clear that the government has much more work to do. It announced the investment and, since then, has been scrambling to get people on board. It has been scrambling to consult with other sporting bodies and the broader community. After speaking to people at the hearings, there seems to be no clear plan. Granted the government needs to get that tender into shape and form a clear plan, but if due process and diligence were applied initially this would have all been sorted out. Instead, it is hard to have confidence in the decision-making process and delivery of the project going forward given there are so many unknowns and uncertainties.
There is also a lot of community concern, and we urge the government to consult much more with the community.
Another big issue was the ongoing cost of running Richardson Park. Richardson Park was abandoned because of its huge weekly running costs. It was very difficult to go forward when they had such high overheads and no revenue coming in to support the facility or their sport.
It was also clear that the government had no understanding of the ongoing costs of maintaining Richardson Park. The last thing we want is a sport being put in a hard position because these things were not thought through. Again, it seems the thinking about and delivery of this project was on the hop. We need more information about the true costs to run this facility. Will they be sustainable to ensure rugby league is placed in the strongest position for its future development?
In its promotion of the Richardson Park upgrade the government spoke about getting other sports on board and the benefits that could flow to them through more rectangular fields. However, it seems that touch football, which was not aware of the government’s decision to go to Richardson Park, is not planning its future sporting activities there. It sees itself based at the turf club and, perhaps, using the office facilities at Richardson Park. There was some interest from the AFL 9s, but because these organisations were not consulted about Richardson Park in the first place, it raises questions about the viability and sustainability of the facility and how these costs will impact on rugby league.
More numbers need to be crunched because people want to see rugby league succeed in the Northern Territory and not be burdened with huge running costs. It would have been nice for the committee to get some assurances from government on the thinking around that, but government was unable to provide any rock-solid figures to give the committee confidence that had been considered in the decision to redevelop Richardson Park.
It has been a busy period for the PAC with an extensive investigation being conducted and hearings held. I thank all who participated. The sports that put submissions in and spoke to the PAC highlighted the fact there was not the necessary consultation and they were not aware their future was heading to Richardson Park.
It was also good to hear from the agencies, which were very up front and professional, and enlightened us on the process they followed and the advice they gave to government when deciding where to invest for rugby league. It was clear the agencies provided advice to the government, none of which was followed.
What is also abundantly clear is the need for more consultation with the community. People have concerns about how this will impact their lives and if the government can deliver this project. I am talking about the whole project, so the associated costs for roads, car parking, lighting and two fields. Can the government, with $20m, deliver a topnotch stadium to give people the experience they want at National Rugby League games in Darwin?
People want to know they are getting value for money for the future of rugby league in the Territory. At the moment people do not have faith or confidence because of the process government has followed.
Thank you to all the people who gave evidence, to the hard-working committee team in the Department of the Legislative Assembly, and thank you very much to my PAC colleagues. It was a very busy time but this is an important report.
Mr HIGGINS (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I am disappointed that we could not adjourn this debate as I would like to have read the report before I speak. In responding I will try to answer some of the questions asked, which is what I tried to do at the PAC hearing because I wanted to get some facts on the record.
Richardson Park has a full and rich history associated with rugby league in the Northern Territory, and it is important that continues.
The site was named after Darwin’s first mayor, Bill Richardson, and we have had some legendary players on that field, such as Cubillo and Edwards. I also point out, when talking about the school and use of the race track, that when Richardson Park was in its heyday it used the facilities of Ludmilla school to play games. When they had larger games they used the area around the racecourse for overflow parking.
Everyone agrees that something has to be done with Richardson Park, and everyone agrees it is currently a rundown government facility and has been in that state for far too long. It is important to note it is a government-owned facility. Marrara, Warren Park and some of the other suggestions are not government-owned, so that is the first problem government has to deal with.
In the business case prepared for consideration by Cabinet there was a clear statement of fact: the closure of Richardson Park generated a gap in sporting infrastructure. It is important to remember we have missed out on an important piece of infrastructure. The redevelopment ticks some other boxes for us and pays homage to our sporting history. It provides a first-class venue for sporting and community purposes, preserves usage of the site for sporting and community events, and is the best value for money solution to the need for a rectangular stadium playing field that complies with national standards.
I note that some people have spoken about a $100m facility. That was to be a first-class rectangular stadium with seating for 12 000 at Warren Park, Marrara. The difference between that and what has been agreed is significant. To compare, as we did before, green apples with green apples as opposed to avocados – the $100m was to set up a stadium for 12 000 which complied with national standards and would not be used much. When talking about 12 000 seats, rugby league or any other rectangular field game played every weekend – if you get 3000 people there you have a good crowd. Spending $20m for a facility at Richardson Park capable of seating 10 500 people but with only 3500 permanent seats for a much lower price is much better option for government.
When the motion to refer this to the Public Accounts Committee came into this House the member for Nelson raised the issue of the 2012 proposal from rugby league. He made out this was the be-all and end-all of what rugby league wanted in a facility at Warren Park. When I looked at the report and questioned why I had not seen it, it was obvious I was not given the proposal as part of the documentation relating to this decision because it does not provide for a national standard facility. It provided for a grandstand of 1500, lighting for local club games, a car park for 300 cars, office space, change rooms, a corporate area, media facilities and a canteen. It did not provide for a national standard facility.
The member for Nelson also threw another red herring in with the facility at Mudgee. I do not know how many facilities we need to look at, but we asked Infrastructure to look at the costs. Infrastructure said to build a nationally compliant standard facility would cost about $8000 a seat. For a 10 000 seat stadium you are talking about $80m. I do not know what other facilities exist where we could compare prices, but it must compare apples with apples or a national standard with a national standard.
One of the benefits of a national facility is that we have growing rectangular field sports. We will be able to host national games across multiple codes. We will provide Territorians with access to a modern world-class facility and an additional sporting and community events venue.
There was reference to holding concerts. I dispelled that at the Public Accounts Committee. There is no intention to hold concerts at Richardson Park as there are already other facilities. We have used TIO previously, and we have The Gardens amphitheatre. Also, in the plans released for the national tennis centre there is an indication that the main court could be used for concerts.
There are two sides to the seating argument. The member for Nelson said we will have a facility that will only be used two nights a week for up to 10 000 people. However, other members of the committee say we will be using this facility every night of the week, implying that 10 000 people will attend.
The seating is for 3500. The other seating is multiuse temporary seats which government will purchase. They can either be used at Richardson Park when we hold national games, or at the tennis centre to facilitate concerts or larger tennis matches if that is approved. The AFL has indicated it would make great use of this seating at TIO when it has larger games. The additional seats over the 3500 will be purchased by the government and stored.
Another issue raised was lights every night and touch football. I watched the PAC question touch. They were implying that touch would have to move from the race track to Richardson Park. That it is not correct. It has never been our intention to move touch to Richardson Park. It is simply whether touch would use the facility for state or national games when they need spectator facilities. The answer is clearly yes.
The same issue applies for rugby union, rugby league and all the other sports mentioned. It is not the intention of government to move all these codes to Richardson Park. If people understand sport they know the ovals at Richardson Park, TIO Stadium, Warren Park and all the others are basically used when there are level one games in the local competition or for the national competition.
The juniors still need other fields and facilities, and the same applies to touch football. They will still need six fields. However, I do not like the implication that they will only have four fields when they get to Richardson Park, and therefore will have to play longer and the lights will need to be on longer. The answer is, no, they will not because they will still be using the centre of the race track.
As to what announcements were made about Richardson Park, the facilities and the lack of consultation, I can go back to 2009 when there was an original plan made by Darwin Rugby League. In 2010 an independent review was done by KPMG. In 2012 there was the report we are talking about. Also, in 2012 a ministerial was submitted to the previous government which was not approved. In 2013 the NRL wrote to the minister seeking a grant from the government to engage consultants to carry out planning for the proposed redevelopment of Richardson Park. Again, 2013. I could go on and on when people say we have not consulted.
To say we have not communicated this – I pick up on the opposition saying I gave them credit for their media releases. I was not giving them credit for the media releases, I was simply pointing out that people who say they did not know about this need to look at what communication there is from government and the opposition. It was announced in the budget in May.
I made many public announcements about sport. We invited people from all codes to talk to us about different budget announcements. I travelled up and down the track and gave presentations in Tennant Creek, Katherine, Alice Springs and Darwin.
We made public statements on this project in April, May, September, October and the week leading up to the PAC hearings. The opposition has also released several media releases about the project. I am not praising their media releases, but the information was available. People need to read it or go online to find this information. We cannot go doorknocking in every Territorian town.
In May we released the initial concept plans to gauge interest and reaction. I heard the complaint that we have only one field. In the very first interview I gave I said it would be of a nationally compliant standard and the concept plan was a concept, and we would look at putting in a second field. I have never shied away from the fact that you need a second warm-up field to comply with national standards. I point out that the tender was for concepts. They are an accepted tool to give possible tenderers an idea of what a design could look like. The request for quotation documentation specifies that the successful tenderer would work with the proposed government advisory group.
I set up that group, which is made up of sporting people, sports medicine people, a representative from the soccer organisations, some people with building experience and others with business experience. It has people from government as well as people from sporting groups. I also wrote to all relevant sporting organisations about the project, and received submissions on the project from those organisations for consideration by government.
Another issue is the other work going on at Richardson Park. Flood mitigation work is being conducted by the Lands minister. It is very convenient to mix these issues, but I can categorically state that no work has commenced at Richardson Park. People who think some of the work currently being conducted around Richardson Park is part of the project are wrong.
Yes, there will be road works. We also need to look at the other projects being conducted at the same time. The flood mitigation and access to Nemarluk Drive is from concerns raised by the school over many years about access in and out of the school from Bagot Road.
One solution to that was to have a road come off Nemarluk Drive. That, of course, is very convenient for us when developing Richardson Park. Is it part of the flood mitigation, normal planning or Richardson Park? The government has to put that money in somewhere and it is not in the development of Richardson Park, it is in the flood mitigation area.
People speak about the Development Consent Authority and getting approvals. Part of the process of that is putting up signs and public consultation. It is not true that we have not consulted with the public because it is clearly a step we go through. Anyone can put up a proposal to develop anything, but they must go through that process. The government goes through the same process.
I raise the issue of Berrimah. At some point government has to make a decision. We might develop Berrimah tomorrow, next week we might develop Weddell, and the week after we could develop north Daly River.
It is not good enough to place moratoriums on everything that requires a hard decision. We are paid to make decisions in this House, and in this instance we have made a decision. People are paid a lot of money to make decisions. I often say to my staff, ‘You’re paid a lot of money to get a kick in the bum when you make the wrong decision’. No matter which way you look at it a decision needs to be made. My documentation goes back to 2009, and I can go back further and further.
The last fact I would like to correct is the issue of $5000 a week. If people bothered to read the last page of the 2012 report written by NRL they will see the NRL states, in black and white, $150 000 a year. My calculations, based on that report, are $3000 a week, not $5000 a week. That figure was used by the member for Johnston when he questioned the previous minister for Sport in regard to how much NRL was paying out. He stated it as a fact, and I want to clarify that on the last page of that 2012 report it clearly states $150 000.
I am disappointed I did not have time to read the report. I look forward to doing so. I was more than happy to appear before the PAC and would do it again. There is no problem appearing before any of these inquiries if you have nothing to hide, and I am confident about that.
Mr STYLES (Business): Madam Speaker, the member for Daly pointed out a classic problem with the opposition where they seem to get it wrong – $5000 a week as opposed to $3000. This is where they try to create a situation and invent things. They have a history of it, as opposed to doing the research.
Several members on the other side said how wonderful it would be to move to Marrara. That is my electorate, and I would like these members to come to my electorate on a Saturday night when a major game is on. Everybody says there is ample parking there but that is not true. The major AFL field is there as well as other fields. It is a popular place, which is good.
When I moved here in 1981 the CLP government started to build stuff at Marrara. I have watched it grow and think it is terrific – a great initiative. We have many sports in one area, but you cannot overload the facilities.
The member for Nightcliff said there are traffic plans for the area. That is true, but if you live in my electorate you will find cars everywhere when a major game is on. They are parked on McMillans Road, on the service road, up Lee Point Road into Moil, which is some of the member for Johnston’s area, if I am correct. They go right down towards the cemetery. It gets crowded.
In the middle of all that you have the emergency services; the fire station is built smack bang in the middle of that. Sadly, a lot of people do not consider that emergency services need to get in and out of that area in a hurry.
Opposition members want to spend a lot of money, and we know they are very good at that. When we gained government we inherited a massive $5.5bn bill, thanks to the former Treasurer, the member for Karama. We fixed that too. We fixed a lot of things they messed up.
Going back to the sporting fields, they want to spend $80m, $100m maybe more – we will just borrow some money. They still have not learnt that you cannot keep borrowing money and putting it on MasterCard. Eventually, you run out of credit as well as the ability to pay it back. What do we see? No concern.
Members interjecting.
Mr STYLES They scoff and laugh at what I say about running an efficient economy. Let us look at the cost. We have $20m to spend on Richardson Park for more facilities. I understand the Northern Territory AFL is happy to have extra fields; everybody wants extra playing fields. Marrara has playing fields youth can use.
What a fantastic opportunity for the youth at Ludmilla Primary School to have facilities at their back door, quality fields that are maintained to play and practice on. They would not only be for rugby, but you could mark it out for soccer or football. Different codes could use the facilities. These days, with lighting technology, you can play at night.
Many people in the northern suburbs and in my electorate – I have been doorknocking asking if they would like their kids to play sport in the evening. They love it and think it is terrific, which is why the government is trying to organise money in the budget for lighting at suburban ovals. I cannot remember who it was, but about two nights ago I was listening to people talk on a radio station about lights in suburbia. They were sporting experts and people who were worried about the health of young people. They were talking about training in the evening when it is cooler, and about playing games and competitions in the evening. This is about getting people out in the evening to play night games when it is cooler for the players, participants, supporters and spectators. It makes great sense.
I do not know where you would build a massive new rectangular field at Marrara. There are lots of options at Marrara, but there are things such as a new aquatic centre. We need to look at the money they want to pour into Parap. Is it worth spending tens of millions of dollars to add an extra few centimetres to the end of the pool so it is competition friendly?
What do we put at Marrara? Will it clash? I am concerned about that. With McMillans Road, every time there is a major function they need a massive traffic campaign. If we have two major codes playing on the same night – it is all very well to say continue building, but what happens then? There is overcrowding and we have a problem. What do you do with the $100m stadium you just built? ‘Sorry, we can’t move that’, so what do we do then? Do we start clearing bush at Rapid Creek for extra car parks?
These issues have not been raised by those opposite. They think we can move things from Richardson Park where we have an established building. It is the home of rugby league. I understand there have been some focus groups, and many people are happy about it. I accept a number of people are not happy. Those opposite are not happy about it, and neither are a number of people in the area. However, some people are.
Some people want a quality field for their kids to play sport on. We are always looking for extra fields.
If we go to Marrara we will be competing with a range of things. People want to build retention ponds there so you would lose the car parks. That is part of the Rapid Creek flood mitigation program. We would bring the available space down to a very small area. Soccer or football – I still call it soccer – has a stadium there. What if soccer wants to expand as well? Where do they move to? Maybe we should build the new rugby league facility there and put soccer at Richardson Park because we are running out of space. It was a great idea, and I watched through the 1980s and 1990s with great enthusiasm. My kids would participate in sports there. I thought it was fabulous when they built the hockey field there.
What will we do about a traffic plan? The member for Nightcliff said there are traffic plans. I do not know if she has been there on a Saturday night when a major football game is on. In fact, sometimes with a major local game, let alone when visitors are playing, one of our major thoroughfares is down to one lane of traffic. You cannot move. If you try to get across the road – you cannot park there. People are coming home …
Ms Fyles: Why are you building a tennis centre there if it is so bad?
Mr STYLES: The point I am trying to make, for the benefit of the member for Nightcliff, is when you say these things, consider what else is available.
This is about taxpayers’ money. With the debt we inherited we have to be careful how we spend taxpayers’ dollars. I am astounded at some of the decisions the other side have made. They do not think responsibly. They will disagree with me, but I do not believe they act responsibly and in the interests of the Territory taxpayers when they run us into debt. You only have to look at the graphs of the past. When Labor is in debt goes up. When we get in we get it under control, stimulate the economy and debt goes down. When you cannot control debt you keep borrowing.
I have spoken to people about Richardson Park. I have spoken to my constituents, people who come into my ministerial office and to my kids about this. I have asked, ‘What do you guys think? What are you talking about in your workplace?’ I ask my friends what people are talking about and they say, ‘Just do it’.
Several people I know have friends in Ludmilla. They told me they were concerned about a few issues. I explained a few things to them and they said, ‘I’ll tell them that’. They have not come back to me. I can only assume they have accepted it, maybe they have not.
When we are spending taxpayers’ dollars we have to invest in the future of the Northern Territory. We have to spread out dollars around to sport and recreation. In fact, we have about 30 different portfolios where we have to spend money.
We have an existing facility we need to upgrade, and $20m has been put aside for that. Conservatively, it would cost around $100m to build a new rectangular park in an area where parking is limited at major events. If you have two events at the same time you have a nightmare.
I ask taxpayers listening, where do you want us to spend that money? Economic investment creates jobs and economic activity, which means more taxes are paid, which means there is more GST, which means the community gets more money. I do not know if the opposition understands that in relation to infrastructure.
Of course, social infrastructure is schools and hospitals. Where do people want us to spend an extra $80m? Do they want to replace an existing facility or put that into hospitals and schools? Do they want to put it into commercial infrastructure such as roads, bridges and railway lines, or infrastructure that will give a return on investment to government or private operators such as the power system – the poles and wires? You can go to economic infrastructure, which I incorrectly stated, which are roads and bridges and the things that will bring investment.
This is about how much money we spend and about location. I want to talk about how much money we will spend.
I recently attended the Northern Australia Investment Forum, and have also been to China, Japan and a few other Asian countries to attract investment. One thing everybody asked me was, ‘Where is your infrastructure? You are a bit light on for infrastructure, Mr Styles.’ I said, ‘Yes we are working on that’, and talked about the $5bn federal infrastructure fund, the $1bn we are trying to leverage off the $200m from the sale of TIO, and leasing the port. You get their attention because private investors will not pay for roads, bridges and the infrastructure taxpayers and governments are responsible for. We have asked ourselves, ‘Do we spend $100m on replacing something which is already there, or do we spend $20m upgrading the existing facility?’ That leaves us $80m to spend on essential infrastructure. That is what responsible government and spending is about.
We have to do that. It is about attracting investment. Investment is about jobs, keeping our youth here, and keeping our people in work because the investors will use the facilities. If you do not run your economy correctly you will run out of money and start borrowing. You will then be limiting the supply of government services. Others will not build infrastructure for us; we have to. What can we get for $80m? We could build another Henbury School. That was $35m to $40m, and more schools will be required.
Last night I listened to former Queensland Treasurer, Keith De Lacy. He is a very interesting man and was guest speaker at the Australian Institute of Company Directors’ annual dinner. He spoke for about an hour. One thing he spoke about was responsible government. I spoke to the Attorney-General this morning, because he was there as well, and we thought Mr De Lacy was on the wrong side of politics because he was espousing all the things we espouse. I wondered what had changed in the Labor Party from when he was Treasurer of Queensland between 1989 and 1996 to now. I do not know what has changed because what he spoke about made sense. What the opposition talks about does not make sense.
He spoke about social infrastructure, about schools and hospitals, and said governments should not borrow for those things. Governments should take infrastructure spends out of their budgets, but should not have to go to the open market and borrow for those things. I did not agree with everything he said, but he talked about social and commercial infrastructure that governments produce, like power, poles and wires. He also spoke about economic infrastructure. He talked about responsible spending, and I did not disagree with him.
It is important to recognise that we have an existing facility ready to go but it needs upgrading. Everyone acknowledges that, but all the work done by the Minister for Sport and Recreation, the member for Daly, indicates it is suitable for an upgrade. Do we let that go to rack and ruin then go to another area to build a massive rectangular stadium? You do not want to build another oval. You need to build something substantial so it can be used for national games. We are trying to get into the national league, and get Territorians into teams so they can be match ready.
We have to continue building but not necessarily replacing existing buildings.
Debate suspended.
The Assembly suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of Mrs Zoe Marcham, the NT Honorary French Consul, and her husband, Mr Richard Wallace; Mrs Lea Aitken and Mr Keith Aitken, the former President of Alliance Franaise Darwin; and other members of the French community; and also our honourable members from the Niue parliament. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to you.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it is with deep regret I advise that on 13 November 2015 three teams committed seven distinct attacks in Paris, comprising four suicide bombings and six shootings. The attacks killed 129 people and injured 352, with 96 taken to hospital in a serious condition.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly expresses it condolences for the recent events in France. I move this motion to condemn the cowardly attacks on the people of France over the weekend, and to offer whatever support the Northern Territory can provide to the victims of this disgusting and violent reign of terror.
On Friday 13 November at approximately 9.30 pm Paris time a series of coordinated attacks, including shootings and suicide bombings, killed at least 132 people and injured a further 300. Nearly 100 of those people are in a critical condition. The attacks occurred at the Stade de France, Bataclan Concert Hall and restaurants around central Paris. While the French people bore the brunt of these attacks, at least 22 foreigners are among the dead, including citizens from Algeria, Belgium, Britain, Chile, Germany, Mexico, Morocco, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Tunisia and the United States.
Thankfully no Australians, particularly Territorians, were among the dead. It could easily have been so. Paris is a gathering point for travellers from all over the world, and as we have said so many times in this House, Territorians love to travel. We are probably just lucky none of our own were caught up in these attacks on Friday night.
I wrote to French Ambassador, Christophe Lecourtier, on behalf of all Territorians early yesterday and offered our deepest sympathy to the people of France. I also asked that he convey my condolences and deepest sympathies to the French President on behalf of all Territory communities. Mr Lecourtier replied with sincere thanks, and described these as very sad days, mixed with anger and horror. He also made the point that it is now a common fight more than ever before. He says that the support and sympathy of Australians is amazing and so important in such a moment.
I also want to offer my sympathy to our small French community in the Territory and pledge the government’s support to all those touched by this atrocity. I often struggle to deal with the loss of Territorians killed overseas, and it must be equally painful for our French community to be dealing with this from so far away, knowing that families and friends came so close or saw so much death.
The attacks in Paris were an attack on the world. In a statement claiming responsibility for this slaughter ISIL said:
By that we assume they mean the campaign to rid the world of ISIL and its murderous reign. The statement also warns that this is just the beginning, and I fear they might be right.
The French President described the attacks as an act of war, and his government is striking back at key ISIL targets in Syria and suspected ISIL terror cells in Europe. We know that United States President, Barack Obama, and Russian President, Vladimir Putin, have discussed their response, and leaders attending the G20 Summit in Turkey, including Prime Minister Turnbull, have vowed to find a more effective response to the killing.
The former Chief of Army, retired Lieutenant General Peter Leahy, is not known for speaking out of turn, but he said these attacks are now a game-changer.
I fear this may be the tipping point and our friends in the Australian Defence Force will be called to make an even greater contribution to resolving this conflict. I want them to know, if this be the case, they have my full support and that of this government. There are almost 800 ADF personnel in the Middle East supporting Operation OKRA and carrying out combat operations, including air strikes against targets in Iraq and Syria.
While an Australian Special Operations Task Group is providing advice and assistance to Iraqi security forces, a combined Australian and New Zealand task group has started training elements of the Iraqi Army as part of the United States-led Building Partner Capacity mission. It would be foolish to name any of these soldiers for security reasons, but there is little doubt that nearly all of them have trained here, and some still call the Territory home.
While it is not up to the Territory government to make decisions about national security, it is most definitely our duty to support decisions made on Australia’s behalf, and support the men and women of our armed forces. I want them to know that as a government we will continue to do so.
The people who carry out these attacks are not people of God, people of religion, and not leaders. They are depraved and self-obsessed killers who are using the slaughter of innocent people in a campaign to force governments to allow the creation of the Sunni Islamic state, governed by a brutal interpretation of Sharia law which obliterates the political borders of the Middle East.
Let us be perfectly clear, this slaughter was not the work of men and women of God. This mass murder is the work of evil. It is the business of hate. Call me old-fashioned, but to me religion is about celebrating what is good in the world, supporting those less fortunate and striving to make the world a better place. Religious teachings of all faiths consider the murder of innocent people to be the work of the devil.
True Muslims are peace-loving people who find these attacks just as abhorrent as the rest of the world. Muslims around the world want us all to know that ISIL does not represent their religion, and they have started a social media campaign using the hashtag #NotInMyName. One post in that campaign really stands out for me. A simple yet poignant message from the Koran is that whoever kills an innocent person it is as if he has killed all of humanity. It is the Islamic version of the biblical reference, thou shalt not kill.
These terrorists are not acting in the name of Islam. They are acting alone and are motivated by greed. They steal jewellery, cars, machinery and livestock from the people they conquer. They take hostages and demand millions of dollars in ransom, and run wide-ranging extortion rackets targeting landowners, mobile phone providers, water suppliers and electricity companies. They have seized control of oil wells and cotton and wheat crops, and they sell their produce on the black market. They murder with impunity, killing men and women, young and old, and then have the arrogance to claim they act on behalf of Islam. ISIL is the monster.
The Northern Territory has a long and peaceful history with Muslims within our community. There are records of Muslim contact with the Northern Territory as early as 820 AD in the form of a map of the sea of Java, which includes Cape York Peninsula, the Gulf of Carpentaria and Arnhem Land. Travel expeditions by the Muslims of Macassar are well-documented from the mid-1700s, and the trade was so lucrative that the old Macassar kingdom included the coast of Australia in its realm until British colonisation stamped it out in the late 1800s.
At around the same time the British hired Afghan labourers to build Australia’s vital infrastructure, who became known as the Afghan cameleers. They opened up the heart of Australia, including vast areas of Central Australia and the Northern Territory. Those cameleers eventually gave their name to Australia’s most famous train journey The Ghan. Several of those Afghan labourers married Indigenous women and settled in Alice Springs and other parts of the Territory. The Afghan mosque in Alice Springs continues to pay homage to that chapter of our early history.
As a jurisdiction our strategic location also puts us in close proximity to Muslim populations in Southeast Asia, and Muslim immigrants from Indonesia, Pakistan, Malaysia, India, Bangladesh and Albania now call the Northern Territory home.
The Darwin mosque opened for its first Friday prayers in October 1979 and the Islamic Council of the Northern Territory was established in 2002, becoming the parent organisation for the Islamic societies of Darwin, Palmerston and Alice Springs, and one of the nine state councils of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils.
The Muslim community makes a significant and rich contribution to the multicultural fabric that makes the Northern Territory so unique. It plays an important role in community events such as the Harmony Day Soire in Darwin and the Big Day Out in Harmony in Alice Springs.
The Islamic Society of Darwin is a not-for-profit organisation that provides a range of services to the Darwin Muslim community and the Darwin community in general, while promoting awareness and clarifying misconceptions about Islam. Chairperson of the Islamic Council of the Northern Territory, Ghulam Abbas, is a community member of the Minister’s Advisory Council on Multicultural Affairs and provides important advice to government.
The Northern Territory government has supported a range of Muslim community organisations across the Territory over many years, including funding for events that promote understanding and social cohesion. There was a Harmony barbecue at the Jingili Water Gardens last year, a multi-faith session at Charles Darwin University, and a community panel discussion to proactively discuss community concerns in January this year. Mosques in Alice Springs, Darwin and Palmerston have held open days to allow the community to experience activities in a mosque, and the Territory government was pleased to provide funding to support the Islamic Society of Darwin to hold the Islamic Awareness Week in July this year.
I and my parliamentary colleagues are very conscious that global events have driven an increase in negative attitudes about Muslims and Islam in general. Fortunately, the backlash in the Northern Territory has been much more subtle than any other parts of the world.
The Northern Territory Muslim community can be assured that government will not tolerate any form of discrimination. I have made it perfectly clear that what happened in Paris is not a reflection of Muslim faith but a campaign of hate. ISIL and its supporters want the rest of the world to hate Muslims so it can divide the community and create even more hate. We cannot allow that to happen. I urge all Territorians to think carefully about what ISIL is, what it is really trying to achieve, and understand that the best way to send a clear message that we will not tolerate its barbarity is to stand united with our Muslim friends.
Governments around the globe have condemned these attacks, and quite rightly. ISIL stands alone in a sea of international pressure. The fact that Parisians left the Stade de France on Friday night surrounded by dead and injured, but still singing the national anthem, is a sign that the people of France have not been broken by these attacks. We must stand with them and the rest of the world to condemn this atrocity and stand ready to fight back.
One hundred and thirty-two people were cut down before their time and their only crime was to be in Paris on that fateful night. We should remember them as peace-loving citizens. We must work closely together as a community to stop this from ever happening again.
Madam Speaker, may they rest in peace.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr GUNNER (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the spirit of the French republic – liberty, quality, fraternity – led a beacon in the world over 200 years ago. Paris is the city of light, a light that cannot be extinguished by random violence or hate.
The events on the weekend were designed to cause terror and strike at people innocently enjoying their lives, relaxing at dinner or celebrating at a concert.
The terrible violence we saw on the weekend has provoked a human reaction that has brought the world together. An act of senseless violence has been overwhelmed by a human response. Let us celebrate the spirit of the French people. It is magnificent. As the carnage unfolded, Parisians opened their homes to offer sanctuary. Hundreds lined up the next morning to donate blood, and the human response of millions of people around the world provides more hope for the future than the actions of a violent few.
The lighting of building around the world in the tri-colours is more than a symbolic gesture. It is an active demonstration of the global connection we share to universal human values, and a wonderful visual tribute to the light that shines from France. Paris is for many people an emotional second home. Its passion, vibrancy and romance draws many who many move on physically, but a part of their heart always remains Parisian.
For me it is the city of love. It is where I proposed to my fiance. Many people have their own stories of what Paris means to them. Paris has captured the imagination of many of the world’s artists who have painted its stories on timeless canvases. That is why, I believe, when we saw the scenes many of us had an extra chord in our heart twang. It is a city that makes a claim on your heart.
As individuals grapple with their response to this tragedy, at times like this I remember the spirit with which we live, a spirit that Darwin exemplifies by the way we share our lives, loves and values. Bertrand Russell, over 50 years ago, said it better than I can. ‘Love is wise, hatred is foolish.’ In this world, which is becoming more closely interconnected, we have to learn how to tolerate each other. We have to accept that some people say things we do not like. We can only live together in that way. If we are to live together and not die together we must learn a kind of charity and tolerance which is vital to the continuation of human life on this planet.
It is a philosophy many of us live every day. It is something we celebrate and exemplify in Darwin. It is something the terrorists repudiate, and we cannot let them win. We cannot blame the innocent. Too often after a tragedy like this people lash out at the wrong targets. I welcome the comments from the Chief Minister, and join with him in saying we should reach out to people of all faiths in Darwin. To those people who celebrate Islam, we say we understand the difference between what has occurred in Paris, the actions of a violent few and the people we live with every day.
I have reached out on behalf of Labor to the president of the Islamic Society of Darwin to make our support known. Muslims are an important part of our cultural fabric. Our community is a strong one that celebrates many cultures, faiths and walks of life. We know how we respond in the Territory to tragedies at home, from floods in Katherine to cyclones in Darwin, and other tragedies near home such as the Bali bombings or the tsunami of 2004. In Darwin last night we saw a respectful vigil for people involved in the Paris attacks. I thank Miss Laura Taillebois, President of Alliance Franaise, for organising that with assistance from Ms Zoe Marcham, the honorary consul.
The Northern Territory is a generous community. One Australian was shot during the Paris attacks; Emma Parkinson, a bright, vivacious soul, and 19 years old. She was out having fun at a rock concert. A Tasmanian girl, Emma’s family have connections to the north so, on a personal note, I want to thank the people of Darwin who have reached out to the Parkinson family. Emma’s aunt, Sam Gunner, is speaking on behalf of the family. Sam calls Darwin home. It is where she met my brother, and I am proud to call her my sister-in-law. She has been incredibly strong as the face of the family, and their experiences have provided a remarkable insight into the pressure families come under at times of tragedy, times when they are trying to balance a demand for the public’s need for information with how to deal with a very personal crisis. Sam and her family are very thankful for the support they have received from their Top End home. For the record I will read the statement Sam released on behalf of the family.
Emma underwent surgery, as we know. Thanks to the Australian Ambassador in France, Stephen Brady, they were able to speak to Emma directly following her surgery.
I believe Sam worded it beautifully at the end.
As an Assembly we are gathered today in condolence with the intention of wishing the people of France well in their healing.
Madam Speaker, the people of the Northern Territory stand with France, and I thank the Chief Minister for bringing forward this motion.
Mr STYLES (Business): Madam Speaker, as Minister for Multicultural Affairs I express my deep sorrow and sadness at the recent indiscriminate killing of innocent people in Paris. With the condolence motion before the House we have an opportunity to say to the people of France, as well as other citizens of the world, that we are united in our stand against acts of terrorism. The recent coordinated terrorist attacks in Paris, which killed 129 people and injured more than 300, were an effort by extremist forces to undermine the values of the society that France and Australia have and that we have worked hard to preserve.
Earlier this year France lost 17 citizens when they were brutally murdered by extremists. We feel for all the innocent victims in France whose lives have either been cut short or immeasurably affected by Muslim extremists. The Desai family from Darwin were almost potential victims in the Paris terrorist attacks last Friday night, with Bharat and Pryia Desai deciding to move to another caf rather than have a meal at the caf that received a volley of bullets. I was with them only last week in the Great Hall celebrating Diwali, a celebration of light over darkness and good over evil. I am sure that celebration comes to the mind when that family looks at what happened in Paris. With their daughter Pritika, the Desai family quickly departed France and are now in another European country.
It should be noted that Mr Bharat Desai is also the President of the Indian Cultural Society in the Northern Territory. The voluntary work he performs for this organisation is another example of how the multicultural nature of our community is assisted by the diversity of cultures and faiths we have.
Naturally there would be people in Paris fearful of leaving their homes, and visitors too would be fearful of visiting cities such as Paris that have been targeted, which is exactly the outcome these murderous extremists want.
The Chief Minister said these people are not part of religions that worship God, just murderous cowards who go out of their way to create fear. We are united in offering our support to the French community in the Northern Territory and our condolences are with them in this time of darkness. We are here to support them.
Yesterday members of our Darwin community held a vigil at Civic Park to remember those persons in Paris who so sadly lost their lives, and to show their strong support for the citizens of France. Many people from various cultures and religions were there. Politicians from all sides of parliament were there. A number of speakers expressed their support for the French people here who have been affected so badly by what has happened in France. After a minute’s silence there were a few tears and some hugging. I congratulate the President of Alliance Franaise, Ms Laura Taillebois, for her fantastic work after finding out only yesterday they could have this vigil at Civic Park, and to pull in so many people – there was a huge crowd – to support our French citizens and all other people who have been affected by this tragedy.
Many people of the Muslim faith from different countries with peaceful intentions have moved to countries such as France and Australia looking for a life free of violence, and a life where there are opportunities for their families to live and grow in a democratic society. They are not the people who support these murderous cowards.
France and Australia, as with many other countries in the world, provide opportunities for a better life. When extremists go out of their way to perpetuate abhorrent acts of murder we need to be strong and vigilant to protect our society, to involve all members and not be discriminatory. The Northern Territory has shown in the past that it is a very welcoming society to people from many different countries, cultures and religions. When there are incidents overseas, no matter how isolated they are from Australia, they are not tolerated by the values that we hold dear in our community.
As Minister for Multicultural Affairs I support the comments made in the letter in today’s NT News by community member of the Minister’s Advisory Council for Multicultural Affairs, Mr Ghulam Abbas, Chairperson of the Islamic Council of the NT. I want to read a couple of the comments from that letter:
Mr Abbas wrote:
In the Northern Territory the Muslim community makes a very substantial contribution to our diverse multicultural society. They are not supporters of the action taken by these murderous cowards in Paris. The Northern Territory government has been a strong supporter over many years of different Muslim community organisations, in fact, many different religions and faiths. All year round we support all those organisations, along with their celebrations and events. Events have been funded to encourage harmony, understanding and social cohesion. Additionally, the Northern Territory government has provided funds to provide for and enhance community facilities so we can all live in this fantastic place we call home.
We will not let extremists separate us from our community. We will not tolerate any form of hate against different religious faiths. Now is the time for us all to stand together and show to others that we are a united community. We also want the people of France, and those in other countries affected by terrorist extremists, to know those innocent people who have lost their lives, and others who have been injured – the values and tolerant lifestyle we support will continue to be strongly promoted. We will continue to work together with our Northern Territory community to ensure we support and respect the diversity of our community members.
On the weekend I heard news on the radio about a man named Davide Martello. On hearing of the attacks he was so moved that he drove 400 km from Germany to Paris, towing his piano on the back of a trailer. He set up in front of the Bataclan theatre and played John Lennon’s Imagine. After they reported this on the radio they played the song. I was very moved by this guy who thought it would be a good thing to do out of respect for those killed or injured, and that in the interests of unifying the community he would do that.
It is imperative that we stand strong together to support one another in these times of trouble and send a clear message to these people that we will not be moved. The free world will band together and find out who did this and hold them to account.
Madam Speaker, may those innocent victims who lost their lives in France on the weekend rest in peace. My condolences.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, today we join in solidarity with our French brothers and sisters in Darwin, some of whom are here today, and with all French people.
Our prayers should go out to all those who have lost loved ones and those who have been wounded in these terrible events. We should also remember those who were killed in the recent bombing in Beirut, and those who were on the Russian airliner.
Even though the perpetrators and promoters of this evil must be brought to justice, we must strive for and promote peace if we are to find solutions to the many conflicts that affect us all. We will see that in our own back yard, as the NT will soon be receiving our first refugees from Syria, people who know full well the horror of war. They are coming to a city where we are all proud that people from all nations live in harmony.
Australia must be vigilant and remember our Defence personnel who are serving in the Middle East trying to stop the evil that is reflected in the tragedy of Paris.
I visited Paris last year for a short period on my way around parts of Europe. My short-term memories are what a beautiful city, a lovely place where people were so friendly.
What happened in Paris was horrible. We, as part of the civilised nations of the world, must work together to rid ourselves of these evil forces, and at the same time show that we are in solidarity with the people of France, the people of liberty.
I support the words of the Chief Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister for Multicultural Affairs. I also say rest in peace for all those people who have died.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I also add my thoughts and prayers for those people who died in France. Like the Leader of the Opposition, I have a romantic connection with France. In fact, I was married there at rue Jean Rey, which is the address of the Australian Embassy. At the base of the Eiffel Tower – these things happen in France, it is a passionate place – my first wife and I had our wedding photos taken.
I first went to Paris when I was 17 years of age. It was, for me, one of the great periods of enlightenment. Perhaps the land of Voltaire was so vivid that it was able to reach into the dull quarters of my mind and start to wedge some light into those darkened spaces.
I saw the Louvre and walked past masterpiece after masterpiece hanging in the corridors because there was not enough room in the major galleries because of all the other masterpieces. I stood before La Giaconda, the Mona Lisa, and was inspired. This is the city of Claude Monet and Paul Gauguin. This is the city that elevated and challenged the human spirit and had the courage, through its own revolution, to look at the institutions of old Europe and build a new society, as the Leader of the Opposition quite correctly pointed out, on those three plank principles of the republic: liberty, equality and fraternity. Those principles are writ large all over Paris. They are there as a reminder for each Parisian and each person who visits Paris.
This city is a place for the free mind where your spirit can soar, where you can visit the greatest churches in Notre Dame and Sacr-Coeur, the Eiffel Tower, the bridge builder’s magnificent minaret, for lack of a better word, pointing like a finger of humanity to heaven. It was supposed to be taken down shortly after it was built but the Parisians could not help but fall in love with it.
It is a city of love, which is why I convinced my first wife not to have a proper wedding but use the money to fly to Paris and get married there. It is not a decision I regret. The city touched me in very many ways.
I watched with dismay what happened early this year with the Charlie Hebdo incident, and now this dreadful incident as well. Paris is not just a city in the west; it is a symbol of human enlightenment. If you visit Thomas Jefferson’s residence at Monticello, Virginia, the French influence is most pronounced. It is the French ability to reach out, touch and change the world by creating better philosophies and ways of self-governance.
The American system is actually based on Montesquieu’s political philosophies, and they are writ large to the point where they are simply plagiarised into the American Declaration of Independence, such is the impact that France, particularly Paris, has had on the world. It is small wonder it is a target for terrorism because it stands for everything terrorists despise: love, passion and discovery, everything that a terrorist hates. No matter who you are, if you see the world through an extreme or absolute bent, Paris is the obvious place you would most hate because it challenges you to confront yourself in a way you do not have the courage to, so you attack it and try to hurt it.
Paris has been attacked before. Nazi ideology could only rest there for a few years before it was repelled. The Nazi commander of Paris was ordered by Adolf Hitler to destroy the city and leave nothing behind, but so influenced was he by Paris that he could not bring himself to obey Hitler’s orders. That is the symbol of Paris; it can influence an ideology as profound as Nazism.
These people are walking around Paris trying to kill its citizens. The Parisian authorities, of course, want people to not congregate in groups, but it is the nature of Paris that they want to recover their enlightenment as quickly as possible if somebody tries to snuff it out. Quite frankly, I cannot imagine a police officer anywhere in Paris moving against a group who say, ‘We are Paris, I am Paris. I am and we are resistant to ideologies that would destroy our enlightened world.’
It is for that reason we must stand shoulder to shoulder with the French and Paris. It is for that reason that we must defend ourselves as brothers in arms against the folly which is extremism, particularly the way extremism is expressed through ISIL. That is why I went to yesterday’s memorial service and why I speak today. The enlightenment is one of those French things I turn to as a beacon.
For the purposes of today: Je suis Paris; Vive la tricouleur; Vive la France.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for bringing this motion before the House to acknowledge the victims of the abhorrent attacks in Paris last Friday, 13 November, Black Friday. I join the Chief Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and all members of this House in paying tribute to the 139 lives lost and the hundreds injured in the senseless, cowardly and murderous attacks at the hands of the followers of ISIS.
I acknowledge and thank Ms Laura Taillebois, President of Alliance Franaise of Darwin, for organising yesterday evening’s vigil and tribute to those killed or injured in the attacks. She was well supported by Ms Zoe Marcham, the Honorary French Consul, who I met yesterday evening. It was a small but powerful gathering on the steps of Civic Park. The French flag was placed front and centre, and dozens of candles lit to commemorate those lost or hurt. Flowers were laid, speeches from the heart were delivered and a minute’s silence was observed. I then sang with those gathered, quite badly I confess, possessing no French language skills, the stirring words of the French national anthem La Marsiellaise, but was much roused by the strong and resolute French voices around me singing in beautiful harmony and with pride their national anthem at this sad time.
Indeed, La Marseillaise was a revolutionary song, an anthem to freedom when it was written in 1792, a patriotic call to mobilise all French citizens and an exhortation to fight against tyranny and foreign invasion. More than 200 years later the words and sentiments of the French national anthem remain as strong and as true as ever, not just for the people of France but for us as well to stand up to and fight tyranny. The tyranny the French fight now, a fight we are all engaged in whether we like it or not, is that of the evil and destructive forces of terrorism based on, as President Obama said, a twisted ideology.
Waking last Saturday morning to the horror of what had unfolded in Paris on Friday night shocked me, angered me, saddened me and bewildered me, as it has people around the world and in my small home town of Nhulunbuy. At the end of a working week when people were doing the most normal of things, enjoying a drink out with friends, enjoying a meal in a favourite and popular restaurant, watching a major football game between France and Germany or attending a rock concert in Paris’s popular Bataclan concert hall, no one could have anticipated the coordinated attacks by suicide bombers and gunmen intent on and designed to unleash carnage, pain and a level of fear which is unimaginable and unprecedented.
Media has now been saturated with stories of the horror of the attacks and the fear of those who narrowly escaped and those who have been lost. Of course, there are extra stories of incredible acts of kindness and generosity in supporting those immediately after the attacks. We hear stories not only of Parisians but also citizens of our global village, as detailed by the Chief Minister, including Australians.
I had the great privilege to travel to England, Belgium and France in the mid-year school break in June and July this year with around two dozen students from Nhulunbuy High School, including my teenage son and 10 adults. We toured the battlefields of France and Belgium to learn firsthand what these countries had endured during World War I and World War II. Last Friday’s attacks in Paris, according to many, were on a scale only last experienced in World War II.
During our travels we stayed in the ancient and beautiful city of Bruges in Belgium, and at the end of our trip we stayed for four wonderful nights in Paris. We were blessed to have had that experience and opportunity to dine in Paris’s cafes, to visit Paris’s many icons, like the Eiffel Tower, the Louvre and the Moulin Rouge, and to have spent a Sunday morning riding bicycles on a three-hour guided tour of one of Europe’s most beautiful cities, a place we were all smitten with, that we fell in love with and have vowed to return to with loved ones. Of course, we were all struck by the enormous hospitality of the Parisians we met.
For Paris and other cities to be on high alert for further attacks in the days and weeks to come is too awful to contemplate, and unforgiveable. These attacks have struck fear into the hearts of many, but the perpetrators of these evil attacks underestimate the strength, unity, resilience and humanity of the French and all of us who bear witness to these atrocities and vow that good will overcome evil. We will remember those who are lost, may they rest in peace, and we send our thoughts and prayers to all in Paris and beyond who have been impacted and have suffered. We stand with you in solidarity and we share your grief.
I thank the Chief Minister for bringing this motion on behalf of all Territorians.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, indeed we stand united with France. That relates to nearly 100 years ago when we both experienced the bloody atrocities of World War I and the Battle of the Somme, which we will commemorate next year. My grandfather’s brother lies buried in France and shares French soil, being a soldier who fought in those battles.
I was warned very early during my first visit to France to make sure I identified as an Australian because the French people will immediately show you their hospitality, and they did. The first and only French word I needed was Beaujolais, because that was how I ordered red wine in the many cafs of Paris and across the country that I chose to visit. I had many conversations and met many people, and they were truly hospitable. The advice I got from Australia was the best advice given for my travels in France.
Most recently I picked up a young French couple broken down on the Carpentaria Highway about 80 km west of Borroloola. They nervously flagged me down not knowing what to expect and, lucky for them, they chose a member of parliament – the local member – who had a very reliable vehicle to support them. I took great delight in showing them, about 300 m up the road, a rogue bull off in the bush that was obviously taking an interest in them broken down on the side of the road. I explained the nature of north Australian cattle, much to their fear and loathing.
As I escorted them and was able to introduce them to some classic Australian culture in the frontier town of Borroloola, including some of the great residents, they opened up and we shared stories. We organised the retrieval and repair of their vehicle, and I learnt they were both young accountants who lived and worked in Paris.
Upon hearing the atrocities that have recently occurred I felt deeply for those young people who continue their travels in Australia. I hope their families and friends are safe. However, far beyond the rattling of sabres, accusations and appointment of blame, it became a reality of the people for me. It is the people who will truly change what we are enduring in our troubled world today.
I will pick up on John Lennon to conclude because I think it is upon all of us to give peace a chance.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for bringing the condolence motion before the House, acknowledging the proud flag of France flying outside our parliament and the vigil that occurred in Darwin last night.
My thoughts are first and foremost with the families who have lost loved ones in Paris, but also with the people of Paris who have had to endure repeated attacks on their liberty, the nation of France, and the many French people who live in our great nations across the world. France was an incredible coloniser in its strong search for new land and new places to strike liberty across the world.
The French community in Darwin may be small, but Alliance Franaise is very strong and has had a high and distinguished profile in the Northern Territory for many years. My thoughts are with the many members of Alliance Franaise and the honorary consul. I am sure you will support each other and send the messages of peace and love back to your relatives and friends in France.
With great darkness we have seen the light often shines brighter, and through social media we can see that light of peace, which many people spoke about today, is shining bright. With peace we have to endure periods of turmoil and conflict, but it is my hope that this means people yearn for peace.
I also recognise that these horrific attacks were desperate people trying to strike out and create fear. We know the people of France – and we have seen the response right around the world – are resilient and they, hopefully, will not respond in kind. I would hate to see an escalation of conflict. I am a fervent believer in peace, and hope for a peaceful response from other nations to stamp out, ultimately in peaceful ways, this insidious rise of terrorism we have seen emanating from the Middle East.
I recognise and thank both major parties for their contributions in recognising the good work of the Islamic Society of the Northern Territory’s Ghulam Abbas and the entire executive and members of that society, very peace-loving people. They are great contributors to our community. Across the Territory, Muslim members of our society have done so well over many decades in contributing to our great Territory. It is a hard time for people of the Islamic faith because they will hear words of hate and retribution. I hope they take some comfort in the bipartisan acknowledgment in the House today of just how worthy they are as members of our society.
The resilience of France and the French people has been shown throughout the centuries. It will be strong and they will rise, but for the people who are suffering a great personal loss our hearts feel for them and we pray for them. For those suffering injuries, may they heal well and strong, and be comforted by their friends, family and the community.
May we again pledge to be a harmonious, peaceful society in Australia and the Northern Territory. We are very lucky to live in this great nation and do not take that lightly. As Australians we travel. I have been to France and to Paris many times. We enjoy reaching out. As you heard from the Opposition Leader, a young Australian was injured.
May we continue to travel. May we continue to embrace people travelling to our fair land. May we always strive for the light in the darkness and for peace in times of turmoil. Rest in peace those people who sadly lost their lives. Vive la France.
Mr CHANDLER (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I add my condemnation of the attacks on the people of France over the weekend, and offer my sympathy to the people killed in France, including those 22 foreigners from Algeria, Belgium, Britain, Chile, Germany, Mexico, Morocco, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Tunisia and the United States.
That is a good representation of Paris as a city which draws people from all over the world. At this time of calm across the world when acts of terrorism like this occur, I often try to reconcile what motivates people to undertake acts of terrorism and what drives them. Trying to explain to your children why an adult would make a decision to take somebody else’s life and why seemingly responsible people do these things to others – call me naive, but I believe there is more good in this world than evil. However, it does not matter where you live, evil exists.
Looking at the atrocities that have happened only hours from here in Bali, what happened in New York on 9/11, and what has happened around the world for decades – in the last 15 or 20 years we have seen an escalation in terrorism.
How can you explain to a child what is occurring in our world today when, as the member for Karama said, the people of Australia, particularly Darwin, love to travel. You can learn about yourself and grow as a person when you experience other parts of the world.
You start to realise why terrorists go to places like Paris, Bali or New York, where tourists from all around the world come and go. They commit their crimes for great effect. Places like Australia, the United States, Russia and China, with a powerful air force, army and navy, know their might is defeated every time because of someone who has the basic technology to strap a bomb to themselves, walk into a crowded place and blow themselves up. For those near the bomber – children, mums, dads, young people or seniors – it is tragic.
Most in this House would say those who commit these acts are cowards and deserve condemnation not only from this parliament, but from every person in our community.
Much like Australians, it appears the French and others around the world come together in hard times. As Aussies when there is tragedy, whether it is a bushfire, house fire or a car accident, your mates rally around you. Now the world is rallying, and it makes me proud not just to be an Australian, but to be part of the majority of people who are good not evil.
To those people who conducted these acts, I condemn you. For the people and their families involved, my sympathies go out to you. I thank the Chief Minister for bringing this forward today.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, honourable members. I, too, pass on my condolences and thoughts to the people of France, those who have lost family and loved ones and, of course, to the French community in Darwin and across the Northern Territory. I know all our thoughts and sympathies go out to you, and we will pass these sentiments to the French Ambassador in Canberra to pass on to the people of France.
Thank you, honourable members.
Motion agreed to.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, I present a petition from 180 petitioners praying that the mining activity at Darwin River Ridge is stopped and the area rezoned as an environmental management area. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders. Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, I present a petition from 177 petitioners praying that the Freds Pass Road is upgraded to provide a safe environment. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders. Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read.
The CLERK: Mr Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform honourable members that responses to petitions numbers 49, 50, 52 and 53 have been received and circulated to honourable members. The text of the responses will be placed on the Legislative Assembly’s website. A copy of the responses will be provided to the member who tabled the petition for distribution to petitioners.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I move that this House censures the Attorney-General, Minister for Justice and Minister for Corrections for his gross incompetence in handling the Corrections and justice system of the Northern Territory.
This incompetence has led to the Territory public being placed at risk from escaping prisoners and created a sense of loss of personal confidence by Territorians in their safety and security. Further, his incompetence has resulted in ongoing disruption and disorder in the juvenile justice system.
This House calls on the minister to resign his portfolios.
The minister has a number of responsibilities he needs to fulfil. His role is to ensure the system of justice in the Northern Territory is administered impartially, fairly and for all people to be treated equally under the law.
The minister needs to ensure that for those people convicted of offences punishment is just, and for those in prison to be treated humanely in our correctional system. Victims of crime need to be properly supported. Correctional Services workers need to be properly trained and supported. The public should be safe from those serving their sentence in the Northern Territory correctional system, and portfolio agencies need to be sufficiently funded to fulfil their duties.
It is our belief that the minister has not fulfilled his duties, and we seek to censure him in the strongest possible terms. The wheels have really fallen off the wagon for the Attorney-General in the last three months. In all aspects of his Justice and Corrections portfolios the minister is failing Territorians miserably. He spruiks his Pillars of Justice policy but the reality is that those pillars are crumbling.
We will start with the Chief Minister publicly releasing the review of judicial appointments in early August. This review was commissioned by the Chief Minister in August 2014, finalised in December 2014 and then released under public pressure in August 2015, some nine months later. The Attorney-General disagrees that it was a scathing report of political interference in the judicial system by the esteemed panel which conducted the review, but there are no other words for it. It is simply scandalous that such an abuse of judicial appointment processes came to be. It is apparent that the actions of the Attorney-General were at worst arrogant and at best naive in his desire to be personally involved in both the selection and appointment of judicial officers. Every public servant knows that you are not allowed to be the final approver of your own recruitment selection process, but it seems that the Attorney-General did not care about this abuse of process.
More concerning is that Cabinet was either clueless or complicit in approving the Attorney-General’s actions. Again we are faced with the prospect of a completely arrogant Cabinet intent on appointing mates to plum roles, or just incredibly naive.
I feel compelled to quote from the report to articulate the very real concerns the panel had before recommending that the process of judicial appointments return to what it was before the change of government in 2012. That was for a panel at arm’s length from government making a recommendation to the Attorney-General who puts forward the recommendation to Cabinet, and any change to that recommendation is made public.
Findings from the Review of the Processes for the Appointment of Judicial Officers in the Northern Territory report are as follows, and I will be quoting at length:
I thank the eminent panel for the recommendations that restore openness and transparency to the process of judicial appointments. Unfortunately the government dragged its heals every step of the way in dealing with this report, which was not made public for nine months. It was only in response to a written question that the Chief Minister agreed to implement the panel’s review recommendations in October.
On 14 August this year the Coroner handed down two sets of recommendations that have not received the respect they should receive from this government. They relate to the death in custody of Mr Langdon in a Darwin police cell and the death in care of Ms Brown at the Alice Springs alcohol mandatory treatment facility. The Coroner is one of the most respected statutory officers in the Northern Territory. The minister’s rebuke of the Coroner was nothing more than stunning. It was not only disrespectful to the Coroner, but disrespectful to the people concerned.
An article in the Sunday Territorian of 16 August quotes the minister as saying:
Ultimately, the Coroner found that these laws disproportionately impact upon Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. They are unfair and entrench Indigenous disadvantage. Moreover, they are completely against the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody which, more than 20 years ago, recommended arrest and detainment as a last resort not a first resort, as is being applied in the Northern Territory under this minister. In the Coroner’s very eloquent words:
While the High Court may have dismissed NAAJA’s appeal that these laws are unconstitutional, it does not change the fact that these laws do not treat people equally before the law.
I will reserve my statements on alcohol mandatory treatment as this censure is about the minister’s performance in his Justice portfolios. However, Territory Labor has been scrutinising this program and it is another confirmed abject failure from this government, with legislation yet to be enacted that was passed on urgency in November last year. Participant numbers are down as a result, the program has been scrapped in Tennant Creek, and the government is no longer building a facility in Katherine.
In relation to the government’s response to the Coroner’s recommendations, I have been helpfully reminded by the Attorney-General’s department of the process for an agency to formally respond to the Coroner’s recommendations under the Coroners Act. Section 46A(1) of the Coroners Act provides that:
Further, section 46B of the Coroners Act requires the Chief Executive Officer must, within three months of receiving the recommendation, provide the Attorney-General with a written response, including a statement of the action that the agency is taking, has taken or will take with respect to the recommendation.’
To add final insult to injury, the Attorney-General has failed to provide a copy of the Coroner’s recommendations to relevant agencies without delay as per the legislative requirements. This is the most basic of his administrative responsibilities and he has failed in this regard.
Mr Langdon’s recommendations were not forwarded to the Department of Health and NT Police by the Attorney-General until 16 September, more than a month after the recommendations were publicly available.
In Ms Brown’s case the findings were not forwarded by the Attorney-General until 7 October 2015, almost two months after recommendations were made publicly available. As a consequence, Territorians have been delayed the opportunity for improvements in the provision of services to Territorians. Moreover, it reflects the cavalier attitude this minister and this government have towards those who do not agree with them. It is not acceptable for justice to be miscarried in this way.
The minister is also responsible for appropriately resourcing agencies. In the last three months Legal Aid has had to publicly plead for an additional $1m in funding to fulfil its statutory requirements. The NT government has stepped in, that is to be commended. However, this funding is not recurrent and Legal Aid will most likely be faced with the same problem of increasing cases they are obliged to assist next year.
The matter of workloads and resourcing has been echoed by the Chief Justice in his annual report. Chief Justice Riley put forward the case for another Supreme Court judge due to increasing workloads of existing members – an increase of some 35% in the criminal cases they are hearing. I am yet to hear this minister’s views on this proposal, but as this government continues down the path of all roads leading to gaol, this issue will keep presenting itself.
I turn to Correctional Services and the minister’s failings in this area. As the member for Nhulunbuy, I can say last week was a very unnerving one for our community. You have to remember that the Datjala Work Camp was not a government service this community requested, nor was the community consulted when the work camp replaced our only residential drug and alcohol rehab centre in the region.
East Arnhem Land still does not have a residential drug and alcohol service to support people to withdraw and rehabilitate from their addictions close to home and community. In fact, since they were booted out of their facility in June last year, they are still operating from temporary facilities in a training room on the campus of CDU. As Health minister, what is the minister doing to provide appropriate clinical facilities, yet alone replace a much-needed and valued residential rehab centre?
The Datjala Work Camp was established in that centre last year with no consultation with the community or even some of the people who worked there prior to the decision being made. We were told there would only be low and open security prisoners placed at the work camp. We were assured by the minister and the government that there would be no sex offenders. To find out, at approximately 11 am on Tuesday of last week via Facebook, that an axe murderer and rapist had escaped the work camp the night before was shocking for us to say the least. Communication with my community was very poor in the early stages as the news unfolded, and communication with me as the local member was abysmal.
Not everybody is on Facebook. Not everybody in East Arnhem Land understands English. I was inundated with requests for information from concerned residents and parents, and had very little information to comfort them. That is why I picked up the phone to the Attorney-General, who had very few answers for me, if any, when he eventually returned my call.
The communities of Nhulunbuy, Yirrkala and Ski Beach were betrayed last week. The businesses of Nhulunbuy and beyond were also betrayed. A large number of our businesses, schools and childcare centres received services from Datjala Work Camp last year.
According to the department’s annual report, more than 14 000 hours of services were provided by prisoners to local community groups, and we acknowledge that. You can imagine the shock that went through the community when, following the escape of Horrell, a further three prisoners were removed from the work camp as they did not meet the classification requirements because they were also sex offenders.
Nhulunbuy and surrounding areas are communities where people do not always lock their house or car doors, where children walk and ride their bikes to and from school, and play freely in parks and at our local swimming pool. Who can forget relatives of victims of Mr Horrell’s crime coming out immediately on television and radio, struck with fear that was still fresh 20 years after his horrendous crimes, a fear that no one should have to go through for an offender given a life sentence.
Having such a serious offender escape from a government-run facility has destroyed the community’s trust in Nhulunbuy, and the minister heard that firsthand last week. The fact there have been 36 escapes in 18 months from adult and juvenile correctional settings has destroyed the government’s credibility on law and order many times over.
The trust in the minister’s Sentenced to a Job program, with its good intentions, has been utterly destroyed because of this policy failure. In response to a written question from the member for Nightcliff last week, the minister responded:
We now know this could not be further from the truth. There has been a clear breach of internal procedures in this case, but this incident has uncovered a number of concerns that the minister must answer.
Territory Labor has been told prisoners were returned to high-security correctional settings from Nhulunbuy, Tennant Creek and Darwin-based programs, and all sex offenders from sector 11 precinct at Holtze last week.
At the community meeting last week I was advised that more Gove-based prisoners had been returned to Darwin. The minister needs to confirm how many across all settings were returned to high security prison. The minister needs to tell us how long he has known that sex offenders were placed in his Sentenced to a Job program as well as the Datjala Work Camp, when he assured community members there would be no sex offenders.
There are claims that prisoners on remand have been placed at work camps. Prison officers are concerned. If a judge has found an individual to be a threat to community safety why are they being given low-security clearances to be placed at a community-based work camp?
I am also advised that at each quarterly meeting of the Prison Officers Association with Correctional Services executives the issue of classification systems has been tabled. At the top of the list are concerns that civilian panels have replaced prison officers in making recommendations to change a prisoner’s classification, security classifications are being downgraded too quickly, and that reoffending prisoners re-enter the correctional system on the same security classification as previously even if they have committed a more serious offence.
This is a change from the previous system, where all prisoners would enter at high security classifications and then be assessed in prison for further changes to their security level. Further, according to the Prison Officers Association, the current classification system does not capture previous sexual offences. If a prisoner is serving time for a non-sexual offence, they can be placed in a work camp without regard for any previous sexual offence convictions.
Prison officers believe that anyone on a sex offence register should not be placed in community work camps. I share that view, as do the people of Nhulunbuy. The minister needs to provide answers to these serious concerns raised about the classification system in the Northern Territory Correctional Services system, not duck and weave and pass the buck.
Under this government, the Correctional Services system has been completely overwhelmed. The annual report revealed that the department overspent its budget allocation by $34m as a result of operational funding for the new prison, overtime and rostering costs at Alice Springs, and two relocations of the Don Dale juvenile justice system.
Under-resourcing of the Correctional Services department has led to the ultimate of failures in community safety, prisoner escapes. Thirty-six escapes in 18 months from both adult and juvenile correctional settings is unacceptable to the Northern Territory public.
This department is clearly not resourced to adequately provide the services expected of it. Operational costs for high-security services are much higher than low-security settings. According to written questions answered last week, the number of participants in Sentenced to a Job has increased from 13 to 313 in four years. It strikes me that this department is trying to retro-fit prisoners to meet this minister’s expectations, meet KPI targets and sort out its budgetary situation.
Sentenced to a Job is the minister’s idea. It is his passion, and the department has worked hard to please him. Remember just two months ago when the Attorney-General talked lovingly about the Pillars of Justice and his Sentenced to a Job program, stating:
He simply misled the House yet again. Written questions answered by the minister last month revealed that after 12 months, 29% of participants had returned to prison and after two years 40% had returned to prison. Failures in the Sentenced to a Job scheme are not the only shortcomings for this minister. The imprisonment rate in the Northern Territory increased to 903.5 prisoners per 100 000 from 847 per 100 000 in 2013-14. This is almost five times the national average. The proportion of Indigenous people in prison is 11 times the national average. This is the absolute proof that the minister’s Correctional Services policy settings are not working. If the government and the minister were genuinely interested in having a world-class justice system, these statistics would fall. Instead, we have shameful numbers of people in prison, particularly for our Indigenous community members.
This view is supported by the department’s own annual report. The department had budgeted for 75% of prisoners to participate in employment programs, but only 48% of the 1600 prisoners did. The department had budgeted for 30% of prisoners to participate in education, but only 10% did.
I have attempted to illustrate why we are censuring this minister today. He is head of a justice system that is not treating all people equally. He is head of a justice system that has had too many community safety breaches in the correctional system. He is the head of a justice system that has let down victims of crime. He is the head of a justice system that is under-resourced to fulfil its statutory obligations.
The member for Nightcliff will speak in more detail about the juvenile justice system, but the failures are magnified. In the juvenile justice system allegations of inhumane conditions of confinement, ill-equipped staff, lack of training for staff and draconian practices against young people need to be answered by the minister responsible.
At some point the minister has to do the honourable thing and accept responsibility for his multiple failures and his many shortcomings in his portfolios. It is the Westminster way. Sentenced to a Job was his initiative. The department was only trying to fulfil the minister’s wishes. There has been a spectacular breach of community safety and trust as a result of the minister’s initiative.
Madam Speaker, I seek the support of this House to censure the minister for his abject failure in the administration of the justice portfolios.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, of all the censure motions I have witnessed – I remember when we were in government pre-2001, when John Bailey and Neil Bell would execute a censure motion and the Labor Party would stick around to support the member, not meander out. It would be true rage. I remember Syd Stirling would froth at the mouth and go bright red as he raged against the government. With this I sense an opposition going through the motions.
Let us deal with some of the issues they raise. The first one was a long dissertation on the appointments of magistrates and judges, but there was nothing wrong with the processes followed. It simply confirmed everything I had said to the House. The report was written, made public and acted on. Despite the assertions of the members opposite, it simply vindicated everything I had said about judicial appointments. I will make one point clear: when we advertised for magistrates we advertised this document – I will table it in a second – which was in relation to advertising for positions. It reads:
The second component was my relationship with the Coroner of the Northern Territory, which I must say continues to be a warm one. The Coroner made some comments in relation to a matter he reported on, which was widely reported and relied upon by many who chose to attack the government. Here is the bottom line, many of those attacks included attacks like: the Attorney-General knows nothing about the separation of powers; this is a dreadful piece of legislation; it targets Aboriginal people. Some of those comments have been repeated in this House today. I take it from those comments that the Labor Party will be repealing paperless arrests and going back to the old system of burying police officers under a mountain of paperwork every time they seek to make an arrest.
I have said on more than one occasion that the power of arrest was not changed by the paperless arrest regime. There has been no change to being arrested for an offence under the Summary Offences Act, or any change to the considerations a police officer has to make prior to executing an arrest. In fact, nothing changed under the legislation except the amount of paperwork a police officer had to do when returning to the police station.
Many protagonists stepped into this. Amnesty International and other organisations weighed into the debate, not least of which was NAALAS. These bodies said the powers disproportionately affected Aboriginal people. That is true, but on nearly every negative indicator in the Northern Territory since self-government, no matter which government has been in power, Aboriginal people have been overrepresented in those negative indicators, including deaths in custody, deaths in parks, arrests and imprisonment.
If the number of Aboriginal people in custody is a failure of this government it is a failure of the former Labor government equally so. That is the truth of the matter. I lay a large slice of the blame at a passive welfare system that continues to deprive people of their dignity and purpose in life, and we see it again and again. What the member opposite conveniently forgets is another negative indicator which affects Aboriginal people is that they are grossly over-represented as victims in this jurisdiction. Do they not deserve protection of the state in the same way as any other person by virtue of the fact the perpetrator may be Aboriginal? In fact, if you examine that more closely you will quickly come to the realisation that Aboriginality is a very poor measuring stick, and one we adopt in this jurisdiction because it is adopted everywhere else.
Many of the people making the arrests may be Aboriginal people because we employ Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory Police Force. They are over-represented in victimhood as well as being in custody. When a law-abiding Aboriginal person takes their child to a local park or garden they have every right to expect, as does every other citizen of the Northern Territory, that the park and garden will be there for their benefit and good enjoyment, devoid of people who continually commit summary offences – those who defecate, expectorate, urinate or fornicate in public places making them unpleasant for normal families to go to, whether those families are Aboriginal or not.
The convenient oversight everybody makes in this argument is that Aboriginal victims are over-represented. For every wife beater we put in gaol many are, unfortunately, Aboriginal, and guess what the racial background of the victim is? We have to, as a state, move to protect the innocent, irrespective of their racial background. We as a society have a duty, including the courts, to place on trial those people who commit offences, irrespective of their racial background.
I defy any member of this House to open the legislative amendments to the Police Administration Act that enable paperless arrests to occur and tell me where it says that legislation is targeted specifically at a racial group. It is not.
That is not to say they are not over-represented. Of course they are over-represented, and that is sad. It is a sad reality, and we could speak in this House about those issues at great length. However, the paperless arrest enables a police officer to effect a lawful and warranted arrest, and bring that person into a place of custody where they are treated precisely the same as any other prisoner, whether that prisoner is there for protective custody or murder, because the watch house process remain the same.
In the case of the deceased in the Darwin watch house, it is well established by the Coroner that that person would have, in all likelihood, died that evening anyway. That person had been transported from Central Australia to Royal Darwin Hospital then transported there again to receive medical attention for the condition that ultimately led to his demise. That person chose, rather than receive the medical assistance offered, to go into a park and drink. As a result of that choice he committed an offence and a police officer lawfully determined – there is no suggestion in the Coroner’s report that police acted unlawfully – that person needed to be taken into custody in accordance with the powers of arrest existing in this jurisdiction ever since they existed, I presume in South Australia, when we were still part of its administration.
That person was placed in custody and, tragically, died. That person would have probably died in the park.
Whilst the Coroner spoke about that person’s rights and liberties, he did not attend to the other issues that face our community as a whole. I would rather shut down every watch house in every gaol for want of work because everybody is too busy being happy, well-adjusted and living full and productive lives, but that is not how it is.
The Coroner’s report implied there should be some deference to a person because of their Aboriginality in the application of these laws. I do not concur with the Coroner, but this is the difficulty the Coroner gives me. I am extremely mindful, and always have been, of the fact that I, as Attorney-General, am the voice of defence for the courts and have, on a number of occasions, publically defended the courts despite my personal misgivings because it was my duty to do so.
The quid pro quo in that arrangement is the courts have to be careful how far they stray into another domain. There is a natural tension between the courts, the executive and the parliament, and that needs to be respected. However, when a court places a criticism on government policy as strident as the one the Coroner chose, the government has no option but to defend, albeit respectfully, which is what I hope I manage to convey, that we demure from the court’s opinion.
Arising from the Coroner’s comments was a great deal of noise, and we ended up in the High Court of Australia in relation to the paperless arrest legislation. I remember having a conversation with my Solicitor-General discussing the defence from the position I have repeatedly taken, that this is not a punitive piece of legislation but essentially administrative in its function.
The Solicitor-General, whilst acknowledging the argument, felt the stronger argument was that there was no fundamental breach of the separation of powers in the Northern Territory. I waited with bated breath, as did the Solicitor-General, for the results of the High Court’s determination.
The High Court said, in support of me and the position I had taken, the legislation was not punitive. It was not an attempt to punish, therefore the single threshold of the police acting as the judiciary was not crossed. I was confident at all stages that threshold would not be crossed.
If you think about it, it takes just as long to determine bail for a person arrested as a person who will spend in custody as a result of arrest under the paperless arrest system. There is no difference, no longer time you would spend in custody. Whilst the Coroner may have felt the court would never send somebody to gaol for the offence the deceased committed, the truth is a police officer arresting that person, doing reams of paperwork then making a bail determination, would have, in every likelihood, held that person for a period equal to or longer than the person being held under the paperless arrest system.
To add confidence for the public, judicial oversight is available because if you read the notice you are given when arrested under the system it will give you direction and recourse to a court of law for determination of your guilt or innocence.
If you were arrested for a street offence – for arguments sake, objectionable words – and taken in under the old system, lots of paperwork would be done, then you would be bailed to a court to determine your guilt or innocence. No fundamental change has occurred. People have allowed their judgment to be clouded by thinking this unfairly targets Aboriginal people. That has been wrong from the get-go and the High Court agreed with my position on this.
Nevertheless, the Solicitor-General was equally vindicated in his position because the court turned its mind to the separation of powers and upheld the philosophical position that courts have held for a long time in relation to the operation of powers at state level. Indeed, not only did it confirm, as the court of original jurisdiction in this instance, that it was correct, it also strengthened the position of the Northern Territory in its state-like quality in this federation we call Australia.
One of the natural, unexpected and pleasant consequences for the Northern Territory as a body politic as a result of this action – a frankly unnecessary action nevertheless – is that the legitimacy of this parliament to pass laws for the good order of the people of the Northern Territory has been enhanced by this action, and for that I am grateful.
The two arguments the Solicitor-General and I shared prior to the case going ahead were both supported. Frankly, the plaintiff’s application would have failed had only one been supported, let alone two. The matter was dealt with. The High Court, in its full embodiment as it currently is, has made its determination quite clear and unambiguous.
Therefore, in reference to the Coroner’s opinion in this matter, members opposite should turn their attention to the matter that has been dealt with by the Full Bench of the High Court. I have further things to say in relation to this; however, matters are still being referred to a single justice to dispose of by directions, so the matter is still alive before the court. When those matters are disposed of I will add a couple of things in relation to some of the judgments we see, particularly from NAALAS.
I have been and remain critical of NAALAS in one other important way. Recently there was a conference in relation to youth justice issues where a juvenile was given centre stage and made certain allegations. I will not say too much because the matter is still under investigation. For NAALAS to use a person under the age of 18 to make what appears to be a political point seems like some form of entrapment and has all the hallmarks of exploitation.
In defence of NAALAS, I spoke to Priscilla Collins expressing my concern in relation to this matter. She denied any intention to do so. She was genuinely surprised when the young man made the disclosures he did. However, I question the wisdom of putting a young person of that nature into a public domain simply in pursuit of a point.
In relation to Legal Aid funding, when I became Attorney-General, expensive arrangements were in place from the former Attorney-General. We did not continue those arrangements because we had to tighten our belt because of the reckless spending of the government before us.
I place on the record and acknowledge Suzan Cox, head of the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission, for her professionalism, openness and approachability when dealing with matters surrounding Northern Territory Legal Aid. When she told me we had a problem I listened, and I am pleased to say the Treasurer listened. I do not want to see Dietrich applications being successful in this jurisdiction any more than the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory does, or the legal aid organisation itself. Dietrich applications have the effect of bringing the criminal justice system to a halt and, of course, everybody in our community deserves legal representation, particularly when they are charged with an indictable offence.
I also wish to touch on the member’s comments about alcohol mandatory treatment. Surely the decision not to go ahead with an alcohol mandatory treatment facility in Katherine, which would have cost $5m, because of insufficient clientele is good news and should be celebrated. Whilst it is problematic for the people involved, I am presented with evidence that the cost of individual treatment in Tennant Creek is prohibitively expensive by virtue of low numbers going to AMT. Surely the success of this government’s policies needs to be celebrated. The crime rate in Tennant Creek has fallen by half in the last 12 months. That is something we should celebrate.
The withdrawal of government services for want of work is not a bad news story for the community. Some individuals may be negatively impacted, but if the community has to shut down a facility for want of work, particularly AMT, that has to be good news.
In Katherine we have chosen to transport those people who qualify for AMT to Darwin because it is cheaper to do so. In Tennant Creek it will be to Alice Springs because it is substantially cheaper to do so. Therefore, any residual money can be used for other things, like volatile substance abuse in the Barkly, something I am sure the member for Barkly would wholesomely embrace. He knows volatile substance abuse continues to be a problem in Ali Curung and Elliott, and would be keen to see the government respond.
We can throw money on beds which would be empty or often empty, on volatile substance treatment programs, or we can keep those beds empty and the AMT program open. Spending money that way would be undeniable common sense to anybody.
I also note the member opposite made some comments about the civilianisation of the classification process of the Northern Territory government. The civilianisation of the classification process was a Labor policy done under Labor. Before I took office, the NT Prison Officers Association complained to me that there were too many civilians involved in the classification process in the gaol system. For the member for Nhulunbuy to cast that criticism at this government is to cast criticism over the former minister sitting to her immediate left, because that former minister changed the classification system. He is also the minister who authorised the release of Mr Horrell onto work gangs, in late 2011, as well as the minister who authorised Mr Horrell to go to the Garma work site at Nhulunbuy in August 2012. To attack me for these policies is to attack the former minister.
I agree he should not have been there and have made that abundantly clear every step of the way. I used that phrase until I thought it was entrenched, and it was acknowledged it was government policy.
The member for Nhulunbuy quoted me from 2008 or 2009 speaking about responsibility of government. Government’s responsibility is to set policy. That policy has been clear, utterly unambiguous and could not have been misunderstood in any way whatsoever yet was not followed. When I discovered it was not followed I made sure that remedial steps were taken. I could not have been clearer than that.
I share the member’s frustration and the people of Nhulunbuy’s frustration. As the member for Nhulunbuy quite rightly pointed out, on the website relating to Datjala Work Camp it says, ‘No sex offenders’. That was a breach of trust, and I understand that the people of Nhulunbuy were upset, and rightly so. I completely agree. They had every right to be upset, as I was, but those circumstances have occurred and action has been taken.
A number of things need to be tightened up in the corrections system, and I wait with bated breath for Commissioner Payne to give me some recommendations going forward. Nevertheless, I have attended to my job with diligence and care every step of the way. Yes, I have occasional lumpy bits like we all do.
Sadly, my personality gets in the way of me doing my job as clearly as I would like to when I use that well-worn quote, ‘For the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory’. I still get in the way; I am human. It is an ideal that I strive for but all too often gets lost in the world of politics. I have attended to my duties with all the resources available to me. I have done so with passion, desire and a true want to make sure the Territory becomes a better place. When politics is over I genuinely believe, whether it is the next election, five elections’ time or whenever the CLP is out of office, the Territory will be a much better place than it was when we found it in August 2012.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the motion from the member for Nhulunbuy.
Since the last sittings I have spoken on numerous occasions about the serious misgivings and concerns in relation to the minister’s administration of the Correctional Services and juvenile justice systems in the Northern Territory. There have been 36 escapes in 18 months. This has really tested our community’s faith in the government’s ability to keep us safe. The escape in Nhulunbuy last week was the tipping point for the government.
So we are perfectly clear, last week we saw the escape of a convicted axe murderer and rapist from a work camp and the Sentenced to a Job program when he should never have been classified to be there in the first place. Enough is enough. This is the 36th escape coming off the back of escapes that have made us a national laughing stock and disgrace.
In October three young people assaulted and injured a guard, took his keys and escaped from the Alice Springs Youth Detention Centre. Another individual climbed into the cavity of the Darwin court before falling through the ceiling. In September a prisoner escaped from a work camp in Alice Springs and another escaped while driving a bus.
The department’s annual report makes it clear that the government’s priority is locking people up. The annual report highlights that this correctional system cannot manage its budget, cannot keep prisoners in prison, cannot keep the community safe, cannot meet its key performance targets, is struggling to support its staff with significant overtime and a casual workforce, and is not investing in equipping and training its staff.
The member for Nhulunbuy articulated the case to censure the minister in relation to his oversight of the Justice and Correctional Services portfolios. I want to focus on the juvenile detention system in the Northern Territory.
The alarm bells started ringing in August last year when the department utilised chemical gas on six youths at the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre. As a result of that incident, there have been two reviews into the juvenile detention system in the Northern Territory, one by Mr Michael Vita and the other by the Children’s Commissioner.
The Vita report was handed down in January 2015, and despite the government spin was damning of the juvenile detention systems. The findings included: a lack of appropriate training to keep in step with larger and more challenging detainee populations; a lack of assessment training; an uncoordinated case management approach without consultation with other government and non-government stakeholders; a lack of philosophy to drive the purpose of youth detention; non-existent, outdated and inadequate detention centre procedures and standard operating procedures at Don Dale, Holtze and Alice Springs Youth Detention Centres; an ineffective classification system which lacks objectivity; a lack of consistency and direction in the management of high-risk detainees requiring behaviour management planning; a behaviour management strategy that lacks understanding of adolescent behaviour, behaviour initiated by a history of trauma with symptoms of foetal alcohol syndrome, and behaviour associated with ADHD and other mental health issues; an incentive scheme that is not structured or applied fairly or consistently; a lack of appropriate personal protection equipment and training for staff in emergency situations; an unhealthy over-reliance on inexperienced, casual and temporary staff on a shift-by-shift basis supervising young detainees with difficult and extremely challenging behavioural problems; a lack of understanding and coordination of how risk assessment, case management, classification, pro-social modelling and the incentive scheme should work together to provide an environment that is conducive to stability, harmony, safety and security; and, finally, lack of a multidisciplinary team approach.
I wish I could say these words are mine, but they are not. They are the findings of the government’s review into youth detention systems. The government says it is implementing the recommendations of the inquiry, but since that report was tabled and the government accepted its recommendations we have seen further serious incidents. Two youths escaped, in separate incidents, during a transfer from Don Dale to court. We have also seen two youths escape then drive their car back into Don Dale doing burnouts in the courtyard, which received national media attention. A teenager was left unattended during a routine lock down and escaped through the roof and over the razor wire. Last month three teenagers escaped from Alice Springs Youth Detention Centre, injuring a worker in the process.
This latest incident in Alice Springs occurred despite more than $200 000 in works to install a 4 m high anti-climb mesh fence and an electric fence on, and over a new mesh fence occurring earlier this year. The minister’s handling of youth justice is letting down youth detainees and staff, putting our community at significant and unacceptable risk.
The Children’s Commissioner was so disturbed by the events of August 2014, when youths were chemically gassed to resolve a disturbance, that an own investigation report was prompted. The Children’s Commissioner’s report was a 61-page censure of the government’s handling of youth justice in the Northern Territory.
The key findings of the Children’s Commissioner were that youths were kept in isolation for extensive periods of time, contributing to the disturbance; communication with young people was insufficient and they had become agitated at ongoing detention; staff were not adequately trained to manage critical incidents, even though a Children’s Commissioner’s investigation in December 2012 specifically recommended improved training and critical incident handling be implemented by the department; Corrections failed to lock a cell door and provided the opportunity for the young person to escape; there was a lack of communication between personnel which led to the poor decision-making; the use of chemical gas is violent and breached the Youth Justice Act; inaccurate internal reporting resulted in incorrect information being provided to external sources; lawful authority was not provided by the magistrate to transfer the six detainees; there were no policies or procedures related to the use of spit hoods; and there was a lack of appropriate training, development and commitment to negotiation and mediation to resolve confrontation.
The findings were horrifying including:
The Children’s Commissioner, in her media release of 17 September, was compelled to state:
The findings are complementary, but the Children’s Commissioner’s recommendations go further than the 16 recommendations of the Vita report. The Children’s Commissioner recommends: the complete overhaul of initial and refresher training recommended by Vita be attached to personnel files and mandatory regular refresher training should be ongoing; that Correctional Services recommends psychometric testing as part of their recruitment process; a complete review of every position in a youth justice correctional centre; that the review of operational procedures adheres to the Youth Justice Act and regulations of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child for all aspects of a detention; and that Youth Justice develops a policy and procedure on the use of spit hoods.
The minister ignored the Children’s Commissioner’s investigation into the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre in August 2014. The government sat on the report for at least a month, and the unsatisfactory response provided six days after it was deemed in parliament is unacceptable, and the minister is responsible. Instead of front-footing this report and acknowledging that there is a problem in youth justice and dealing with it as a responsible minister would, the minister stuck his head in the sand hoping that problems would go away.
Within days of this report a youth justice forum was held where a brave former detainee spoke out about youth detention staff encouraging youths to eat bird faeces in order to receive special treats. The Correctional Services Commissioner dismissed investigation of the complaint without evidence, but it was subsequently confirmed that the police were investigating.
Last week the public was horrified at the allegations of mistreatment within the youth justice system. In March this year a youth was strapped to a restraint chair, similar to those used in Guantanamo Bay, by his ankles, shins, shoulders and waist, and his arms were strapped down and a fabric hood placed over his head to protect staff from being spat on, and he remained there for close to two hours.
These actions are almost unthinkable in a youth justice system in Australia. I note the minister is yet to comment on this incident. I find it highly unlikely that he did not know about the latest incident or that it did not influence the supposed resignation of the Correctional Services Commissioner.
If the minister looked at the Vita review and the Children’s Commissioner’s recommendations he would find that there is a road map forward for youth detention, but he is so stubborn, has his head stuck in the sand and will not listen.
I am not sure the government has fully understood the message to date. This government is arrogant and does not listen. The minister’s annual report shows that the government’s priorities are all wrong.
Youth numbers under community supervision are at the lowest in three years, falling from 207 to 186. Only 14 families in Alice Springs are actively being case-managed under Family Responsibility Agreements, down from 47 the year before. This program was hailed by the Vita review as it helps families and diverts youth from entering the youth justice system. A figure of $1m was cut from youth diversion and rehabilitation grants last financial year in addition to the almost $1m cut from youth grants in the minister’s child protection budget of 2012.
Victims of crime need to be supported. Correctional Services workers need to be properly trained and supported, and the public should feel safe from those serving their sentence in the Northern Territory correctional system. Portfolio agencies should be sufficiently funded to fulfil their duties.
The opposition believes that the minister has not fulfilled his duties, and we seek to censure him in the strongest possible terms. In all aspects of his Justice and Corrections portfolios the minister is failing Territorians. One department had a $34m overspend in its budget, an under-resourced department, which has led to our community safety being put at risk with 36 escapes from correctional facilities in 18 months. We had five escapes in 2012, as a comparable figure. Sentenced to a Job is the minister’s idea. He has driven it with an increase from 13 to 313 in four years. As my colleague, the member for Nhulunbuy questioned, is the department trying to meet the minister’s expectations whilst struggling to meet KPIs and budget constraints?
Under this minister’s watch the imprisonment rate in the Northern Territory has increased to 903 prisoners per 100 000 from 847 in 2013-14. This is five times the national average, and the proportion of Indigenous people in prison is 11 times the national average. This statistic shows a failing policy from a failing minister.
My colleague spoke in detail about paperless arrests, but I want to again highlight how disrespectful our minister is to the Coroner. An article in the Sunday Territorian of 16 August 2015 states:
These are appalling comments coming from a minister of the Crown. The Attorney-General failed to provide a copy of the Coroner’s recommendations to relevant agencies without delay, as per legislative requirements. This is the most basic of administrative responsibilities and he has failed. However, Adam Giles cannot dismiss him as a minister because he needs his vote to prop up his failing government. The unelected Chief Minister is powerless to do anything. Meanwhile, Territorians are put at risk. The communities of Nhulunbuy, Yirrkala and Ski Beach were betrayed last week, as the local member detailed.
The trust in the minister’s Sentenced to a Job program, with its good intentions, has been utterly destroyed because of the complete policy failure of the minister. In a written question I asked the minister about classification of prisoners, and he responded:
We now know that is completely untrue and inaccurate. The minister needs to confirm how many participants across all settings will return to high-security prison. We have serious questions about the downgrading of prisoner classifications in Correctional Services alone. The minister’s portfolios have reached a crisis point.
The minister needs to answer many questions. The minister committed to implementing the recommendations of the Vita review, but so far there has been little improvement in the system. All we have seen this year is more escapes and serious allegations of abuse within the justice system. What is being done to better equip and train staff to deal with challenging youths in detention? Where is the youth justice framework the minister announced in May that has been endorsed by the government? Why has the minister not responded to the Children’s Commissioner about her recommendations? Why has the relocation of youths from Alice Springs suddenly occurred, and when will they be returned to family and support systems? Is it acceptable for there to be three relocations a year for youths in detention? Why is it acceptable to divert youth grants and diversion and rehabilitation funding towards operational activities? How will we turn these lives around if we cannot invest in programs that work?
The only program hailed by the Vita review was the Labor-initiated Family Responsibility Agreement. This program is being scrapped. Surely this approach needs to be rethought.
The minister’s behaviour is unacceptable, not only in his portfolio of Correctional Services, but we have seen a complete incompetence and lack of oversight and action. This minister mocked a hearing-impaired parliamentarian by pretending to sign behind him in the House. He made incredibly insensitive comments about senior Territorians and threatened female parliamentarians in the Chamber with harsh words and actions. He made disrespectful comments in response to the coronial findings regarding a death in custody and a death in care. Now, one week later, he has dismissed the real impact of domestic violence in our community by alluding to violent offenders as, ‘people who touch up their partners’.
In any other government a minister who made any of those comments would be sacked. However, Adam Giles needs the Attorney-General’s vote to prop up his failing government. Every portfolio this minister holds is in crisis. As Health minister he orchestrated a stunt to fool the community and the Commonwealth that construction had started at Palmerston hospital – the hole that was covered in and the stairs to nowhere. The minister needs to take responsibility and action to stop the juvenile justice system lurching from crisis to crisis. The honourable thing to do is resign.
The CLP government has completely lost control because they are too busy fighting amongst themselves to get on with the job. Territorians demand better from this government. They have dropped the ball on our justice and correctional systems. All the evidence to date points to the fact that the CLP government is too busy looking after itself and fighting to worry about keeping Territorians safe.
Madam Speaker, I commend the motion to the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I do not necessarily agree with either side of the debate.
I would like to say a few words about Ken Middlebrook. I learnt more about prisons from Ken Middlebrook than anyone else. I have travelled to prisons in Western Australia, New South Wales and Victoria, and have taken some trips overseas. I know the commissioner was not always popular. Perhaps he did and said things that might have upset people in Corrections, but that is the life of a commissioner. Maybe I did not agree with some of his statements, but I believe he was a genuine Territorian who had lived here for about 16 years and wanted to change things.
We have the worst incarceration figures of just about anywhere in the world – numbers of people in gaol per head of population. If you did not include it in the population of Australia, which hides it a bit – if we looked at the figures on our own we would be one of the worst in the world.
Mr Middlebrook believed in going out on a limb. I am sad that when he went out on that limb he did not have the support he should have and has been sacked because of it. He has obviously made mistakes, but he has also tried to turn recidivism around and reduce the number of people in our prisons. To do that he worked with both governments on a range of programs to try to change things around. Regardless of whether they failed or not, sometimes you have to take risks if you want to turn things around.
If governments want to exclude certain people from rehabilitation programs they have to show us which one. The minister said no sex offenders and no murderers. However, not all sex offenders are the same and not all crimes are the same. That is why we have a justice system which weights according to the seriousness of the crime. You hear great statements. ‘He is an axe murderer.’ You say that because it is shock, horror. Sometimes in debates we lose sight of what we are trying to do? How do we rehabilitate people? Murderers cannot start rehabilitation until the 19th year if they are in for 20 years.
We need rehabilitation programs. If you leave people in prison until the last minute there is a pretty good chance they will be back in a few months’ time.
Mr Middlebrook understood that. No, he did not get it right all the time, but he tried his hardest. He also came in for some criticism from the Children’s Commissioner. Was the youth detention centre at Berrimah affected by things that might have been out of his control? For instance, the mandatory alcohol rehabilitation centre was moved into the old prison. Was that a better facility for youth than fixing up the medium-security area of the old prison? I do not know. I have concerns about the way we look after youth in the Northern Territory. For many years I have gone crook about Wildman River being closed down. It still amazes me why we did that.
Some good things have happened since then. We now have Loves Creek boot camp. The previous government had a different one which was not successful. Will, the NT Australian of the Year, runs BushMob. We should look at a similar version for the Top End. We can be stuck on prisons, but we need alternatives to allow kids to clear the air. Will and I agree kids need space, which is the good thing about Loves Creek, but where is the space in the Top End? You could send them south.
A lot of work needs to be done, and Ken Middlebrook was going down that path. He pushed work camps, and the previous Labor minister knows about that. He took me to work camps near Kalgoorlie, Western Australia, and I visited one at Wyndham. I have always been a great supporter of work camps, but they have their problems.
Tennant Creek Work Camp has had some problems, and I believe bracelets are being introduced to stop people leaving. You need to be careful when you mention 36 escapes. What does that mean? Does it mean the bloke went down the street to get a coffee? Okay, he escaped, but it depends on what you are talking about. The bloke left and he could not be found again – some of the escapees returned. When we use statistics we need to be careful we do not exaggerate, or we put a scheme down because it sounds good.
Drug treatment programs were being introduced. There was accreditation training for youth justice officers. Look at all the industries in the new Holtze prison, many driven by Ken Middlebrook. When I visited Muswellbrook in northern New South Wales I saw industries in action, and you can see why Ken Middlebrook believed our prisoners needed to work. We now have a bakery, a laundry, a garden – I gather the garden is going well. Who pushed the garden? Ken Middlebrook.
It is disappointing that we removed a good Correctional Services person who made some errors. When things got too hot and the media exposed a mistake his good side was forgotten and he was the sacrificial offering for the government. That makes me sad ...
Mr Elferink: That is not true.
Mr WOOD: That is what I believe happened.
Yes, he was not always the most popular person because he brought new ideas to the NT prison system. Some of those ideas are from other places he had worked. He could have been treated better. He has worked here for a long time, but I bet he did not get a gold watch. Some of what the Labor Party said sounds like it has come straight from the union, which sometimes did not get on with Mr Middlebrook. The fact of life is if you are the boss you will be criticised by people.
You must weigh the good a person has done not by ignoring the faults or criticisms but by looking at their overall intention. Ken’s intention was good. It was to reduce the number of Aboriginal people in prison, because 80% of prisoners are Aboriginal. What is a good way to do that? Get them out there.
Why do I have four boundary umpires from Holtze prison? They are all Aboriginals from Yuendumu and other places out bush, and it is fantastic. If one of them does not go home one night do we destroy the whole program? No, even if the paper says an umpire disappeared for the night and it becomes 39 escapes.
You have to take some risks and take some blows from the media at times. The murderer who escaped from Nhulunbuy was, as the minister rightly said, on a work program at Larrimah. He had been working in and out of prison for the last three years. The one time he stuffs up is the one time it ends up on the front page of the paper. He is back in prison; all sex offenders are back in prison; all murderers are back in prison, and Ken Middlebrook gets the sack. That is a biased approach to it.
We need to continue this program. We need to be careful not to classify all murderers and all sex offenders as if there is no history, no degree of culpability and no grading of the seriousness of their crime, because that is what a judge does.
He does not call everybody the same and there are various degrees for criminals and crimes. Do we stop people with domestic violence orders going out because they did something terrible to their spouse? If a person was involved in a violent armed robbery but did not murder anyone should they be allowed out as well?
The government has to take risks some times and take some flak from the media. The media looks for sensationalism; its job is to sell papers. The government has to say, ‘We’re trying to save the community lots of money by having fewer people in prison, and fewer come back to prison by having a better society. We are overcoming some serious issues, whether they are related to drugs or domestic violence. We need to take up that challenge. It is a serious challenge and we will, at times, fail.’
I hope that Ken Middlebrook’s legacy is not put to one side because of criticism from some people. Some of that criticism might be fair, but overall he tried to do the right thing by turning people’s lives around. What better thing can you do for someone than try to make them good citizens and set up programs that will give them a goal in life, which is what Sentenced to a Job is? Batchelor Institute has worked with Corrections for many years, now has 25 campuses throughout the Northern Territory and has given people skills.
Who put the railing along the bicycle path at Howard Springs? I am sure the minister could tell me other great projects that have been completed by prisoners. They were driven by Ken Middlebrook and the minister. I believe the government could not stand the heat and allow Ken Middlebrook to continue in his job. He is a very experienced man.
You could have had a review. We need to keep valuable people in the Northern Territory, and unfortunately we will lose him. I am not happy with what the government did. I am not entirely happy with where the government is going at the moment, but I have always supported the government’s Sentenced to a Job policy.
I do not agree with a blanket ban on everybody because they are this or that, because you can have different grades of ‘that’. It does not mean someone who did something 15 years ago and has done their time in prison cannot be rehabilitated. That statement does not stand up when you read books about rehabilitation.
Some people will always be difficult to rehabilitate and you cannot let them out. However, to put everyone in the same basket is wrong. If you believe that no one can be rehabilitated you would never let them out. If you do not attempt to rehabilitate them and let them out they will be back. The proof is there when you look at rates of recidivism.
The legacy of Ken Middlebrook, regardless of his faults, is a good one. It needs to be recognised and I do so tonight in this parliament.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I, like the member for Nelson, do not agree with this censure motion. I have a completely different take on the problems within the Corrections portfolio and the problems faced by the minister responsible for Corrections.
After listening to the debate the most startling observation I can share with Territorians is the fact that the Minister for Correctional Services is the most overworked, overloaded minister in this government. If you look at the portfolio distribution amongst the various ministers, the Minister for Correctional Services, the member for Port Darwin, has what can only be described as an unrealistic and unworkable workload. I do not believe anyone can lay responsibility for problems he encounters directly at his feet. It is the leadership of this government that is in true and serious trouble.
This time last year, in December 2014, the Chief Minister undertook a major reshuffle, the most unnecessary reshuffle in the history of Australian politics. Everyone was shaken around and given different portfolios. During that time I was Minister for Correctional Services for about four or five weeks. I had the great pleasure of working alongside Ken Middlebrook. I thought he was a class act who had been around for a long time. He had been a senior and middle manager in corrections facilities in New South Wales and probably other states. I remember him telling me stories about his experiences in the New South Wales corrections service. We have a big gaol in Grafton, and Ken was very familiar with the Grafton gaol.
Ken was a very competent senior bureaucrat who I had immense regard for. That was not because of the short time I worked alongside of him as the Minister for Correctional Services, but before and certainly after that brief time. I had enormous respect for him.
The failed leadership coup in February this year meant there was a reshuffle back to the way things were before the December reshuffle. I was removed from Cabinet, as people will remember. Before the major reshuffle in December I was Health minister and the minister for alcohol mandatory treatment. After the failed leadership coup, the member for Port Darwin was loaded up with an unworkable collection of senior portfolios. He must have responsibility for at least one third, or more, of the entire government budget. It is hideous, ridiculous and unfair for any Chief Minister to load up one minister with that amount of work.
I have always been of the view that the member for Port Darwin has been unfairly treated. It begs the question: why has the Chief Minister loaded up the member for Port Darwin in this way? It could possibly be because of the instability within government at that time, which has obviously continued to date. Probably no one is of the mind to question the Chief Minister because of his attitude towards his colleagues. He likes to be in control and likes to make decisions no matter how hideous and ridiculous they are.
My response to this censure motion is in some way to defend the member for Port Darwin, the Minister for Correctional Services, because of the unworkable caseload he has. He has undertaken it, and over the last six months we have seen a man who has made many mistakes because of the unrealistic pressure he is under. He has implemented an extremely ambitious reform agenda within Correctional Services. It has been a busy changeable period in the history of Correctional Services in the Northern Territory. When you make many changes, many reforms, hand in hand with that are risks. If you take your eye off the ball for a second you will make mistakes.
Hand in hand with the minister, the member for Port Darwin, has been Commissioner Ken Middlebrook, a highly competent and capable bureaucrat. He too has made mistakes in this busy time of change. On top of that is the instability of the CLP government. It has been a difficult time for this government, and as individuals and people within the CLP government I know these ministers have been under immense pressure. It is not just because of the usual demands of being ministers within a government, but because of the layers of complex dynamics within the CLP government and the instability within the leadership of the government.
This censure motion is not fair. It is not fair to point the finger at the member for Port Darwin solely for the mistakes that have been made, or at the former Commissioner for Correctional Services, Ken Middlebrook. I would be more inclined to ask the Chief Minister what he intends to do about this unworkable workload he has allocated the member for Port Darwin.
The member for Port Darwin probably feels somewhat embarrassed that I am raising this as an issue in parliament. I believe he is an immensely competent human being. He is bright and capable, but no one human being is capable of looking after the portfolios of Health, child protection, Corrections, Attorney-General and Justice, Disability Services and Mental Health Services. It is ridiculous, and if anyone should be held accountable for the problems within Correctional Services it is not the member for Port Darwin or Ken Middblebrook, it is the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Deputy Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I want to hark back in history to make a quick point. On 13 September 2009 I had been in the job as the local member for Katherine for one year. I was celebrating the anniversary of the 20th year after hand back of Nitmiluk Gorge to the Jawoyn people. It was supposed to be a celebration. I remember it very well because I had just completed a charity walk from Pine Creek to Katherine. This was the third day, my feet were covered in blisters and were bandaged up. I remember listening to a number of speeches, one by the member for Lingiari, the Minister for Indigenous Affairs at the time, Warren Snowdon.
His speech was one of the worst I have ever heard, delivered at what was supposed to be a celebration of the hand back. It was divisive, inappropriate, and played the politics of black versus white. It was designed to pick the scabs off racism and the undertone of racism that was in some quarters in Katherine 20 or more years ago.
I was so incensed by the contribution by the member for Lingiari I wrote to the Prime Minister demanding she remove him from the portfolio of Indigenous Affairs. He was clearly playing the politics of divisiveness and the racism card at the time. I did not get a response from the Prime Minister of the day, Julia Gillard, but I called for his resignation nonetheless.
I remember listening to him on radio in response to me calling for his resignation and the reporter asked him, ‘Do you intend to resign over this?’, and he said, ‘You must be joking’. I thought it was a pretty fair response, but those words stuck in my mind. For a young politician, hearing those few words killed the issue. Good on you, Warren Snowdon.
The last line of this motion says:
You must be joking!
The Minister for Correctional Services carries a huge number of portfolio responsibilities and would be the hardest-working minister on this side of the House. He is certainly the hardest working minister this parliament has produced, I imagine, for a number of years. He spends his time – I see the signs in his office all the time – for the good of the people of the Northern Territory. He spends an inordinate amount of time dedicated to the work he has been assigned. That work is evident across all his portfolio areas. I am not like the Labor politicians; I do not keep dirt files. I keep praise files and things I can talk to my colleagues about on the amazing things achieved since we have been in government. I will run through some of them then tell the Assembly there is no way in the world I would support this ridiculous call for the member for Port Darwin to resign his portfolios.
The minister has campaigned to further fund, target and reduce domestic and family violence, securing $18.2m in funding across a three-year period. The Northern Territory, as a result, has one of the most effective policies in Australia, with offence rates falling dramatically. His tough stance on crime has seen the introduction of tougher sentencing for those who attack workers, commit violent crimes, and who are convicted of a sexual assault offence, with mandatory sentences and permanent detention legislation being introduced. The introduction of Sentenced to a Job and the collaboration with Batchelor Institute to provide vocational skills for prisoners has helped provide a sense of purpose and assisted with the reintegration of prisoners back into society.
The legal system in the Northern Territory has been boosted and is easier to access with additional funding allocated to the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission. There has also been a cut in red tape and a significant reduction in fees when commencing legal action in the NTCAT.
For the first time the Northern Territory has a comprehensive plan to improve mental health services and outcomes for those struggling with mental health issues. An additional $3m in funding goes towards mental health services.
There is still work to be done, and there is no doubt minister Elferink is the right person to get on with the job. I support him wholeheartedly and all the things he has done and will do to make the lives of Territorians better for the next 10 months leading up to the election in 2016.
Let us run through a list of the achievements of the member for Port Darwin under his various portfolio responsibilities. He has introduced indefinite detention for sex offenders who pose a high risk to the community. He has introduced mandatory sentencing for assaults on frontline workers which carries a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment where the victim suffers harm, and the offence is also subject to new mandatory minimum sentencing of at least three months or 12 months if they are a serial offender.
He has introduced mandatory sentencing for violent offenders. He has introduced one punch legislation, the first in any Australian jurisdiction. Led by the member for Port Darwin as the Attorney General, this closed the gap in legislation enabling a person to be tried for murder instead of manslaughter.
He has introduced the toughest legislation in the country for property forfeiture, targeting drug traffickers and sellers. He has introduced the Pillars of Justice, a criminal justice reforms package from before arrest to beyond parole.
He has introduced the NT Administrative and Civil Tribunal, or NTCAT, reducing red tape by having a one-stop shop appeals tribunal instead of more than 30 boards, commissions, tribunals or bodies. This will provide an independent, single, central, easy to use system that is under way now and being refined as it goes forward.
He has introduced the Safety is Everyone’s Right domestic violence reduction strategy, which is a comprehensive cross-agency strategy to address, reduce and prevent the unacceptably high level of domestic violence.
As at 30 June 2015, 257 high-risk victims have been referred to family safety meetings, and 1142 government and non-government staff across the Northern Territory have undertaken Family Safety Framework training. This is all under the stewardship of the Attorney-General.
We have introduced and intend to pass legislation for a sex offender public website, which will again be the first in any Australian jurisdiction. A new Supreme Court is being built in Alice Springs.
Methamphetamines have been moved from a Schedule 2 drug to a Schedule 1 drug, attracting tougher penalties for those who use, sell or produce the dangerous drug.
The release of crime statistics has moved from yearly under the former Labor government to monthly under this government, allowing for greater transparency.
The member for Port Darwin has also introduced advance personal planning, which allows people to make decisions about their future needs before they lose the capacity to make their own decisions. He has introduced hit and run legislation to close a loophole so that a driver is required to stop at the scene of a serious collision causing harm or death.
He has also introduced bail legislation for domestic violence. That was an amendment to the Bail Act to ensure that more repeat domestic violence offenders are kept behind bars and not granted bail.
Moving to something a little different, he has introduced changes to the Unit Title Schemes Act which prevent the exploitation of a unit titles scheme by the minority of owners for financial gain where the majority of owners want to cancel the unit title to redevelop or sell.
The list goes on, and I will not stop until I get to the end of it. The member for Port Darwin, as the Correctional Services minister, introduced a youth boot camp with $2m ongoing funding from 2013-14. Operation Flinders is currently running the Loves Creek boot camp just outside Alice Springs, working with wayward youth to correct their path in life.
He has introduced – we all know about this as it is one of the flagship programs of the corrections system – Sentenced to a Job, which provides real jobs to prisoners to learn new skills and help them reintegrate into society.
He has introduced electronic monitoring, technology to locate and track an offender’s movements to keep crime down. He has introduced total smoking bans in prisons, and a work not play policy for young detainees, who are expected to engage in training and work programs to increase their employment opportunities on release.
He had oversight of the Taj Mahal of prisons, the new Darwin prison, and the cost saving measures associated with that since we came to government. That is notwithstanding we had to pick up the enormous debt legacy created by the decision of the former government to build a correctional facility that only had one thing in mind, which was putting more prisoners in it. That is why they built the huge Taj Mahal of a prison. They could fill it with prisoners let down by a justice and corrections system run by a failing Labor government.
He had oversight of bolstering correctional service industries to turn over $3.4m last financial year; the introduction of the Indigenous language resources which assist Indigenous prisoners to gain a better understanding of the requirements of their orders and so reduces reoffending; growth of the partnership between BIITE and Correctional Services to improve the education and vocational skills of prisoners prior to their release; the Vita review into youth justice and the subsequent implementation of the recommendation; the closing of the old, rundown and outgrown Don Dale facility and the opening of a refurbished and fit for purpose new youth detention facility; the opening of work camps within communities; and the implementation of a new Correctional Services Act which allows the department to operate in an every-changing society.
If I move to Children and Families, he had oversight of the provision of $2m to the Somerville Community Centre at Palmerston and the establishment of a family support centre in Tennant Creek; the Children’s Commissioner being granted increased independence and investigatory powers for a more accountable and transparent child protection system; the Children’s Charter of Rights, a charter of rights for children in out-of-home care; intensive support services for vulnerable at-risk young people with Anglicare; the establishment of intensive youth support services in Katherine, Darwin and Alice Springs; the introduction of permit care orders to provide a child with a more permanent, stable out-of-home care option; the Adoption of Children Act currently being reviewed to ensure it is contemporary legislation; the child legal representation legislative reforms to the Care and Protection of Children Act, providing improved legal representation of children in court to ensure a child’s voice is better heard; the growing our own workforce development strategy to develop a professional workforce of up to 75 Aboriginal community workers and administrative officers. These participants are currently undertaking DCF’s vocational graduate certificate. He also has oversight of the out-of-home care reform project, the family intervention framework.
Under Health, Mental Health Services and Disability Services, the alcohol mandatory treatment program aims to get chronic alcoholics into treatment and work towards their health and reconnection with their families.
The Palmerston Regional Hospital is on track despite what the Labor Party would have you believe.
There is legislation around smoking in cars, breast screening services, a new mental health portfolio with an increased focus on increasing mental health service capacity, and profiling the Territory, the new disability portfolio.
For the first time people are able to use an MRI machine in Alice Springs. There is $55m worth of building activities at Royal Darwin Hospital, and the minister has launched the Northern Territory Suicide Prevention Strategic Action Plan as well. He has launched the first Northern Territory Mental Health Services Strategic Plan, with $3m of additional funding to boost mental health services in a range of areas.
We are introducing initiatives that have never been contemplated before by any Northern Territory government, and these are just a few.
I do not know if the member for Port Darwin is blushing after having heard me mention some of his achievements over the past three years in his various portfolios.
When I think about the work this government has done over the past three years – sometimes I get tired just thinking about it. The number of initiatives we have introduced and the number of positive steps we have taken to make sure the Northern Territory is a better place to live, work and play are amazing. I look at the achievements of our ministers, the Chief Minister, our backbenchers and everybody on this side of the House and wonder how we had the time to do it all. We have been driven.
The member for Port Darwin is certainly at the top of the pile when it comes to people who are driven. He is working hard in his portfolio areas, is ever supportive of his colleagues and is doing a stellar job.
I thank the member for Araluen for her comments, talking up the capacity of the member for Port Darwin in his portfolio areas. She is quite right. He has an enormous ministerial portfolio workload and yes, I often wonder how he manages it all. Nonetheless, he manages it in a way that brings credit not only to the Northern Territory government but also to himself.
To call on the minister to resign from his portfolios – you must be joking.
Mrs PRICE (Local Government and Community Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, I oppose this disgusting motion designed to waste time. We began the morning with a motion complaining about peripheral issues to address ice in the Northern Territory. We then spoke about Richardson Park instead of what was on the Notice Paper – the bill to address ice coming into the Northern Territory. Now we have this motion criticising a minister who is trying to pass legislation to stop ice entering the Northern Territory. It is disturbing to see Labor and the Independents hold the people of the Northern Territory in such contempt that they think it is more important to play politics than get things done, like stopping ice. Why do they not want to speak about ice? Why do they not want to get things done? Labor and the Independents seem to be doing everything possible to delay or block the passage of legislation to stop ice.
I have full confidence in minister Elferink. He is a tireless worker and is committed to improving the lives of Territorians. I have worked closely with minister Elferink in developing a nation-leading domestic violence strategy. The Northern Territory was the first jurisdiction to sign up to the second action plan under the national plan to reduce domestic violence. I am proud the Northern Territory, as the first jurisdiction, has brought that to the table.
Minister Elferink has been instrumental in helping me ensure the Northern Territory meets its obligations in the second action plan through the Northern Territory government’s Safety is Everyone’s Right domestic violence strategy. The Northern Territory government’s Domestic and Family Violence Reduction Strategy 2014-17, Safety is Everyone’s Right, is a comprehensive approach to tackle domestic and family violence in the Northern Territory. At the core of the strategy is an integrated response by government and non-government agencies to reduce the negative impacts of service fragmentation on vulnerable victims.
Since its introduction one year ago, domestic violence assault offences have decreased 9% across the Northern Territory, with 9% fewer assaults in Darwin, 24% fewer in Palmerston, 20% fewer in Katherine and 49% fewer in Tennant Creek. A key component of Safety is Everyone’s Right is the implementation of the Family Safety Framework, which focuses on protecting high risk victims from further harm and homicide by coordinating a response across government and non-government agencies. The Family Safety Framework has now been established in Alice Springs, Darwin, Katherine and Tennant Creek and meetings are held fortnightly in each of these locations. As at 30 June 2015, 257 high-risk victims have been referred to Family Safety meetings and 1142 government and non-government staff across the Northern Territory have undertaken Family Safety Framework training.
Minister Elferink and I have been working hard to combat domestic violence in the Northern Territory. I know Mr Elferink’s style is not always the most popular, but there is no doubt he is committed to delivering for Territorians. I see this dedication through working with him and rolling out his domestic violence strategy, and I am confident he has the same drive and passion in every one of his portfolios.
This government does big things; it makes big reforms, and it is disappointing to see Labor and the Independents criticising us. The Chief Minister, the Deputy Chief Minister, the Treasurer, minister Elferink, minister Styles, minister Chandler, minister Higgins and I are all doing a great job. We are putting in place big reforms and changes after the previous Labor government did nothing but spend and put us in debt.
This government is a good team and is delivering for the Territory, and minister Elferink is a big part of our team. Thank you.
The Assembly divided:
Motion not agreed to.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr STYLES (Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, the members opposite might like to have a good look at what they are proposing, and instead of commenting on things the government is doing, talk to people in the affected electorates. We have spoken to people who live near Richardson Park. Much of what is coming before parliament from the opposition is scaremongering and what they made up.
They say this is terrible, but when you look at the facts – this side is about evidence-based decisions. We gather the evidence, we look at it, and then we do what the evidence suggests.
I support the Minister for Sport and Recreation in relation to Richardson Park.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Mr Deputy Speaker, in closing this debate I would like to make a few comments about the role of the Public Accounts Committee.
To put it into context, the first Public Accounts Committee was established by the House of Commons in 1861 to review reports of the use to which public funds were put. To this day, most parliaments in the Westminster tradition have a committee to examine the public accounts and the efficiency, effectiveness and economy of government agencies on behalf of the people.
In the same year that the first Public Accounts Committee was established, John Stuart Mill wrote that it was a task of the legislature to:
Those words were cited by the High Court of Australia in explaining the doctrine of responsible government under our constitution, by which the legislature has the duty to, ‘Question and criticise government on behalf of the people, and the power to compel the production of information’.
The Northern Territory has had a Public Accounts Committee since the 4th Assembly. Regardless of the balance of power in the Assembly, that committee has continued the tradition of questioning how governments are managing their finances and delivering efficient and effective programs. This remains a key means of public accountability under our system of government.
The Public Accounts Committee in the Northern Territory is a vital means of questioning and holding the government accountable for the flow of money in and out of the government coffers – revenue and expenditure.
I am concerned that the treatment of the committee in the last few weeks has reflected either poor management or lack of regard for the committee’s role. The committee wrote to the Chief Minister and Treasurer two weeks before the public hearings and asked them to appear to explain decisions on the matters referred by the Assembly. Both the Chief Minister and the Treasurer declined the invitation to appear. I find this disappointing, and it shows a lack of accountability.
On 16 September 2015 the Assembly asked the government to appoint two members to the committee. Committee members delayed pursuing this inquiry to provide every opportunity for government members to participate. To date, the government positions have remained vacant.
I find that disturbing and I question whether or not the government is deliberately holding the Public Accounts Committee of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly in contempt.
I have heard the various contributors to this debate today, and I have also heard the dismissive comments off the microphone system: the scoffing, laughing and joking; the rather rude and disrespectful way in which this Public Accounts Committee report has been received today in this parliament.
It has been a rushed process, but we rushed it to ensure it remained relevant. To allow this process to extend for another month ran the risk of it not being relevant at all. As chair of this committee I feel I have operated objectively. I live in Alice Springs and have never played rugby league or been involved in it. My husband was actively involved in NT NRL many years ago, but I do not have any vested interest in the outcomes, findings or recommendations of this process. To me it was a job I was allocated to.
Most in this Chamber will remember the Public Accounts Committee was reconfigured a few months ago after the change to the balance of power within this Chamber. The government lost its majority and a motion was put to this parliament to change it to more accurately reflect that balance of power.
I was the second choice to become chair of the committee. The first option was given to the member for Nelson but he declined and I was asked, as the second Independent on the committee, to take up the position of chair. I did not seek the position, but I am more than happy to fill the position because it interests me and I believe it performs a very important role.
The objective of this inquiry was to look at the decision and due diligence that was or was not exercised in regard to the allocation of $20m to Richardson Park. Several government members have been rather defensive. I do not understand that. The government decided not to allocate two members to the Public Accounts Committee. They made a decision not to be represented in this process, which I find confounding and disrespectful. For government members to criticise the process we undertook, under the instruction of this parliament, to investigate the allocation of funding to Richardson Park is unfair and unreasonable.
If the government wanted to ensure a greater level of accountability and objectivity in this process, they should have allocated two members. We still do not have government participation on the Public Accounts Committee. I ask the Chief Minister to explain to the Chamber why he and his government did not choose to participate in this Public Accounts Committee inquiry. Territorians have a right to know and understand exactly why they chose not to participate. Why did they choose to snub what is an important parliamentary mechanism within the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly?
My role is not to debate with anyone the pros and cons of this report. We have listened to the various contributors to the public hearing and read the submissions put to us. Amongst the four of us, two members of the opposition and two Independent members, including me and the member for Nelson, we came to a range of observations and recommendations. The result is fair and reasonable.
I thank the staff of the Legislative Assembly for working very hard to deliver this report in what became a very tight time frame. I would like to thank the members of the Public Accounts Committee, the members for Nightcliff, Wanguri and Nelson, for making themselves available and participating so energetically and respectfully in this process.
Finally I would like to say that this has been an illuminating process and the recommendations of this report should shed some light for all stakeholders involved in Richardson Park, including residents, as to how the decision was made.
I ask that the government treats this report respectfully. It is a reason to reflect on how governments generally make decisions, what is a good decision, what is a decision that reflects due diligence and what is a decision that is open and transparent, and meets the expectations of all those involved.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
Continued from 16 September 2015.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this bill before the House. Now that it is to be debated through the standard and proper process, having failed the case for urgency in the last sittings, we can have a reasonable, and more importantly, informed debate.
The bill having sat on the Notice Paper for the minimum 30 days means all members of this House and stakeholders have had adequate time to scrutinise the bill, to ask questions of interested stakeholders, and to come back to the minister’s office and ask further questions, as I was able to yesterday.
Nobody doubts that combating drug trafficking in the Northern Territory is an important issue. Methamphetamine, or ice as it is commonly known, is a scourge in our communities and across the country. It devastates families and lives, and measures need to be in place to try to intercept trafficking, but those measures need to be well considered, based on evidence and be consulted on. Of course we are not just talking about ice; we are talking about other drugs that find their way here as well.
The minister was not prepared to do that in the last sittings. The Leader of Government Business has a big hand in setting the sittings schedule and ordering business before the House, as well as having responsibility for this bill. The fact that he was not adequately prepared to introduce the bill in order to see its passage in September is clearly his issue. It is his problem that there were not 30 days between sittings. The fact that we have had a longer than usual break between sitting weeks in September until November, eight weeks in fact, is his issue and not that of the members on this side of the House.
The series of full-page taxpayer-funded ads which were published immediately after the urgency motion for this bill failed are symptomatic of a government which has lost control and had a hissy fit because it did not get its way. There was no respect for the democratic processes of this Chamber contained within standing orders, which does not allow for a majority of the House to vote no to urgency. There was no respect for taxpayer funds to promote purely politically-driven messages, and no clue about and no regard to the blatant breach of the Public Information Act which prohibits such ads.
Documents obtained under Freedom of Information legislation now reveal that a senior political operative in the Chief Minister’s office directed a senior public servant to create and run costly full-page advertisements of a political and misleading nature ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! Anticipation of debate. This matter is on the Notice Paper and is not the subject of this debate.
Ms WALKER: It has been widely talked about in the media. We put out a media release, it has been discussed and we have radio interviews.
The misleading nature in the local press at the expense of the taxpayer …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please be careful about the way you phrase your debate this evening.
Ms WALKER: Certainly, thank you. The advertisements in question, which have cost the taxpayer over $8000, incorrectly claimed …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 68:
This matter is now on the Notice Paper. It was introduced by the member for Goyder this morning and stands adjourned at this stage. This is a straight up and down anticipation of debate.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, due to the fact the newspaper article is coming up for debate shortly, please continue your comments relating to the matter at hand and steer clear of what will be debated at the next point. Standing Order 68 relates to anticipation of debate:
There is a high probability of that being discussed so stick to the motion, please.
Ms WALKER: I am not talking to the motion. I am talking to the bill, and there is a very important discussion to be had about the issue of urgency with this bill. In the last sittings it became a political issue for government members because they would not accept the majority of this House voting in the democratic way that we do to show we object. The government, in its wisdom …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you talking to me about your argument or are you continuing?
Ms WALKER: No, I am resuming my contribution.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: If you talk about the newspaper ad that is anticipating debate.
Ms WALKER: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, can we not even talk about the fact this government …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: When it comes up you can talk about it to your heart’s content. It is coming up on the Notice Paper shortly.
Ms WALKER: When is shortly? Can you advise?
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Within a reasonable time.
Ms WALKER: What is a reasonable time? Government shut down debate this morning and is shutting it down again.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Deputy Clerk and I will discuss it again and then I will make a decision and that will be it. There is a probability that debate will come on in GBD tomorrow night so you can make whatever remarks you want at that time. You are entitled to do that, but please just talk about this bill at this point.
Ms WALKER: I will do my best given that government does its best to gag debate at every opportunity. It is in denial about the right of this House and elected members who voted no to urgency. We did not block laws, we voted no to the motion of urgency.
Clearly the agenda of the government, of the minister sitting opposite me, is to drive a political agenda, a scaremongering agenda, and they do not care at whose expense they do it. They do it at taxpayers’ expense, and they do it shamelessly. Let us make no mistake, the government is interested in treating taxpayers’ funds as their own slush fund to run political agendas, misleading or otherwise.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 68 and Standing Order 129, both of which deal with anticipation of debate. The letter circulated by the Speaker earlier today touches on the matters the member is now touching on directly and specifically. I respectfully ask that the member be drawn back to the matter under debate, which is the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Understood member for Port Darwin. I think she is expressing the opinion that the government is gagging her.
Mr ELFERINK: I am mindful of the rules of this House.
Ms WALKER: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, my last motion asked for the minister to be sacked, but obviously the man sitting next to him would not be able to get by without him. There is a complete lack of leadership, and there is dysfunction, on that side of the House.
What became clear following the failed urgency motion to push this legislation through parliament was that the minister had not consulted with key stakeholders about providing new powers to search and seize in a bid to clamp down on drug traffickers on our roads.
He was so intent that he was right and everybody else was wrong that we saw a complete abuse of Territory taxpayer funds used in advertisements that have been referred to the Privileges Committee. I look forward to the opportunity tomorrow night to talk further about how a politically driven and incorrect scare campaign put out by the government has progressed.
We did not support the urgency motion because the minister had not consulted with stakeholders about providing these new powers, and there is nothing new about that. There is nothing new about the fact that the CLP government, for three years, has not consulted.
They do not know what consultation means. They drive an agenda which says, ‘We know what’s best for you. We do not listen to people, but we know what’s best for you and we will push it through no matter what anybody else thinks.’
This government is so arrogant and so out of touch. It does not consult, does not feel any need to listen to experts and, as it has discovered in more recent sittings, life as a minority government means it does not have carte blanche to do whatever it wants or whatever it thinks is best for Territorians.
If it were not for the fact that the member for Arnhem has now shown her true colours and is providing support to the government – we are back to a situation where, for all intents and purposes, it is a majority CLP government. They will continue their bad behaviour and bad way of doing business in the Northern Territory. So be it. When it comes to legislation, as we know from the Attorney-General, nobody knows more in the Northern Territory than him, yet we have to recognise, as members of this House, as legislators, we have a responsibility to get it right.
How many times have I heard the minister opposite me utter those words? When I was being briefed in the minister’s office a month ago on bills related to these sittings, I was advised that with the failure of the urgency motion to progress through the House, the minister’s second reading speech and explanatory statement were sent out to 32 identified stakeholders. These came with an invitation for a briefing, and that submissions were welcomed, with a closing date of Friday 23 October. That decision was made after the failure of the urgency motion.
Obviously, with another plot going on in the Chief Minister’s office to get false and misleading advertising into the public …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, please stick to the bill. If you keep doing this I will keep pulling you up.
Ms WALKER: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I apologise. It is such a serious and infuriating issue and I am sick and tired of being gagged in debate.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: You will have your opportunity to speak on it tomorrow night.
Ms WALKER: Would you not think, after the urgency motion failed, the minister’s office issuing instructions for the associated documents to go out to 32 stakeholders seeking feedback that it was a back to front process in communication? Would it not be better to attend a briefing or submit views before a bill is introduced on urgency? No, that is not the way this government operates.
There is also the audacity and arrogance of the minister to have behaved so badly towards me and others during that urgency debate and thumping his fist on his desk ...
Mr Elferink: Not true.
Ms WALKER: Yelling. We have seen it on the video, John. For goodness sake! You are in complete denial.
He tried to have the final word when he did not get his way by taking certain actions in the media and using taxpayer funds to promote mistruths. The ends this government will go to get its own way beggar belief. To go back to the member for Arnhem to secure her vote shows they are absolutely ruthless. They do not care about the history between members on their side and the member for Arnhem, or the words exchanged between the parties. At the end of the day, they are so desperate to grasp power that the member for Arnhem has returned to their ranks.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! We are engaging in digression. Speaking about the member for Arnhem’s relationship with the government has nothing to do with the bill before the House. I would presume having had all this time to prepare a response she has something better than a mere meander around the room and not talking about the issue under debate.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: A fair bit of leeway is given in the House but please try to stay near the bill.
Continue your comments please, member for Nhulunbuy.
Ms WALKER: I will do that but some history goes with this bill. There is also an important story here about why government is in the position it is now, about how it can pass legislation and how it achieved that. I believe I am entitled to make that observation. There is always, as you know, certain latitude in debate.
Let us say that the minister, during that urgency debate, behaved abominably. Vision from this Chamber was captured and relayed on media around the country. That is how the government works. They have to bully their way through the agenda and get laws through. We know at those sittings they were a minority government and unable to do that.
I understand the intent of this bill according to the Explanatory Statement is to:
We will not be opposing this bill, but we have a number of reservations and questions about it. I hope the minister can elaborate on some of the provisions within the bill.
I will get to the amendment put forward by the member for Karama. We share the member’s concerns about the reversal of onus of proof in amended section 40. Nevertheless, we recognise the need to look at measures for dealing with drug trafficking, and not only on our road corridors, and to try to combat the organised criminal activity networks that peddle these destructive drugs, including ice, and create such tragic levels of harm which reach beyond the users and impact on families and communities.
The Liquor Act of 1995 has certain powers to pull over vehicles and randomly search for alcohol. To a point, the minister’s proposed legislation is similar but on a larger and more organised scale and with greater powers. I am not sure just how organised, given that I have not seen the guidelines referred to in the second reading speech and the Explanatory Statement. I asked about the guidelines the minister referred to. They are in clause 19V(2), which states:
I had an opportunity to ask again yesterday when in the minister’s office for further briefings, and I was not the only one asking about the guidelines. The response was they would not be released publically because they are operational matters for police. I guess we have to accept that, but it was not clear in the lead-up to the last sittings what was happening with the guidelines and who would be seeing them again. That hardly instils confidence in us as legislators when bills come before the House on urgency.
Part IIAB details drug detection areas, which is where guidelines are referred to. I wish to make some observations arising from conversations with stakeholders in the last few weeks, including the Law Society of the Northern Territory, the Automobile Association of the Northern Territory, and the NT Road Transport Association. In the lead-up to the urgency motion for the bill, opposition members sought the views of NAAJA and the Criminal Lawyers Association of the Northern Territory. I have since received the Criminal Lawyers Association of the Northern Territory’s submission, which no doubt was generated by the minister’s office post the failure of the urgency motion. Again, it is a back to front way to consult with stakeholders.
If the target is main roads into the Northern Territory because police want to target interstate trafficking from other jurisdictions, although I know this is not exclusively the intent because air transport is another serious avenue for trafficking, why not have periodic random checkpoints and drug detection areas on our main roads through the Queensland, WA and SA borders? This legislation would also allow that on the minor roads. I am concerned about how these drug detection areas will operate. I have discussed this with the NT Road Transport Association and AANT.
Knowing how busy our road corridors can be, especially in the Dry Season, I am concerned about the measures in place to ensure a 3 km stretch of road provides adequate and safe provisions well ahead of the 3 km zone. The inconvenience will be a source of irritation to travellers and commercial operators of larger vehicles like road trains, or Greyhound buses that may be carrying up to 60 or so passengers, all of whom have destinations to reach and time frames to meet. Given we do not have access to the guidelines to see how it will operate it is difficult to know how it will be managed.
In proposed section 19X, the effect of authorisations, clauses 19X(1)(a) and (b) provide the authorisation for a police officer within the drug detection area to search without a warrant and without reasonable suspicion. I wonder about clause 19X(2) which states:
I appreciate police are adept at doing their job, and having operated random breath testing stations for years they know how to safely manage traffic in such circumstances. However, RBTs are more likely to be in built-up urban areas not on open stretches of road, which could include open stretches where there is an unlimited speed limit. It is imperative on our major highways that traffic and heavy vehicles be properly managed in the designated drug detection areas. Surely the only way to do this is to use designated parking bays. Such bays do not necessarily exist on our roads, including the Central Arnhem Road.
How will police manage the safety of vehicles, drivers and passengers when they are pulled over on dirt roads like the Central Arnhem Road, the Roper Highway, perhaps the Tanami Highway, where visibility can be reduced to just about zero when heavy vehicles pass, and at the same time safely manage the drug detection area? These are very practical, logical concerns people might have, and we need to have some evidence and advice on how that will be managed.
I am concerned about clause 19Y, Special powers to stop, detain, search and seize in relation to vehicles and people. Clause 19Y(1)(c) states:
Clause 19Y(1)(d) states:
You could be travelling up the Stuart Highway in your caravan, which has lockable cupboards for which the driver has misplaced the key, and are pulled into a drug detection zone. Maybe you are in a work vehicle and your car’s toolbox is at risk of getting trashed when police officers open locks to look for drugs, but there is no recompense for damage. Is it the case that under this bill they have the right to use reasonable force to break into compartments? No drugs were found but damage has been done and the individual has no avenue for recompense, or perhaps they do? Could the minister explain that further, especially knowing that police can do so without reasonable suspicion? It seems a bit rough.
The opposition also has concerns, which have also been raised by stakeholders, about the amendment to section 40(c), which sees a reversal of the onus of proof. If my vehicle was found to have drugs stashed in it, and I am genuinely unaware of the presence of the drugs, I am not afforded the usual innocent until proven guilty. The onus of proof is reversed, and I must prove that I was unaware and genuinely did not know that a passenger in my vehicle was transporting drugs.
The member for Barkly, during the condolence motion on the Paris attacks, mentioned picking up some French tourists whose vehicle had broken down. He gave them a lift and provided them with assistance because he is a good person, and most people would probably do that. Where does that leave him if those backpackers were carrying something in their luggage? Where does it leave the owner and driver of the vehicle?
I am not sure those rights are adequately considered in this bill. In their submission the Criminal Lawyers Association of the Northern Territory proposed an amendment which would see that reversed and a person is innocent until proven guilty. In my briefing with the Law Society of the Northern Territory they expressed the same view.
Another example would be a commercial passenger vehicle and its driver, be it a taxi with up to four passengers or a Greyhound bus with up to 60 people. Where are they left when passengers are carrying and transporting drugs into the Northern Territory? A commercial vehicle operates with strangers and is simply providing a service. What is the outcome of that scenario?
What about someone who is checking a neighbour’s mail while they are on holiday? People could have gone on holidays down south, be caring for someone in hospital, or whatever reason. As a good neighbour you are collecting their mail only to find it contains drugs. You are pulled into a drug detection zone and you say, ‘I was just collecting the mail’, but there is no presumption of innocence. It is quite the opposite, so where does it leave that person?
Another curious element of this legislation goes to the heart of the government’s incapacity to adequately consult, which is that this proposed legislation was not raised through the ‘Ice’ Select Committee. It inquired into the prevalence, impacts and government responses to illicit use of the drug colloquially know as ice, in the Northern Territory.
It seems odd that the ice committee received no advice or submission about this proposed legislation as a potential tool for responding to ice trafficking into the Northern Territory. The member for Casuarina, as the opposition’s representative on that committee, was surprised, as I am sure you were, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker as I understand you are on the committee, that you heard nothing of this proposal as a potential tool through the channels of the ice committee until you saw a media release.
Let us not forget the opposition’s motion on 25 March 2015 to immediately establish an interagency task force of Police, Health and Children and Families to report in six weeks on actions that could be taken to tackle the ice epidemic.
That was not supported by this government, and it was only when former Prime Minister Abbott announced a national task force that the CLP government thought it needed to do something, so it established the ice committee. There was no urgency back then. It was not a problem, but what a turnaround we have at now.
I raise the issue of priorities for the minister in his bid to get this legislation through. There are other issues within your portfolio, namely the courts, which are trying to prosecute alleged drug dealers but are frustrated. While very keen to get the bill through last sittings on urgency, less than a fortnight after your failed urgency motion the Northern Territory News, on 28 September, had a front page story headed, ‘Drug cases on ice’:
It is the responsibility of the government and the minister to ensure our agencies, in this instance, the Department of Justice and the Police, are adequately resourced to do their jobs properly. Clearly, waiting up to 12 weeks – referring to the newspaper article – because of a lack of available personnel and functioning equipment is unacceptable. That was clearly the view of Magistrate Morris in the case that was reported. To have alleged drug dealers bailed and walking the streets seems to show a case of skewed priorities.
I remind the minister that his Pillars of Justice touts Swift Justice. There is nothing swift about a 12-week delay in hearing cases. It is not good enough.
I appreciate there needs to be monitoring of transport routes in a way that is covered fairly through legislation, but what work is being done to monitor other routes? So much of what comes into the Northern Territory to remote communities is transported by air.
On the day of the failed urgency motion the Leader of the Opposition and I were briefed by the Commissioner of Police about the volume of drugs trafficked through air corridors.
I cannot recall the last time I boarded an Airnorth plane to Nhulunbuy to be greeted by police officers and a handler with a detection dog. We would line up with our bags alongside us. We did not object, and I was pleased they did that screening. It was a relatively regular occurrence and, on more than one occasion, a drug detection dog found something. The dog becomes excited, and the person and their luggage are walked aside and they are dealt with. What has happened to that? I have not seen it on the Airnorth plane for quite a few years.
I recognise that in places like Galiwinku police conduct an operation from time to time. They meet every charter plane that comes in, inspect it, and may use the drug detection dog. They are successful. If there are drugs to be found they will find them. As a result, police tell me if you can stop drugs for a few weeks, places like Galiwinku, which can have its problems, will be peaceful and quiet. Nobody is arguing that we need measures to detect drugs. It is about recognising the need for a number of different channels, not just on our roads, but monitoring air corridors as well.
Let us not forget the urgent need to invest in preventative measures, education, and adequate treatment facilities for users to try to combat the devastating impact of drugs and ice on our families and communities. We do not see significant investment into those channels. We cannot just deal with the pointy end. You need to balance that with spending money and investing in preventative measures, but also important health services and treatment for people who have addiction issues.
We are not opposing this bill but note we have a number of questions for the minister to address. I would like to thank the minister’s office for providing briefings with officers from the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice, who are always very helpful during the briefings and always organise them promptly.
I look forward to hearing contributions from other members.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the debate started off with the advertisement in paper, but the Acting Deputy Speaker said we cannot debate the issue. I will read something from Hansard before the ad existed. In the urgency debate on 16 September 2015 I said:
Further down I said:
I am glad we gave the bill time because it gave us a chance to ask people about it, as I did. In general, the people I asked supported it. I asked a lawyer friend to go through it because these laws will end up in court in the sense that someone will probably debate whether a person is guilty or not guilty based on the legislation we pass. We need to make sure this is good legislation. I support the legislation but have concerns about clause 8, which amends section 40(c), which I will come to.
This is straightforward and gives the police more powers. It is a relatively small piece of legislation but has some serious implications on people’s rights to travel on a road freely, and also the right for your vehicle not to be searched. In this case you will be asked to stop travelling in your car and you will, without warrant, be required to be searched or the vehicle you are in searched.
They are fairly serious changes to the normal liberties we have when driving down the highway. Yes, on occasion there will be a breathalyser, but we are not searched and our car is not pulled apart. This is obviously serious, and there is a serious reason for this to happen. We want to stop – if you believe the advertisements – ice. There are other drugs that we want to stop as well, and precursors. There is a range of drugs we would like to stop coming into the Territory, or if they are in the Territory, stop them from being distributed in the Territory. If we believe we need to lose some of our liberties for the benefit of the whole community then parliament needs to pass laws to allow that to happen. Those laws, and the limitations of those powers, have to be clearly identified and this bill does that. Clause 19V(1) says:
This is subject to various conditions, and must also be in writing, so if it ever comes back to the court we need to show that authorisation was correct. It limits the area on the road that can be set up as a drug detection area. The authorisation gives police powers they normally would not have. They can then use the drug detection area without a warrant and without reasonable suspicion, which is normally what you would expect a police officer to do. They have powers they normally would not have which allow them to search you or your vehicle, direct a driver to stop, and they can enter the vehicle using reasonable force. They can detain a person and seize any item or thing the officer reasonably believes is connected with any offence.
There is a change in the powers a police officer has, and those powers impinge on people’s liberty. If this bill passes tonight it needs to advertise the change to the act. I can see the grey nomads heading up the highway and, all of a sudden, people are wandering through their caravan. ‘What the heck is going on here?’ Out go the saucepans, the fridge is moved, ‘Sorry about the back panels, we will take those out for a minute’. I am not sure if the police are required to put them all back together, but it could be a shock to someone travelling in the Dry Season if police decide to put a drug detection area on the Stuart Highway hoping to catch people transporting drugs into the Territory. They may have no idea what is going on. I do not know how you advertise it, but people need to be made aware this could happen.
I agree with what the government is trying to do and support the government being tough on drugs.
Clause 8 amends section 40(c) by inserting clause 8(2) which says:
The minister is a lawyer and upholds the British system of law. We have been talking about the poor people of Paris today. We seem to have legislation that is – pardon me if I am wrong, but that is the way the French do things. You have to prove you were not the person who caused the unlawful incident.
I might be wrong, but we are turning our system of justice around the other way. I can understand, to some extent, what you are getting at. I was sent, at 9.51 am today, an e-mail which said to look up section 5 of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act. I searched but I could not find section 5 of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act, which deals with evidence. Section 7 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act talks about the supply of prohibited drugs, and says a person who supplies or knowingly takes part in the supply of a prohibited drug is guilty of an offence.
They use the word ‘knowingly’. ‘Knowingly’ is very important. The part the department was talking about was deemed possession of a prohibited drug. Section 7 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act says:
I am not sure if that is the same as what we are dealing with in our legislation. It might be an example of something close to it, but it does not seem to be the same. I have concerns about that. I could have said, ‘Big deal’, but I had a note from the Criminal Lawyers Association which said, ‘CLANT strongly opposes clause 8 of the bill’.
It goes on to say:
My learned friend, who is a long time lawyer, also expressed concern and opposition to that change.
I do not know if the amendment will be successful. It puts us in a difficult position, because I support the bill but I do not believe this clause should be left in the legislation.
I understand at times it must be frustrating for police. Obviously this is not the only case where police have evidence. It could be stolen goods or something. ‘Why is that stereo sitting in the front of your car?’ ‘I didn’t know it was there, officer. It fell out of the sky and landed on the seat.’ The other way round is you prove you did not pinch it and show your receipts.
I do not know if that is a fair example, but I know we want to stop ice. If you apply a principle should you apply it evenly? If you want to apply it in special cases, should this be the only special case? Are we being selective? Do the police have other concerns where they believe people are getting off because they can say they did not know anything about it?
The lawyers who have commented on this section of the bill believe it should not be amended, and if this amendment is successful it will allow the status quo to continue. I need to highlight for the Attorney-General that, regardless of the urgency debate, this bill needed to be looked at. It is a serious bill about the freedom of people to travel and not be searched. Normally you only search people’s cars with a warrant.
The member for Nhulunbuy mentioned going to the ice committee. We do not use our committees as we should. Even though the ice committee was travelling and had nearly completed its work, this would have been an ideal thing to take off – a bipartisan ice committee. The issues we are talking about today, especially the onus of proof, are something the committee could have discussed.
The issue of compensation raised by the member for Nhulunbuy is valid. If your vehicle is left on the side of the road, is compensation available? It might be for minor things, but if someone is innocent they might say, ‘What’s happened here?’
As a parliament we could have used the ice committee to assist with this legislation. Urgency would not have come into it, because the ice committee could have looked at this in a reasonable time and returned to parliament with considered answers. That is the way parliament should be. There has been a lot of heat today, which I can still feel, but hopefully in the future we can talk about things as a parliament rather than one side or the other.
This issue is important to all of us. It is very close to the member for Brennan’s heart, and it is not only that. Who was on the youth suicide committee? Who looked at marijuana abuse in Aboriginal communities and the high suicide rates?
We are all concerned about drug abuse, but we cannot just concentrate, as members of parliament, on legislation. We need programs; we need to assist people and we need outcomes to give people a positive outlook on life so they do not resort to drugs. There is a bigger issue as well which we will not deal with today.
I support the bill. I appreciate it has come back in good time. We will see where the debate goes in relation to the amendment.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Deputy Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the passage through the House of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill 2015. It is nice to be finally debating the bill after the Labor Party and the Independents decided this bill did not require urgency seven or eight weeks ago. I hope, as a result of the tardiness of those opposite, that more of this horrible drug has not made it into the Northern Territory and affected the lives of Territorians. It would be macabre to chase the statistics to see if there is any correlation between the tardiness of those opposite and any more people becoming addicted to this horrible drug.
Finally, after many weeks of waiting, this bill is before the House. Across the nation we are witnessing the serious impacts that drugs have on our communities. It does not matter which postcode you live in, drugs are a serious problem felt in every corner of this great country, and, more locally, every suburb in the Northern Territory. It is a problem we cannot afford to ignore.
In September I was gobsmacked to hear the reasons the members for Nelson and Nightcliff refused to support the urgency motion. I was surprised to hear some of the things the member for Nhulunbuy said tonight to support blocking the urgency motion in September.
Quite clearly, this was recommended by the ice committee. The police wanted this power seven or eight weeks ago, and it is pleasing that this legislation will pass tonight. The Labor Party has stated it will not oppose the bill, and the member for Nelson suggested he will support it.
I refer those opposite to the Northern Territory Police Force submission to the national inquiry into crystal methamphetamine. Several key recommendations were made which are supported by the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill 2015, and include:
Of course that falls on the deaf ears of those opposite.
The second recommendation is:
The fourth recommendation says:
Let me put it simply for those opposite. The Northern Territory Police Force has requested it be given the appropriate tools in order to disrupt and dismantle drug supplies, supply routes and distribution networks. These men and women are on the front line of this issue every day. Every day this House fails to pass the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill is another day this parliament is negligent, but we are here nonetheless.
Time is of the essence, so it is imperative that we do everything we can to get dangerous and illegal drugs off the streets. Clearly the opposition still does not see the urgency in this, given the amount of time spent today debating matters which are not as high a priority as passage of this bill.
It is time to take the politics out of play and do the right thing. Police want the powers to assist in stopping and dismantling known drug supply routes across the NT, and we are committed to giving those powers to them. This is a vital step if we are to successfully tackle the drug problem in the Territory.
We know that 80% of methamphetamine in the Territory is imported, so we need to stop the infiltration of our borders and get to drug dealers before they get their supply into our communities, our homes and our lives. Our police can only achieve this if we enhance their power to have the necessary tools at their disposal. It is heartening to hear that the opposition will not oppose this bill and it should pass tonight.
I would like to read an excerpt to the House from the Salvation Army submission to the national inquiry into crystal methamphetamine. It is a particularly poignant part of its submission:
There is no doubt we need and must have a coordinated approach to tackling this growing problem. All members need to support the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill 2015. Supporting this bill will ensure Northern Territory Police are equipped with the powers to dismantle drug traffickers.
During my time as a police officer some of the worst cases I dealt with were with drug addicts. Drugs alter people’s behaviour, mind and physical strength. These people are a danger to themselves and society. Some of the things I saw as a police officer, caused as a result of heavily intoxicating drugs, I would not repeat in this House or in the company of other police officers because they are too horrible to describe. I hope I never have to see those things again in my life, but I also hope everything that can be done is being done by government to give police and other agencies the support and powers they need to tackle this problem and prevent these things from happening.
I also ask why our ambulance officers, police officers, doctors and nurses should have to put their lives at risk when they attempt to help an irate and irrational drug addict. It is our responsibility, as members of this House, to do everything in our power to stop drug use and keep Territorians safe. It is our job to show drug dealers they are not welcome in the Northern Territory. People not breaking the law have nothing to worry about. However, if you are doing the wrong thing you deserve to be caught. I call on this parliament to do the right thing tonight and make sure all members support the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill 2015 and see its passage through the House.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the police and Justice officers for the briefings on this legislation during the break between sittings. I did not support the urgency motion at the previous sittings because I wanted to understand what the member for Nelson described as a significant change in the liberties with which people travel around the Territory. I was pleased to have the opportunity to go through the legislation in the briefing. I also had the opportunity to hear the views of external stakeholders.
I have proposed a committee stage amendment, which was distributed to members electronically and placed on their desks. Before I go to the amendment I want to go more broadly to the issue of ice, then the legislation.
It is really sad when governments want to make politics out of a community tragedy. As Leader of the Opposition, earlier this year I called for a task force to be established across government agencies for an urgent body of work to be undertaken and to report back within six weeks on what could be done to tackle the scourge of ice in our community. I did not do that earlier, when I thought of the dire need for it, because we were in the midst of a by-election and it was a hot political time. I did not want my call for urgent work to tackle the scourge of ice seen through a political lens, because that was not my intent.
Members of my community are raising their grandchildren. Their children are in gaol because they were ice users. I have dear friends who do not know where their adult sons or daughters are because they are ice users. I know of the pain those families are suffering, and I acknowledge that the member for Brennan has spoken publicly about his family’s pain.
In this debate I come from a genuine, deep care for the families who are suffering because their family member, who they love dearly, is in the grip of chronic ice addiction. I also care about the person who is in the grip of chronic ice addiction.
I also care for the frontline workers who have to deal with the horror and violence that comes with ice addiction – ambulance officers, police officers, health workers and frontline staff at the hospital. Every day, throughout the system workers’ wellbeing is at risk because they are doing their job, which includes interaction with people who are exhibiting extremely violent behaviour as a result of chronic ice addiction.
In March this year I brought a motion to the House based on experience. There are different ways governments can address an emerging and increasing issue, and this is increasing at an alarming rate.
At the briefing I received on this legislation, data from police showed in the past 18 months there has been a 480% increase in meth seizures. I do not know the rate of increased use. If that is a 480% increase in seizures, it is not rocket science to work out we have a chronic user problem that is exponentially exploding across our community.
With the experience of a decade-plus in government at senior levels, I suggest there are two paths you can take. You can go down the parliamentary committee path, and all power to that path; you often get very good outcomes. If you see it as an urgent issue, if you want work done in a timely manner where you are engaging with experts across government agencies who deal with this issue, an interagency task force is faster. You have the experts at the coalface around the table nutting out the tools they need to deal with the scourge.
I want to thank members of the parliamentary committee; that is worthy work. I proposed an interagency task force because in six weeks you could get experts around the table coming up with tools.
That was in March, and one of those tools, you could assume given the passage of time, is the police coming forward with the search and seize legislation we have before us. That could have been done and dusted by mid-year if you had followed the time line of six weeks’ reporting, then some intro, debate and passage in parliament.
The political football of not supporting urgency and having our names writ large and condemned was appalling. I do not believe there is anyone in this Chamber who does not have an intent to use whatever tools can be deployed against the scourge of ice in a truly bipartisan manner. We need a comprehensive action plan. Earlier this year I tabled in parliament the Victorian Ice Action Plan. It comes with clear actions and funding attached to it, and is right across the range of areas you need to tackle.
Yes, there are tools for police, the health sector, the alcohol and other drugs sector, and rehab sectors. There are also tools for awareness and education. What message have we not sent to our kids? What programs have we not had in our middle schools? If you wait until senior school you have waited far too long.
It is almost a year since I tabled the Victorian action plan. We do not have an action plan in the Territory; we have debates and discussions. We had a committee, and an appalling political football game around this legislation. Please get on with it and bring forward a comprehensive action plan to tackle the scourge of ice. Please fund it. Do not make it a meaningless paper-based list of tools without resources attached. My God, you are happy to spend $20m-plus on a sporting facility. Can you save some lives by funding and resourcing a comprehensive action plan to tackle the scourge of ice?
Can you save the cost currently tearing through police and hospital resources, our prisons and our society from the impact on the community by funding the action required to tackle it? I support this legislation whether or not the committee stage amendments are adopted by the government.
I always hope for debate in this Chamber where I can say, ‘Can you see what you are trying to do? I agree with these aspects of it but this element is a bridge too far.’ It is best not to agree with that, put forward the arguments why and hope for consideration.
Judging from the actions of the government, that will not occur. Yesterday, prior to sittings, I sent an e-mail to the Attorney-General, his chief of staff and the government Whip to advise them I would propose a committee stage amendment in relation to clause 8 of the bill, which is an amendment to section 40(c). I received no response, yet this morning other Independent members of parliament received an e-mail from the Attorney-General’s chief of staff pointing out why the committee stage amendment was not required. If you are genuine, why did that e-mail not go to me as well?
In my e-mail to the Attorney-General was the offer of a discussion. The person putting forward the committee stage amendment is kept out of the loop of why they think the committee stage amendment is not required. That is not a mature way to behave in government. It is shameful.
This legislation has significant changes to liberties which impact on Territorians and tourists. I am satisfied with the detail provided in the briefing around the checks and balances built into the identification of authorised areas, the localities of authorised areas and the time in which an authorised area exists. I am satisfied with the reporting back and the seniority layers of people signing off on those decisions. It is good it comes back to parliament so it can be informed. Research has been done on the South Australian model to see where the deficiencies are, the reliance on sniffer dogs and electronic devices not being a strong enough tool and why you have gone with the search and seize powers in this legislation. That is good; it is smart. Good luck, I hope it is effective.
In my briefing they were talking about the Victoria, Barkly and Stuart Highways. I find it curious that the distance starts from the Darwin GPO, because I thought there would be a big ice problem in metropolitan Darwin. You will not give yourself the power to go to where manufacturing occurs in an urban environment. A lot of information I have read says one of the big problems with ice is the ease of manufacturing. Unlike some other horrendous drugs, trafficking, which this legislation goes to, is not as significant with ice because of the ease of manufacturing. I agree with what the member for Nelson said about picking up the precursors in seizes and searches, because manufacturing is a real problem.
Some aspects of the legislation are robust and have been well thought through. I query the distance from the GPO. Why would you start from the rural area out? I am not in government and do not have the opportunity to test those questions with agencies. I do not have intelligence about where they think seizures or manufacturing are occurring. I hope the government has made an informed decision.
In regard to the search and seize powers, I am pleased that the Police Administration Act requires identification of gender issues. For example, there are not only search and seize powers of the vehicle, but also to be physically searched as well. The normal gender requirements are applied so only a woman can be physically searched by a female police officer and a man by a male police officer. I am satisfied with that. I thank the officers who took us through that at the briefing because I was concerned about physical searches.
I identified in the briefing, as a former Minister for Transport, that it will take a fair time to properly, comprehensively and thoroughly search a road train, for example. A thorough search of a road train could take an hour. The officers in the briefing did not say no to that.
I pick up on the contribution by the member for Nhulunbuy in regard to locality issues. For example, truck parking bays will start to define a practical workability aspect of this legislation when you have big trucks parked on the side. I am flagging that, with all the best intent in the world, there are some practical and workable issues in delivering on the intent of search and seize on larger vehicles such as road trains.
Because of the nature and significance of the change, the member for Goyder and I attended the briefing and the member for Goyder asked, ‘How will you let people know? When you pull over a tourist who could be in a Hertz hire car, you have no warrant and are doing something that, with the exception of South Australia, cannot occur anywhere else in Australia. It is a no warrant search and seize situation.’ The member for Goyder and I requested at the briefing that the government, through the Police Commissioner, issue guidelines which require a fact sheet. It could be one page in simple language that explains the powers and intent of this legislation, so when granny driving down the road is pulled over she does not freak out.
In other jurisdictions there are fact sheets for certain police powers. An example provided was that some police in the Melbourne CBD use fact sheets. There is a formal request for fact sheets to be included in the Police Commissioner’s guidelines regarding this legislation. The second request is that it be translated into Indigenous languages. The police said they translate about 35 Indigenous languages. With the road network you are targeting there will be people who do not understand English, so if you are genuine about taking fear, misunderstanding and agitation out of the roadside search, a fact sheet translated into Indigenous languages is essential. It is not a big ask. The police would be capable of providing that information.
This would go a long way to the broader community embracing, accepting and understanding why this is occurring. It is a simple and worthwhile thing. It is up to the government, but I would like some feedback from the Attorney-General in relation to that request. We made the request at the briefing deliberately to give the government time to consider it. Surely you have been advised of the request, and I invite your feedback, Attorney-General, on that. It is very clear, a simple fact sheet on the search and seize for police to hand over translated into Indigenous languages ...
Mr Elferink: The answer is yes.
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection by the Attorney-General. Thank you, Attorney-General, it will go a long way to assisting the workability of the roadside activity.
The concerns I have around section 40(c) are genuine. I grew up with a fundamental and strong belief in justice, and one belief is innocent until proven guilty. Former Supreme Court Judge, Dick Ward, was like my grandfather, and taught me many things while attached to the dialysis machine that kept him alive in the latter stages of his life. Once you are imbued with a deep and abiding sense of justice it takes a bit to shift you off one of the pillars of justice.
I have given long and deep consideration to the reversal of the onus of proof. I thank officers at the briefing because they stepped through it in detail. There was a fair amount of questioning around it. I am not a lawyer and cannot have a protracted legal debate at the committee stage with you, Attorney-General, nor do I intend to waste anyone’s time doing that. I place on the record that removing knowledge and removing that bar of probability down to the far lower bar of deemed possession is not the right thing to do. In the briefing police gave an example I will not go to because it may not have concluded, but I will go to a broad brush of it. Drugs were found, not physically on a person, but found ...
Mr Elferink: The term was, ‘In their immediate control’.
Ms LAWRIE: Thank you, Attorney-General. Drugs were found in their immediate control. The person, of course, denied the drugs were theirs. Through DNA testing of the packaging and police evidence of bank accounts, phone conversations etcetera, the relevant link to the individual and the drugs could be proven in regard to the probability test.
The example we were given at the briefing was why you did not need to reverse the onus. With the work police are capable of doing and the other powers they have, they can meet that test of probability. I accept that police can meet the test of probability with the various powers and forensics they have these days. Forensic tests have come so far so I am comfortable with police being able to deliver, on probability, if the drugs were being trafficked by that person.
Herein lies the rub for me and why I have brought the committee stage amendment. I am concerned. There can be different scenarios, and we have heard some from the member for Nhulunbuy, but I will put forward some simple ones.
A car of five people travelling along the Stuart Highway is pulled over and searched, and a quantity of drugs is found. The driver did not know the drugs were there. Someone had stashed them. A reversal of the onus of proof has them as the target. They have to prove against deemed possession.
I am concerned that innocent people will be done for trafficking because of reversal of the onus of proof. I am not about protecting people who traffic drugs – gaol them. I am concerned about capturing innocent people for deemed possession.
Given our cohort of Territorians, and given the frequency of people sharing a car on the highways on which these searches will occur, it increases the probability of an innocent person being captured in this reversal of onus.
The legislation stands on its own; it is good legislation and a worthy tool without the reversal of the onus of proof. The police will have powers no other police force in the nation would be given, on passage of this legislation, to search and seize. It stands as an effective tool without the prosecutorial reversal of onus of proof.
Deemed possession, given that these vehicles will carry multiple passengers, is a bridge too far. Why not give it twelve months to run? If you accept the committee stage amendment, which I will not hold my breath on because you did not respond to my e-mail yet e-mailed everyone else – it is a simple amendment to omit. The law as it exists would stand; the status quo would remain. You could give it twelve months to operate. You could get feedback from the police and the Crown Prosecutor. Has it been an impediment or not?
If prosecutions felt one or two cases slipped through the net because they could not get the DNA, or they did not have access to the money trail in bank accounts or whatever – I am not a police officer – drop that pillar of justice of innocent until proven guilty. It is a challenge. I know you do not like to do things on the hop, which is why I sent it yesterday. I wanted to send it earlier but was waiting to hear from other members of this House who had been given a heads up on it. This morning the member for Arnhem advised me that she would support the committee stage amendment, but I am an experienced politician. I guess she will not be supporting it so I will not waste anyone’s time by calling divisions. We will go to committee stage and then, Attorney-General, it is up to you.
You can accept it as an amendment, let it run, see how it works, see how prosecutions go, and let the police do their job of gathering evidence, which they do well. If you do not like it remove a pillar of justice and go with ‘in possession’, which you currently have.
In summary, we should be doing everything we can now to tackle the broader scourge of ice in our community, not just this legislation. For the best part of a year you have had a copy of the Victorian Ice Action Plan. You had a parliamentary committee, and I am still waiting. The families are still waiting. You have this legislation, but we are still waiting for everything else they need. Who do they call? Who does a family call when they suspect the person they love is dabbling in ice? Where are the practices, guidelines and procedures for all those frontline workers, police and health workers? Where is that? Where are the AOD resources? Where is the education program and curriculum for our middle schools? Maybe I am wrong and it should be primary schools. Please do not wait until senior school. Where is all that? Can we have that sooner rather than later? You have $20m for rugby league. Can we fund this and not rugby league?
Mr BARRETT (Blain): Mr Deputy Speaker, I listened to the Independent member for Karama’s discussion. I am passionate about stamping this out. It affects my community in Palmerston. I am keen to see things happen and get done in the same way as the member for Karama. I agree with much of what the member for Karama said tonight.
For a long time I have been speaking about getting things done to combat ice. Everybody is aware of the interagency task force. That is something the Attorney-General started. A range of recommendations were made that could happen soon, things departments thought they could do quickly.
I was aware of those things. The ice committee, which was subsequently set up to look at a more holistic and strategic approach across the spectrum, discussed them. There are many things departments could look at and, as legislators, we probably need to take a step back and look at it from a strategic point of view.
I am not allowed to talk about the report I will table in a few days, but many of the things mentioned tonight are in it, and I believe you will be pleased with the outcome. The report has been accepted by the committee, and we know the member for Casuarina advocates for youth and working with mental health – this is a health issue. We looked at the Victorian information in regard to its strategy, and that strategy became the basis for the way we approached ours.
What is important is that we looked at it from a strategic point of view. This needs to be hit from three different fronts as the NDIS suggests: demand reduction; supply reduction; and harm minimisation. It is easy for people opposite to say talk about other things, and so they should in regard to harm reduction and demand reduction, but one key tenet everyone has been looking at is how to reduce supply. We know, and police are keen to tell us, that one of the main ways ice is getting into the Northern Territory is on our major roads. Places on the routes are experiencing ice issues. Indigenous communities off the beaten track do not know what ice is. Sometimes they have heard of it but are not sure what it is, and are pretty sure no one in their community is taking it.
This is valid legislation, and I am surprised it was stopped on urgency. The same group of people decided changing the way the PAC was structured to not represent parliament would be passed on urgency when, for a day, the opposition and the Independents had the numbers. Another matter on urgency was to stop all planning, which almost inadvertently stopped Palmerston hospital going forward. On the two matters where urgency was used, neither were intelligently thought through or well done.
This, on the other hand, is good important legislation. What drugs could have been stopped in the time frame you had the numbers and wanted to flex your muscles with what we could and could not get through parliament?
I am gutted that this did not pass on urgency because people on the other side of the Chamber used it as a political football, which they deny adamantly. We could calculate how many people have taken ice and how many families are further down the road of having to bring their family back to recovery in the time frame this has taken because people on the other side could not pass it on urgency, yet the same night changed the composition of the PAC. The two do not marry, and one is urgent and one not.
Ice has been talked about a lot in this Chamber. It has been worked through in detail, and I do not see any glaring issues with what happened. I am shocked nobody has put forward amendments to this legislation. That highlights the urgency may have been a poorly thought through stunt.
Regarding ice, I am happy to see anything happen in balance. This is not the only strategy. Many holistic strategies are being developed across different agencies. This was a linchpin. I do not want to pre-empt anything, but what if the police knew something was coming in, wanted this legislation in place because they knew a shipment was coming in, and blocking this legislation let a large amount of drugs in? Letting intelligence out is not something we can talk about in this place, but it was poor form for those opposite to let changes to the PAC through on urgency and knock this back. It shows a high level of hypocrisy from people on the other side of the Chamber when we know some things are important and others are secondary. It is disappointing.
The chief executives of various government departments have looked at some strategies as well as things that can be put in place immediately, and some positive things have come out of that. The committee’s recommendations happened quickly and efficiently, and were well consulted on, well thought through and well represented by all sides of politics, and will address many holistic issues people are raising. This strategy will not stop ice dead in its tracks, but it is important in regard to the supply minimisation pillar and the NDIS strategy.
One important thing we found was we do not have a holistic strategy for drugs. A key part of what we are looking at doing together, at least from our side of the Chamber, is finding something that will take us forward and be of high enough quality that it could be along the lines of, ‘insert drug name here’. We then have something where, whatever the next drug is that comes along and threatens our community, we have a strategy set up and things in place. There are recommendations on funding and the right skill sets in place to deal with whatever drug might come along.
I support the bill and the work the Attorney-General has done. I am supportive of the efforts police have taken to identify what could decrease the amount of ice in the Northern Territory. This is an important piece of the jigsaw puzzle. I refute this was unknown and came from nowhere. These things have been talked about in many places, and we were well aware of it during the committee process.
I thank the Attorney-General and am disappointed with the opposition for knocking this back on urgency when they brought forward things which had nowhere near the same importance for the community.
Mr CHANDLER (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, when we tried to get this legislation through on urgency, one point I tried to make was this was not legislation dreamt up by me, the Attorney-General, or any minister on this side. This legislation was put forward by police to deal with an operational issue they felt could empower them to do more to prevent not just ice, but speed, heroin, firearms and clandestine lab kits, etcetera, from being brought into the Northern Territory.
I listened with interest to the member for Karama, and it was one of the most interesting debates I have heard from her. Tonight she took off her political hat and spoke as a mum and as somebody from the community. When you speak like that the difference it can make and what can be achieved is interesting. Thank you, member for Karama.
The issue of illicit drug use and supply in our community is one of the significant concerns in the Northern Territory, and police are tackling this issue head on. I believe even our best statistics, whether from the Health department, corrections or police, may not give a true indication of how far and wide drugs such as ice have spread into the community. There is much anecdotal evidence of workers using specific drugs – and I do not like to use the word ‘successfully’ – hitting it hard on a Friday night, cleaning themselves up over the weekend and hitting the workforce again on Monday, working damn hard all week and then hitting it hard again on Friday night. They are still using illicit drugs, and in cases where they are not managed well they are stuck in a spiral which gets out of control.
The Northern Territory Police Force has, for some time, been reporting an increase in methamphetamine seizures, arrests, acts of violence and drug-related deaths. Use of this drug is not restricted to any particular group; it affects all levels of society. The Northern Territory Police Force has seized more than 1.5 kg of methamphetamine this year.
The Australian Crime Commission’s Illicit Drug Data Report highlights the number of seizures in 2013-14 was more than two-and-a-half times the number of seizures in 2009-10. To give you some numbers, in 2009-10 there were 167 seizures; in 2010-11, 211 seizures; in 2011-12, 328 seizures; in 2012-13, 350 seizures; and in 2013-14, 447 seizures. In a four-year period we have gone from 167 seizures to 447, a remarkable increase in methamphetamine seizures.
Analysis of emerging criminal offending associated with illicit drug use has identified trends, including escalating violence. The member for Karama spoke about that this evening, and I am also worried about how people on the front line are affected by ice addicts and others.
Interestingly, when you talk to frontline police officers or ambulance officers, dealing with somebody who has had a few too many drinks is easier than dealing with someone on ice. Dealing with someone high on marijuana is easier than dealing with somebody on ice. In fact, when you talk to frontline police officers they tell you most drug users, even heroin users, are much easier to deal with than somebody high on ice.
As minister for Police, I worry that our police have the right resources and training to deal with an escalating problem.
There is increased illicit drug use and supply, and emerging and expanding organised crime involvement, including, but not limited to, outlaw motorcycle gangs, an increased firearm presence and use, and limited sentencing options and the absence of a factor of aggravation with respect to the Criminal Code Act.
From an operational perspective a policy suite has been required, necessitating amendments to several pieces of legislation. This wide-ranging response is required to assist in targeting organised and sophisticated criminal offending, illicit drug manufacture and trafficking, and associated violent offending. All too often in today’s illicit supply world these activities include the use of firearms, engaging in violence as part of enforcing drug debts and of protecting drug markets.
I 100% support this legislation. It should have already been operating at our borders and on our highways, except Labor blocked our urgency motion, which blocked passage of the bill at the last sittings.
This it is not just about ice. This legislation also covers drugs such as speed and heroin, firearms and clandestine lab kits, etcetera.
Declared drug routes are a key tool to assist police to crack down on this evil drug, and others, and prevent them from getting onto our streets and into the hands of Territorians. It is well known that the results are devastating.
It is clear that criminals use certain roadways to bring drugs into the Northern Territory with intent to supply urban and remote areas. Limitations currently exist in relation to the successful search and seizure of illicit substances destined for Indigenous communities and urban areas.
The Northern Territory Police Force has only seen one seizure in remote Indigenous communities to date. However, there is a core group of Indigenous users and dealers of methamphetamine based in Northern Territory major centres. The worry is one of these young people in an urban area will become hooked on a drug like ice then go back to their community. Once you are on the stuff it is extremely difficult to get off it. There will then be the ongoing concern of ice getting into our remote communities.
Endorsement of this legislative change will assist Northern Territory Police strengthen their law enforcement response as part of a wider response to tackling the illicit drug issues and associated offending that are being experienced in our community. Such amendments have already been seen in South Australia. Section 52B of the Controlled Substances Act South Australia refers. This section contains a special power relating to declared drug transit routes. The act allows a senior police officer, at the rank of inspector or above, to declare an area, usually a roadway between two points, to be a drug transit route. Such a declaration can last for up to 14 days and allows officers to exercise additional powers of search and seizure on the drug transit route during the period of that declaration.
Working in collaboration with the Australian Border Force, Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission, the Northern Territory Police Force is committed to combat the supply, importation and manufacture of ATS. To this end, on 13 June 2015 all agencies committed resources and established the Northern Territory joint organised crime Task Force Nemesis.
Task Force Nemesis recently identified and shut down the operation of clandestine laboratories in Darwin’s rural area. The chemical diversion team and the drug organised crime division are focused on the reduction of local methamphetamine distribution.
The lengths people go to conceal these drugs are often quite disturbing. Northern Territory police are committed to removing this dangerous drug from our streets, and will continue to run ‘dob in a druggie’ style campaigns in an attempt to gain further intelligence about these networks.
The chemical diversion team and the Drug and Organised Crime Division prioritise investigations relating to the establishment of methamphetamine networks, money laundering and criminal assets linked to methamphetamine networks. A range of legislative amendments, including increasing border protection, interception options and increased offences for firearms and drug-related offending, are welcomed and will assist Task Force Nemesis and the Northern Territory Police Force drug and organised crime squads to put the heat on ice.
The member for Karama raised a valid point about acting now to come up with solutions to deal with ice. I said recently the solution to deal with this problem has to start in our homes. It has to start with parents and carers talking to their children and making them aware of the dangers of drugs in our society. That has to continue into our schools. We have great programs like Healthy Harold, but we are working on an expanded program into our middle schools because, like the member for Karama said, that is where we have to target some of our resources. I agree wholeheartedly, you could lose a child at that sensitive age where many are going through massive changes in their lives.
We are working right now to put a strengthened drugs program in our schools, including our secondary schools. We need the right message and it has to be hard, real and understood. If we are too soft, kids of that age might think it is a joke, and we do not want that. The solution has to start in our homes with parents and carers. It has to continue in our school systems, targeted at the right level – primary, middle schools and secondary. We then have to ensure our police force has the right tools – this is just one of them – to do the job effectively, and then ensure we have the right penalties in place and the right health and rehabilitation programs to complete the cycle.
Recently I was asked if I agreed with Senator Lambie when she said that rehabilitation should be forced. I struggle with that because until somebody is willing to or wants to get help they are not at a point where rehabilitation will be that successful. Too many people enter those programs and, sadly for some, they need to reach rock bottom before they know they desperately need help and put their hand out. Until somebody reaches that point – some will fail.
I was worried when we tried to get this legislation through nearly two months ago. It showed the hand of the Labor opposition, which talks hard about introducing things, and it had the chance. This House could have passed the legislation earlier. As the member for Blain pointed out, the House felt it was compelled on urgency to deal with committees rather than deal with drugs, and I put it on the table then. This was not designed by me or the member for Port Darwin. This is a tool police put forward as something working in other jurisdictions and there is no reason it could not work here.
The debacle of the last sittings was that the Labor opposition had a glimpse of power, and I saw quite clearly how they would use that power. I worry about how they would use it if they were to form government again in the Northern Territory.
It is not time to talk anymore, it is time to act. It is refreshing to hear this legislation will be supported tonight, will pass, and will provide an effective tool for our police force to do their job.
I welcome this legislation. I give it 100% support, and I wish our police the very best as well as other people involved in dealing with people on ice.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will deal with what I suspect is the most pressing issue for members and the one raised the most. I thank all honourable members for their contributions. I am somewhat critical of the member for Nhulunbuy for straying from the righteous path of this bill into other areas, nevertheless, she made other points which are important to address. They are similar to the ones raised by the member for Karama and are a central issue of this bill. I take the contribution by the member for Karama in the spirit in which it was intended, and seek to address and dispose of those issues to the satisfaction of the member for Karama. If not, I hope to leave her with an understanding of the motives behind the sections to which she referred.
I presume the member for Karama will want to go through the committee stage amendments for formality sake if nothing else.
I want to deal with this in relation to the pillar, which I quite like, that the member for Karama described regarding the reversal of evidentiary burden in relation to deemed possession. Her point is well made. There are many lawyers, and I count myself as one, who still believe in what some might consider the quaint notion of if the Crown accuses the Crown must prove. It is one of the fundamental liberties in our system, and I am sure that is what Dick Ward would have told you up to his dying breath.
I want to attend to the issue because she posed a challenge to the government by saying, ‘Why not run it as you normally would and come back in a years’ time if it is not working?’ I advise the member, this is the product of experience, and we are introducing this as part of a national agreement between all jurisdictions because they have all run into the same evidentiary problem.
‘Property and direct control of’ is an old common law expression that has found its way into any number of drug search and seizure powers. It is like reasonableness, and there are literally volumes of case law on what property and direct control of means. We are talking about the stash of dope in the glove box of the car or ice in the back pocket of the person sitting in the back seat, and how that affects the people around them.
Criminal law recognises – both the Griffith model of the criminal code and the model criminal code – the notion of reverse onus. It is well established that even if the prosecution can prove all elements of an offence – let us say an assault, and we use the Griffith model of the criminal code for convenience sake, and that somebody assaults another person in circumstances where the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that all elements of the assault have been made out. Somebody unlawfully made physical contact or applied force to another person without their consent, so all elements of the assault are made out.
Nevertheless, it is possible for the person to whom this charge is laid to demonstrate to a court, despite the fact all the elements of the offence are made out – the only test here is the balance of probability so you do not need the higher threshold of beyond reasonable doubt – that for whatever reason the assault was a mistake of fact, which is a great Griffith model type criminal code defence proposition.
I will give you an example of an assault. A man is standing on the rugby field; it is a well-established element of the word assault that you can give permission to be assaulted in a sporting event within the rules of the game. The whistle blows at the end of the game, but one player who does not hear the whistle, immediately after the game is completed tackles another player, who then brings a complaint of assault against the person who tackled him. The person who did the tackling was still under the impression – perhaps because he heard another player or did not hear the whistle, or a combination of things – that the game was still proceeding and, as a consequence, despite the fact all the elements of the assault had been made out, if that person is able to demonstrate that, ‘I genuinely thought the game was on and was tackling a player who was still engaged in the field of play. I did nothing other than what the game expects me to do’, you would pretty easily make out the defence.
To reach that point a number of things would have to occur. We will talk about the practical nature of the police and how they go about their business. I suggest that in circumstances where a police officer arrives at the rugby field, talks to the player complaining of being assaulted and then speaks to the other player, the police officer would realise it was a weak case.
They will talk to a few other players who will say, ‘Yes, we heard the whistle but it wasn’t very loud’. One player will say, ‘I didn’t hear the whistle either and I told him to tackle the other bloke’. The police officer would, at that point, not proceed with the complaint. Perhaps the person who feels aggrieved may complain to the police, and the complaint procedure would be followed. Essentially, even at that level, the police would quickly satisfy themselves there was nothing to see.
Maybe the police officer is not so sure. The evidence is not too strong one way or the other so he or she investigates and takes it to the DPP. The DPP reflects on the issue and says it is too hard and they will not be successful.
Alternatively, the DPP – which puts a pretty high threshold on prosecutions – says there is a pretty high likelihood of prosecution and the matter is put before a court. At this point the person gets to plead the matter in front of a court, and if they can satisfy the court on the balance of probabilities that the mistake was real, that person will walk out of the courtroom before being convicted.
There are a number of practical thresholds before you are convicted. Each one is a legitimate test of the voracity of the issue. There is a test for the police officer, who can use discretion. Police have a long-established common law power of discretion, and the courts encourage them to use it.
You then have the investigation, and the senior police officers may give some guidance or advice through experience. You then go to a lawyer in the DPP, who either says it is too hard or they should proceed. Ultimately the court is the final arbiter.
What guides that process is the practical, real evidence that the court is confronted with. Let us go through the process for the Greyhound bus example that was used. What happens with the Greyhound bus? What position is the driver in if someone is sitting at the back with half a kilogram of ice in a duffel bag? The short answer is nothing, because any common person similarly circumstanced would look at that and say, ‘How could you possibly say there is possession of the drug?’
Ms Lawrie: What if it was stashed in the bus?
Mr ELFERINK: No person similarly circumstanced would suggest for a second that property was in the direct control of the bus driver.
What about stashed in the bus? That is a good question. Once again the evidence would guide that. If it is in tucked away in a door panel that somebody had to unscrew and put back you will have a hard time convincing a court that the driver knew about it. You would be looking at the mechanic before the driver. The evidence guides the decision as to whether or not you prosecute.
What about the other example used by the member for Nhulunbuy when she referred to the member for Barkly? It turns out two French tourists are travelling around paying for their holiday by selling ice in remote Aboriginal communities. Along comes the noble and caring member for Barkly, who pulls up and assists them with their car, and they jump in the back of the car with some drugs. All of a sudden they are pulled over and the poor old member for Barkly is saying, ‘Holy cow, I don’t know anything about it’. Once again, reasonableness will apply. Trust me, that happens.
I can share with the House an experience where that happened to me. I pulled over in Palmerston to help a guy in a broken down Mercedes – whoever knew a Mercedes could break down, but this one did. I tried to help the bloke while in my private car. I was off duty so the guy had no idea who I was.
My wife and I tried to jump start the car. It would not go so I said, ‘Where are you going?’ He said, ‘I’m going to Malak’. I said, ‘I’ll give you a lift because I’m going to my mother’s place in Karama. I’ll drive around the corner and drop you off in Malak; how does that sound mate?’ ‘Yes, cool’, he said. He then said, ‘I just have to get something’. He ran back to his car, grabbed his duffel bag and sat in the back of my car, which immediately filled with the stench of cannabis. I could not believe it. My eyes were almost watering. I immediately knew what was in the bag, and he looked sheepishly at me in the rear view mirror and said, ‘Just some dirty laundry, mate’, and I said, ‘Yes, I bet’.
I did not say anything but kept talking to my wife. I was concerned that he may have been armed so I drove towards Malak and when I got to Berrimah Police Station, instead of going through the roundabout I turned right and he immediately said, ‘You can drop me off here. I’ll walk from here.’
I was happy to let him out of the car so I could get a decent look at him. He was not armed so I leapt out of the car, produced my badge and thought to myself, ‘You need to get a lottery ticket because I cannot believe your misfortune’. He had 2.5 kg of dope, one of the biggest off duty dope busts I have ever had. It is an interesting question because, under these laws, what would have happened if I had been pulled over on the way to the police station.
I was sitting in a car full of dope, and I sure as hell knew it was dope by that stage. However, I am on my way to a police station so the evidence would be – my wife was present and could give evidence – ‘We just stopped to help this guy’.
The bloke would probably not implicate me anyway. The police would do all the requisite background searches, and I am a really good witness to prove the case. The police would say, ‘Even if we look at this guy who says he just stopped to help, picked him up and he had 2.5 kg of dope in his bag. Sure mate.’ I would be a much better witness than defendant for the police case. You have to think about that when you consider practical perspectives.
The purpose of this lecture is that in every circumstance there will be real world practical components. Deemed possession ultimately says if you are in possession or have direct control of property and there are drugs there – let us say we find ice in your back pocket after having been picked up in a night club – and somebody said, ‘Just hold this for me’, and you did not know what it was, you would have to demonstrate that you really did not know what it was and that somebody else had given it to you.
If you ran that case perhaps some DNA evidence could be taken from the bag which would help build your story. The police officer’s job is to investigate impassively and without a presumption in mind. It is hard to do. A police officer will tend to hunt the person they are prosecuting. Sometimes you have to remind yourself that you have to be led by the evidence just as much as the court has to be.
With the presumption in the other direction the experience nationally is that it becomes an extremely difficult thing to prove. The next proposition, the one I think the member for Karama alluded to, is what is the point of balance? Do we load up the prosecution with such a burden of proof that it becomes almost insurmountable in many cases, thus defeating the purpose of the legislation?
Alternatively, do we create a legislative instrument that would enable a court to cast a benevolent eye upon the person raising the defence whilst enabling a police office to bring the matter to the court because the possession occurred? It would be no different to a number of existing excuse provisions under the model criminal code or, alternatively, under the Griffith model of the criminal code, because in that instance of deemed possession all the elements of the case would have been made out. However, it is still possible to defeat a prosecution on the low ground of, ‘I have a reason for why that occurred’.
Of course, ‘mistake of fact’ in this instance would be a good example of being in possession. You could say, ‘I didn’t know what it was. I thought I was collecting lawn clippings in a bag in a pub at 3 am’. Alternatively, if it is not a mistake of fact you could claim you did not know. ‘I did not have the requisite mental element to commit the offence. I didn’t know I was in possession of this thing’, or, ‘I was doing it lawfully’. For example, ‘I was conveying a person knowingly in possession of 2.5 kg of cannabis and I knew what he had in that bag. I would have had to have an olfactory collapse to not have noticed what he had in that bag. Nevertheless, I was conveying him to a place where justice would be done, and therefore what I was doing was essentially lawful.’ I could not tell you the defence off the top of my head, but there is a defence for that.
In all those examples you have to strike a balance. The balance to be struck here is the one that deems possession based on the experience of other jurisdictions – hence the national agreement – is a standard acceptable but not an affront, to the concepts of liberty that the member for Karama so jealously guards.
I hope that satisfies the member for Karama inasmuch as she understands the approach of government in relation to this. I suspect that she will still want to put her amendment, and I welcome that and further discussion if she so desires, but that will be the position of government going forward.
For other members who have made comments I note that, with the exception of the member for Karama, the legislation will pass unamended and unchallenged by those who resisted the urgency motion. That is a little disappointing because I do not know how much ice we may or may not have seized over the past few months if this legislation had been passed in October. That will not be known because you never know how many car accidents you have prevented if you run a traffic safety campaign; you can only work it out statistically. There have been a number of notable and substantial ice seizures over the last month-and-a-half or two months. Some of those seizures may have been prevented earlier if this power had been available to police.
Of course, those seizures do not really dent the marketplace. There is no change to the price of ice in the Territory and it remains largely available. That is sad because it tells me we are not getting enough of it, and anybody who has had anything to do with policing illicit substances knows attacking the marketplace has always been challenging. However, I thank the House for a civil debate through this process and understand we intend to go into the committee stage.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 7, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 8:
Ms LAWRIE: Mr Chair, I move an amendment to clause 8 which was distributed to all members of the parliament. It is schedule 37 standing in my name to omit clause 8(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill 2015 (Serial 136).
In seeking advice from Parliamentary Counsel there were a couple of approaches to take. You could invite defeat or you could omit. I wanted it to be clear and unambiguous that the status quo, the existing law, would be retained. Hence, I will go down the path of a committee stage amendment to omit rather than to defeat.
In dealing with this I will raise a couple of matters. Obviously other members of the parliament, particularly the member for Nelson, have dealt with the CLANT submission on the legislation. For the record, because it goes to the heart of the committee stage amendment, I will go back through that for the Attorney-General.
CLANT strongly opposes clause 8 of the bill, which would amend section 40(c) of the act. Section 40(c) says:
By replacing ‘evidence’ with ‘taken to be proof’ they reference your second reading speech, Attorney-General. They point out that section 40(c) was carefully considered but not criticised by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Grosvenor v The Queen [2014] NTCCA 5 at [29] to [37]. It is well understood and applied by the courts. CLANT considers section 40(c), in its current form, strikes a reasonable balance between the applicable competing policy interests and should not be amended.
Reading the CLANT submission made me think more carefully about the proposals in clause 8. I, like the member for Nelson, have had conversations with other practitioners. Finding out, by way of chatter around parliament, of your office’s response to other Independent MLAs this morning by e-mail I wanted to dig a bit deeper. The advice I have been provided with is there has been some reversal of burden of proof in New South Wales and Victoria, but it does not follow that it is necessarily a good thing.
The amendment is being implemented to ensure evidentiary provision is only utilised in clear cases where there is knowledge of possession of a dangerous drug. In other words, the amendment is being introduced to allow convictions to be imposed in cases where it is unclear whether there is no knowledge of possession of a dangerous drug. This turns a fundamental feature of our criminal justice system on its head. You are presumed innocent unless and until the state proves otherwise beyond reasonable doubt. The amendment will remove the lack of knowledge of possession of a dangerous drug as a blanket defence.
If a person does not know there is a dangerous drug in the car they are driving, or the room they are in, they are not in possession. That is a complete defence, whether under the current law or the proposed law. The effect of the proposed amendment, however, will be not to remove a defence but make it more difficult to mount by reversing the burden of proof. The suggestion that somehow defendants are currently raising a blanket defence, which we remove by the amendment, is misleading.
This is advice I received from our legal expert. As I said in my contribution …
Mr Giles: I wonder if it is the same person who gave her advice on Stella Maris.
Ms LAWRIE: I will pick up on the interjection from the Chief Minister. Can you for one moment behave like a Chief Minister? We are in a committee stage debate which has nothing to do with Stella Maris. Try to behave like a statesman for a moment.
Attorney-General, I listened carefully to the examples you provided. I am not a legal practitioner, but seriously, with all the examples you provided – from the Greyhound bus to the assault in rugby, which to me was apples and oranges because whilst I understood the evidentiary trail, it was not to do with goods. In the other examples you provided, which were to do with goods, including the bizarre situation where a guy had a duffel bag with marijuana and you picked him up – that is unbelievable. All those examples meet the probability test well and truly.
Every one of your examples proved why we do not need reversal of the onus of proof. I was waiting for one I thought was why we needed to reverse onus, but the examples you provided met a probability evidentiary trail quite well. Not being a legal practitioner, I was waiting for the difficult part, the part that would let them get off.
As I said in debate, I will not labour this because we have an agreement. You have the support of an Independent member. Whilst other members shared concerns, they listened to the legal fraternity and to advice. You indicated you will be proceeding with this, that you will not accept the committee stage amendment, so I will not labour it.
When our legal practitioners say not to do something it is wise to listen. When we have examples such as Grosvenor v The Queen, which is contained in the CLANT submission, and when you drill down it is Justice Riley, our Chief Justice. Can we not trust our judicial sector? It is no small issue to have a recent case referred to where they genuinely drilled down into section 40(c) and found it not wanting.
Justice Riley’s findings were in relation to the operation of section 32 of the Criminal Code Act in Carnesi v Hales. Justice Riley explained the operation of section 40(c):
Chief Justice Riley found section 40(c) to be appropriate in his judgment. That is my interpretation, and the interpretation of the senior legal practitioner who gave it to me.
Similarly in Jaeger-Steigenberger v O’Neill, Justice Mildren concluded that the evidentiary presumption is only a piece of evidence which if not rebutted may but not necessarily must, lead to an inference of guilt. Whether the inference can be drawn beyond reasonable doubt depends on the whole of the circumstances.
Significantly, the court did not suggest in that case, or as far as we are aware in any other case, that the law should be changed. Jaeger-Steigenberger v O’Neill is a good example of a case where, had the burden of proof been reversed as is now being proposed, the defendant would have been unfairly convicted. In that case, both the judge who heard the appeal and the magistrate who conducted the original hearing appeared to have real doubt about whether she was aware there was cannabis in the car – her father’s – that she was driving.
For what it is worth, Attorney-General.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, there is nothing wrong with the Chief Justice’s interpretation of the legislation because it is the judge’s role to interpret the legislation and make findings in relation to the intention of the parliament. The problem is that the intention of the parliament, if you go to the Parliamentary Record of 1990 when this legislation was introduced, was that presumption of possession. It has been interpreted in a way which is not entirely consistent with what the parliament intended in 1990. His Honour is at liberty to find that by virtue of the fact that His Honour will be drawn only to the clarity of the document. If he finds no problem with the clarity of the document, he reads it and says, ‘This is what it means’. His Honour will not turn his mind to the second reading speech because the primary source of advice to His Honour is what is in the legislation.
If the legislation is drafted in such a way that it is ambiguous – the parliament means one thing and His Honour interprets it differently – my answer is that the parliament must reserve the right to amend legislation in a way that will apply it in the way intended in 1990.
I am satisfied that is the case. His Honour, when presented with a similar case, will cast his eye on the legislation as it now stands and interpret it in accordance with what is written in the legislative instrument. His Honour will come to a conclusion. I suspect, being the good, cautious person I know His Honour to be, as all judges are and should be, and I hold up our Chief Justice as a solid and excellent example of the decorum and caution that you would expect to find on the bench – he would nevertheless be bound by the desires of this parliament because we are ultimately the supreme law making body in this jurisdiction.
I understand that CLANT would like to see His Honour’s words repeated in this House to overwhelm me with the idea that the deemed possession presumption is an overreach. However, you cannot put those words into His Honour’s mouth. His Honour has done nothing more than interpret the legislation as written. To place that into His Honour’s mouth would be an overreach. I suspect that is what CLANT has done.
CLANT, the Criminal Lawyers Association of the Northern Territory which has given me a prestigious Silver Dingo, works very hard to look after the element of criminal law dealing with defendants rather than prosecutions. This is where the balance argument comes in.
Is the legislation, as currently drafted, right? Is what we are attempting to do correct? That is a judgment call. It is subjective. It is, as I said to the member for Karama, something I step through cautiously. I do not do this lightly or with any flippancy. I am confident that the original intention of this parliament is captured in this legislative instrument. However, if the parliament chooses to go down a different path in relation to this, that is how the parliamentary system works.
I thank the honourable member for her care and research in relation to this matter, but I think we have reached the point where we can dispose of this matter successfully and will have to agree to disagree.
Mr WOOD: Mr Chair, the notes on clauses in the explanatory statement relating to clause 8 say:
What concerns me is that obviously the police have to provide evidence to show you possessed the drugs. However, we are talking about people with a low level of education. People might be smart in some ways but not very smart in other ways -taking marijuana into Aboriginal communities. This change will affect them. I am not sticking up for them, but innocent people must prove lack of knowledge of possession. Will people understand that? That is not the way it is normally done in our society.
It is like the French system, where you have to prove you are innocent. Would Aboriginal people understand what this is about? They would probably just go to the lawyer and say, ‘I didn’t do it’, and the lawyer, under normal circumstances, would ask the police to give proof of possession. You now have to prove lack of knowledge of possession. Is that a complication, especially for people who may not fully understand what that means?
Mr ELFERINK: I get what you are saying. Even the most unsophisticated person in our community is able to – well many unsophisticated people in our communities – form the mental element of criminal intent. That is one of the tests. Let us talk about any indictable offence. If you are worried that somebody may not know they have to make a statement in their defence to disprove an allegation made against them – you will see that right across the criminal law. The prosecution can make out all the elements of the offence in many instances and still not succeed because that person had an excuse. Excuse provisions form a substantial slice of our Criminal Code Act, both in the Griffith model – because our criminal code is hybridised at the moment – and within the modern criminal code there are excuse provisions.
There are several elements to the process of securing a conviction, and the first thing the prosecution has to do is collect the evidence. This section says, ‘We found 5 kg of ice in the boot of Billy’s car. It is an indictable offence and will go to the Supreme Court. We asked Billy if he knew about the ice in the back of the car. He said, “No, I borrowed the car”’. You do not have to be a sophisticated person to know that if you are driving around with ice in your car you are a criminal. If you cannot form that mental element in your head then you are not guilty – automatically. If sophistication is an issue it is a very low standard. My 10-year old daughter knows when she is doing the wrong thing. The sophistication of the person does not need to be particularly high when they know they are doing the wrong thing. Most people know selling ice is against the law. If they have ice in the car and are pulled over by the police who say, ‘Why do you have ice in the back of the car?’ there is one of several answers.
‘Okay, you got me, it’s a fair cop, and I’ll plead guilty at the first opportunity’, is one answer. Or it could be, ‘Goodness gracious me, is there? I didn’t know there was ice in the back of the car.’ At that point some further investigation has to occur. ‘How do you think it ended up there?’ ‘It’s not my car, I borrowed it from Bob.’ The police check Bob’s background and he has 58 convictions for selling drugs. Jim has zero convictions; he has never been convicted of anything. You then start to believe Jim. Jim does not have to be particularly sophisticated, but you will believe him because you are already up against the threshold.
The evidence is already there. The case has been made out that you have ice in the car. However, because there is no way you can prove the mental element, you will not succeed, and it is up to a court to test. Before the court tests it the DPP tests it. Before the DPP tests it, the senior police officers in charge of the investigation section test it. Before they test it, the police officer making the arrest tests it. Each one is allowed to exercise their discretionary power. If they feel there is enough for a prosecution, or are uncertain about the prosecution, they pass it to the next level.
The first level of judgment is PC Plod who makes the arrest. PC Plod says, ‘I’m not so sure’, so he asks his boss. They chat about it and say, ‘We’re not so sure either so we’ll send it off to the DPP’. The DPP says, ‘We don’t know. Yes, I think it’s a pretty strong case’, so they put it before a court. The court is the final arbiter.
In the practical sense, even if you have deemed possession, the checks and balances are all the way through the system. CLANT is arguing that, with the current model, the proximity of the drug in your area of direct control is mere evidence of possession. It is an evidentiary component and a pretty strong one. However, the original drafters of the legislation took it one step further and said it is not evidence. It makes a successful assertion that you are in possession, but it is an easily rebuttable assertion, only on the balance of probabilities. The police are still obliged to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
The language of the deemed possession component is strengthening it from mere evidence to say it is sufficient to make out the case. You are deemed to be in possession until such time as you can prove, on the balance of probabilities, that you did not know it was there or for some other lawful reason you had it in your possession. The moment you pass that threshold you will not even get to court. If you find yourself in court, the court will remain prudent, temperate and cautious in relation to how it deals with those thresholds.
I do not have time to deal with the raft of case law on what is and is not in when it comes to this type of thing. The point I am trying to make is that the original legislation drafted in 1990 intended to imply deemed possession. However, because the legislation was not as tightly drafted as it could have been, the courts have chosen to interpret it at the lower level, saying it is merely evidence of possession, leaving a slightly greater amount of wriggle room for the person to make their case, thus putting a greater onus on the police to meet ever certain evidentiary burdens.
We are seeking to re-establish what was intended by the parliament in 1990. That is, essentially the legislation was originally drafted – if you read the Parliamentary Record you see it was clearly the intent of the Attorney-General at the time, as well as the House which agreed with the legislation, to have an operating deemed possession clause. However, the courts are very prudent and cautious in relation to reading legislation, and will always err on the side of liberty, and that is what they have chosen to do. We are simply readjusting the legislation to the original intended form the parliament prescribed in 1990.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken together 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.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received notice from the member for Nightcliff which reads:
It is signed by Natasha Fyles and dated 17 November.
Is the proposed discussion supported? It is supported.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, the CLP came to office in August 2012 with a catalogue of promises to Territorians. Nowhere did the CLP tell Territorians they would sell their major publicly-owned assets.
Within the first year the CLP sold the Territory bus system without seeking a mandate from the people. It made no attempt to gauge the opinion of Territorians throughout the sale process.
Twelve months ago this coming weekend, the CLP sold off the Territory Insurance Office, or TIO as it was commonly known. Once again it did so without talking to Territorians.
Less than 12 months later it has done the same thing with the Port of Darwin. In each case Territorians made their opposition to the decision known, despite the CLP continuing to ignore them. In effect, this government has thumbed its nose at Territorians.
In each case the government did not conduct proper consultation with Territorians; it did not ask for their opinion. In each case the government ignored the concerns of the local workforce – Territory families in jobs they rely on. The question now worrying Territorians is, what is next?
Labor does not support the sale of major publicly-owned Territory assets. We accept that publicly-owned land should be sold by government in pursuit of growth and development, but major assets such as our port, schools, hospitals, Power and Water assets and others must remain publicly owned.
We do not support the sale of major public assets because we believe it is not in the best interests of Territorians. It is not in the economic or social interests of the Territory. It is equally clear that the CLP has an ideological commitment to reducing the size and reach of government, and views asset sales as part of that policy.
The CLP of today is very different from the CLP of the 1980s and 1990s. That CLP viewed economic growth in the Territory as being led by government in the interests of Territorians.
There is a reason the Northern Territory owns major public infrastructure. The Northern Territory is in its early stages of development. We are a young economy with one-sixth of the land mass and 1% of the nation’s population. Our people are largely grouped in metropolitan areas, particularly around Darwin and Palmerston in the north, with regional towns, major communities and small communities and outstations spread across the Territory.
Driving the growth and development of that mix is still largely the job of government, and will remain so for some time. Every day we need the private sector to grow and develop, but the underpinning of our economy is the government. The government is the biggest consumer of goods and services, the largest purchaser of products and the single largest issuer of contracts. It remains the most important employer of Territorians across the Territory. No other entity can reach across the Territory the way government can. We have not established the structure and shape of our economy in a way that older, more mature economies have.
This is both positive and negative for us. We are still seeking to diversify and grow our economy, and push the limits of what our economy contains. We are not shackled by old technology and dying industries such as coal, but for us to take full advantage of this requires a strong government hand on the levers of our economy. We have not formed an economic size where private enterprise will lead investment in critical capital requirements. Without government there would be no port to sell and no Power and Water assets.
Government investment in infrastructure has developed and grown our economy. It can do so because the government does not require a profit or a return on investment for its shareholders. In a young economy the government is also the only organisation with a whole-of-Territory view. The government can act alone on what infrastructure is needed where, what to support, and can do so because it has that whole Territory view. That is something this current government does not see.
Importantly, government can also plan for the whole of the Territory better than any other organisation. Because of its extensive reach and access to research and data, government understands what investments need to be made now for future growth. Government also owes nothing to anyone, nor is the government in competition with anyone. It can make decisions for the long-term interests of the Territory. By removing the port from our control, by getting rid of our insurance options and by selling Power and Water assets, we reduce our ability to shape the economy in vital areas. That is not in our interests.
There are also social consequences to those decisions. The sale of public assets means Territorians, who have often invested many years in their jobs, and who have seen a clear future for themselves and their families, have seen their lives suddenly go down a new path with new challenges. This is not about changing their boss; this is about changing their conditions of work. This is particularly important in areas of superannuation, where government workers employed before 1999 have significant superannuation support.
The sale of public assets invariably leads to a reduction of employment in those assets. Look at TIO. Despite the promise that no one would lose their job, the new company redeployed 43 people within six months of taking over the business. This will not be the last of it. I believe over time and with changes in technology, TIO will be reduced to a shell and run by interstate and international interests. It will not be the Territory-owned corporation it once was.
The social consequences of this drop in employment are clear. Families will leave town. They will join the queue of Territorians fast becoming former Territorians and living elsewhere.
In 2014 the Territory lost 3500 more people to interstate migration than arrived. This is the largest net interstate migration loss in many years and an enormous social consequence for the Territory. We have suffered a massive loss of skilled people. Why are they leaving? One big factor is they do not have a job and it is too expensive to stay. The sale of public assets and the subsequent reduction in the workforce adds to the move south.
The CLP should make no mistake, the drop in population is one of the most important social and economic challenges facing the Territory, but they are making it worse.
There is a more subtle but important social consequence from these decisions which goes to the trust of government. In the modern 21st century, people expect to have some say in what their governments can do. They expect governments to be up front about their intentions during election campaigns and to engage in a clear and comprehensive public discussion about the issues. We have not seen that from this government; in fact, we have an unelected Chief Minister. People do not expect to be lied to during election campaigns, then ignored when governments make decisions they were not open about. This erodes trust in government, trust in members of parliament and trust in our public institutions.
The erosion of trust in government is everywhere in the Territory. People do not trust the government to undertake even the most fundamental of its responsibilities. This lack of trust is undermining business confidence and the belief that government can be trusted with important economic and environmental decisions. A corrosive feeling pervades our community thanks to these types of decisions.
The Territory bus system was our first major asset to go. If you ask the drivers today if they feel the same level of support as they did with government conditions, they would tell a tale of deep concern about their future and their service.
The government then sold TIO against huge community outcry. They sold it quickly, rammed it through this House and did not stop to listen or think. The Territory Insurance Office is an ingrained part of the Territory and has been around for decades. It has served us well during times of major crisis, and the Katherine floods come to mind. TIO understood the Territory and Territorians. TIO provided work for 250 local families at a time when it would have been under enormous pressure to reduce the size of its staff. It had been innovative in what product it offered Territorians, and it filled an important niche which provided insurance coverage in the extreme weather circumstances we face in the Territory, something interstate insurance companies do not understand. That has now gone, and we are yet to see the full consequences of those changes.
It is interesting to note that one of the issues canvassed in the northern development white paper was the need for an insurer that is prepared to provide coverage for people living in extreme weather zones. This concern arose out of people being unable to get insurance following a category five cyclonic event such as Cyclone Larry. It seems at the time the Country Liberal Party sold our unique coverage, the rest of northern Australia was seeking ways to get that coverage.
Turning specifically to the lease of the Port of Darwin, if the Chief Minister does not believe there is concern about the lease of the Port of Darwin, he should think again. Territorians have seen it as the government making yet another unsupported decision with no discussion and no concern about their opinion.
Madam Speaker, you would have heard this feedback in your community, but I was quite surprised that people raised the lease of the port. With TIO they had an affinity – they bank there, have insurance and they recognise it. One may be excused if they had no contact with the port and they might not have understood the importance of its operation. I was very surprised at the public outcry and comment about the government. ‘They sold off the port and didn’t even ask us. They had no mandate. Who are they?’
Labor does not support the lease of the port. We believe it is a massively important strategic asset and is too young and immature to be transferred to the private sector. We believe that transferring monopoly control by government to monopoly control by a private company has not and will not progress the interests of the Territory and Territorians.
The Territory has a bright future. Geographically we are uniquely positioned on the Australian mainland in proximity to the fastest-growing economies of the world. That is why future investment, management and operation of the Darwin port and other Territory ports are critically important to our social and economic development. We have a unique opportunity that other places in Australia do not have, simply because of their location.
The Country Liberal Party and Labor may debate many things, but we always had a bipartisan approach to links to Asia and the Territory’s destiny as a link between Australia and Asia. A key driving part of this vision has been the trade links supported by the Port of Darwin and its connection to the southern capitals by rail. There has been a bipartisan approach to support for the railway. For years we linked hands with the then CLP government against the Coalition and Labor governments on the importance of building the Adelaide to Darwin rail line.
We supported this mixed private and public investment approach on the greenfields project because we knew that was the way to get this important link up and running. In our term we guided the final delivery and early utilisation of this infrastructure. We know how important it is to build up the sea link and the supply chain backing it. When we won government, Labor made a substantial investment in port infrastructure and initiatives such as the Darwin Business Park.
The port suffers from a lack of economy of scale, but has a critical role in the Territory’s development and a big future. Because of its lack of economy of scale and subsequent hire costs, the port has historically required subsidisation. Without government subsidisation, the port’s new owners may well look to increase port costs to users over time. This could and would discourage port users. It could also stifle growth of trade across the port. This could also mean chasing new business and targeting profitable new customers, possibly to the exclusion of marginal customers who might be pushed out.
The port committee established by the government canvassed these issues. In Western Australia a similar question was asked of privatisation versus public ownership. For some time the Western Australian Liberal government decided to keep control of its strategic assets, its ports, but explore different ways to get the private capital into its ports. It succumbed to the ideological politics of port sales and, in the end, sold its port. In the meantime it had utilised public/private partnerships. We recognise the importance of getting private capital into the port but think there are other ways of doing it. There are ways of having public/private partnerships that mean you do not lose strategic control of or dividends from the port.
Labor believes this 99-year lease – the government would obtain a lot more investment into the port. So far the commitment to $35m over the first five years and $200m over the first 25 years does not meet the expectations of what the port needs. This money could have been sourced from within or through partnerships but would not have relinquished control of our port. One of the important recommendations from the port committee’s work was ensuring the government did not rush any decision. Recommendation 8 places emphasis on doing better work. It says:
We did not see any of that from this government. Given the strategic implication of the port and the impact on port users, consumers and the wider community, there was no need to rush this sale. Most importantly, the CLP had the opportunity to make amends for the complete lack of public engagement and consultation on the sale of TIO by deferring the lease until after the question had been put to the public.
It is less than 10 months until the election. The Territory did not need to rush into the sale. The CLP could have asked for public endorsement of its position.
The Labor Party did just that in the most recent Victorian state election, where the sale of the Port of Melbourne was placed before the public. Mike Baird, Premier of New South Wales, did the same thing with the power poles and wires campaign in the recent state election in New South Wales – up-front telling voters what would happen.
Instead, we have an arrogant government that rams things through that it did not mention before the last election. In fact, the unelected Chief Minister is pushing ideas onto the community and selling assets without any consultation. These premiers trust their constituents and will engage with them in critical decision-making. The commitment to public engagement in the decision-making process is supported by the Productivity Commission. This is especially the case when state monopolies are being transferred to private monopolies. The Productivity Commission’s Public Infrastructure Inquiry report said:
Not only did the government fail to take Territorians into its confidence, it did not release any cost-benefit analysis of the proposal. It made no public economic case for the proposal. Territorians have no starting point in this decision, and no understanding of why this needed to happen beyond the desire of a government to make it happen.
Since the announcement there has been no public exposure of the deal. Exactly what has been agreed to by the CLP government? We know the sale price was $506m, and we know the investment requirements, but we still do not know what else has been agreed to.
This is no way to treat Territorians. This is not your asset, Chief Minister. Yes, you are the Chief Minister, but it is not your asset to sell. It is not like your family home or family farm. You have sold it without consulting shareholders.
The Labor opposition is concerned about the way this deal has unfolded. We want to make sure that in rushing to achieve this deal all necessary requirements have been met. This includes proper assessments by the relevant foreign investment review mechanisms and strategic assessment bodies.
Labor supports foreign investment in the Northern Territory, but no matter who invests here, proper rules and processes have to be followed. Given the incompetence in this government, the port sale may be added to the long list of failures to go through proper process.
Labor is also concerned about the workers at the port. The enterprise bargaining agreement expires in 2017, and unions and the opposition have expressed concern regarding what happens to the rights and entitlements of workers after that.
We are aware that the maritime union and the government are engaged in discussions about the protection of employees, but the fact the government did not have these supports for workers locked away before they announced the deal is concerning. I congratulate the MUA and other unions for their ongoing representation and support of our workers at the port.
The buses are gone, TIO is gone and now the port is gone. Territorians are asking, ‘What will be next?’ Some in my community have said, ‘Do we need to pin our children down so this government doesn’t sell them?’ Tongue in cheek, but a little serious.
The answer to the question is clear. The CLP has split the Power and Water assets, and they are now being assessed for sale. The Treasurer has made it clear to anyone who will listen that the sale of Power and Water is a personal priority. Information is now starting to emerge from within Power and Water that the Hudson Creek systems control centre is being openly discussed as a target for the sale ...
Ms MANISON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77 I request an extension of time.
Madam SPEAKER: In an MPI you cannot have an extension of time.
Ms FYLES: Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity this evening.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, people listening to this or reading the Hansard will be a little less wise after the contribution from the member for Nightcliff. The majority of what she said was incorrect, much of it incoherent and parts of it misleading.
When the member for Barkly had responsibility for the port, we were able to get a decent debate about port infrastructure, logistics and supply chains in the Northern Territory. What we heard from the member for Nightcliff added no value to any debate in the Chamber.
I listened with my colleague, the member for Blain, who knows a fair bit about the port, having worked there, and neither of us could comprehend what the member was talking about.
The member fails to understand that the Northern Territory government owns, builds and removes assets such as infrastructure on an everyday basis. We are building new government assets right now with the Tiger Brennan duplication and Palmerston hospital. We continue to build new assets. We build new schools on a regular basis – the boarding facility at Nhulunbuy .
Ms Walker interjecting.
Mr GILES: The member for Nhulunbuy clearly does not like the tone of this conversation. We listened to her colleague speak but she will not provide the same respect.
We announced that we are looking at an equity partnership in a shiplift facility at East Arm to support upwards of 4500 new jobs in the Territory. The member for Nightcliff made some throwaway misleading comments about the Chief Minister not supporting jobs at the port. The first thing on our mind was the 100-plus jobs at the port. We have secured that and will grow jobs at the port. We will work on the shiplift, build a new asset, hold equity in that and create up to 4500 new jobs as part of a new marine servicing industry for the Territory. Much of what she said was dog whistling, xenophobic and added no value.
Towards the end of her diatribe she spoke about the structural separation of Power and Water. The Labor Party is 20 years behind all its other state and territory colleagues and jurisdictions. During its tenure it had the opportunity to be part of a reform agenda but, because it was lazy, it let businesses become unsustainable within government. It did nothing but rack up debt.
Other Labor governments, starting with the Hawke and Keating governments, showed leadership. They changed the dynamics of the Australian economy by freeing up lazy government capital and reforming government owned corporations. The Labor Party in South Australia has done more in the past 12 months than the former Northern Territory Labor government did in eleven-and-a-half years of government. When it comes to asset sales, the member for Nightcliff fails to talk about private sector partnerships, whether that is the Marine Supply Base, which is probably one of the worst deals for Territorians, or one that would rank slightly worse, the AGP pipeline, but I will not go into those details.
I turn to Power and Water. When in government the members opposite signed up to a national reform agenda. It was a reform of the energy sector, something all state governments contributed to over a 15-year period, except the Northern Territory Labor Party.
They signed up to national energy reforms but did not do anything about it. That is why, under Labor’s watch, Power and Water debt headed to $2bn. On the contrary, this government has undertaken the necessary reforms in line with the reforms undertaken in other parts of Australia. Labor opposes our structural reforms and still cannot get their heads around the benefit of these structural reforms to the community. This includes lower debt, greater electricity security and a way forward to lower prices.
Our government will continue with the reforms and promote extra competition into the electricity market in the NT. In coming months you will see other benefits flow to the community as a direct result of these reforms. I particularly thank Power and Water customers, and congratulate the hard-working staff at PWC, Jacana and Territory Generation for making the reforms possible. They have stuck through the tricky process of splitting Power and Water so we could have a competitive environment throughout the organisation.
TIO was a difficult decision. I had three days in the role of Treasurer to make this decision. The decision had to be made to save TIO from eventual death. Anyone who was a Cabinet member of the former Labor government will tell you they intended to sell TIO post any election. International and national competition had eaten away TIO’s viability and its ability to offer competitive prices in a tough market. In addition, we have taken the risk of a major disaster away from Territory taxpayers and put it into the international market. We have spread the risk to ensure TIO will continue to be a main part of our community fabric.
I remind the House that TIO was also the last government owned insurance office in the country. Every Labor government in every state had sold their insurance office. Northern Territory Labor criticises the government, but at the same time knows full well they tried to sell it when in government, but lost the nerve to do it. They cannot make hard decisions. Not only did we free the burden of a massive risk to taxpayers, but we are using the funds from the sale to help safeguard our communities from floods, notably Rapid Creek, Katherine and Alice Springs.
Before I focus further on the Port of Darwin, I will outline a small part of what is wrong with Northern Territory Labor. They are living in the past and have no concept of the rapidly changing world around us. Their idea of running government is to spend more money, which will drive us into more debt, make no structural changes in the economy, let other states and governments get things done and just cruise. If this had continued the Territory would have headed over the debt cliff.
Darwin port is the door to the future of the Territory. If the door remains open just a crack there will only be a trickle of trade. If we open the door wide, the NT will be the main gateway into Asia and the rest of the world, creating jobs for Territorians.
The Darwin port needs money to get it into shape so it can take advantage of the four major free trade agreements, the trans-Pacific partnership signed by the federal government, and the other export opportunities a Coalition government has facilitated.
Our priority is not to put money into the port. Our priorities are funding education, health, law and order, and community programs. We do not want to put money into large capital projects, such as the port, which sit for decades. Let the private sector do that. That is our philosophical approach, our economic approach and how we build the Territory.
Landbridge not only brings the additional capital needed to upgrade the port; it also brings expertise to run the port and can complement the hard-working staff there. This expertise will see an increase in capacity and will quickly bring transport innovations to our shores.
Landbridge has confirmed its intent to maintain the established workforce at the Port of Darwin as I described, and that there will be no forced redundancies during the term of the current enterprise agreement, which terminates in June 2018. Landbridge also intends to implement a stable and competitive pricing regime for port services, with no more than CPI-indexed pricing adjustments for use of current port facilities.
One controversial asset I would like to talk about is Richardson Park. There is much debate about Richardson Park and who made a decision and who did not. The process of the Public Accounts Committee was one of the most deplorable things I have seen recently. Yes, community consultation is important, and yes, we should always listen to the interests of people. Right now the old Richardson Park stadium is sitting there. It is an asset owned by government and probably worth $20m to $30m. It is derelict. People are sleeping there illegally, consuming alcohol illegally, trashing the place, the antisocial behaviour is causing concern to neighbours and there are complaints about it. Government had an option to build a new asset which was originally around $40m and costed up to $47.5m. We did not believe that $47.5m into a stadium which would not meet NRL, soccer or union specifications at the national level was the right way to go. We thought we should put more money into hospitals and education.
We decided to put $20m into Richardson Park. I will not go into all the work on Richardson Park, but I ask Labor: what was your policy for the $20m to $30m asset? You proposed building a few chairs at Marrara. I understand that policy but do not agree with it. What was your policy for the $20m or $30m asset? Was it to bulldoze it and write off $20m or $30m worth of assets? That is very poor asset management policy.
The Leader of the Opposition has not contributed. He is not even in the Chamber, despite being a member of the port committee …
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, withdraw that comment. There is to be no reference to members being in or out of the Chamber.
Mr GILES: I withdraw that the Leader of the Opposition is not in the Chamber. He has not participated in the debate. He was part of the port committee and recommended the best way to proceed with the port. We adhered to all bar one recommendation – I am happy for guidance on that – to get the best deal. Commentators across the board have said this is the best and cleanest port deal in Australia’s history. We seem to have form on that going by today’s port announcement.
The Leader of the Opposition has not contributed to the debate. We know he supports it but is not talking to it. The debate has been run by the left of the Labor Party, not the right. The member for Nightcliff did not articulate any opposition asset policy. What would the approach be? We know the member for Fannie Bay, the Opposition Leader, is privately saying, ‘We support this, but publicly I have to say different things because I am in Labor’. We know the left controls Labor.
The Leader of the Opposition is saying one thing. The member for Nightcliff, Ms Fyles, is saying a Labor government would buy the port back. The money is already in the bank, but she proposes to put government into debt for $506m or whatever the buy-back price is. The price would have increased because people are already lining up to buy that 20%. With today’s announcement about the gas pipeline, potentially over $100m worth of gas pipeline will go over the port, supporting the supply chain logistics through the Territory with more business, and the port will be more valuable.
Perhaps the member for Nightcliff will spend $600m buying the port back, while the Leader of the Opposition says privately he supports it but publically says he does not and does not like the Chinese. This is not a proper policy approach, and is where we come back to the content of the debate. There was no content in the member for Nightcliff’s debate, which is why it is hard to debate back.
I can debate up hill and down dale why TIO would die in the next three years. Its pricing structure moderated prices equal for everybody so big companies could cherry pick off the simple policies and not insure other policies. TIO would have snowballed to death within three years.
I can talk about the port and why we needed to expand it, and have done that uphill and down. I can talk about how foreign investment is good for the Territory. I could talk about how the biggest hospitality employer in the Northern Territory is owned by the Kiwis – Darwin casino. I could talk about the casino in Alice Springs, which is owned by Malaysian Chinese. I could talk about INPEX, the biggest economic driver in the Territory, being owned mainly by the Japanese and partly owned by the French, being Total.
I could talk about the Italians who provide the gas energy for the lights here tonight, and the microphones and everything. The company providing the gas for these lights is a state-owned enterprise, the largest in Italy. Landbridge is a private company.
We could talk about the gas pipeline which runs from Bonaparte to Darwin, which is mainly owned by a publicly-listed company in the Northern Territory but has small ownership by Marubeni, a Japanese company.
We could talk about the US Marines in the Territory or the Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap in Alice Springs with the Americans. We could talk about the fuel we put in our cars which comes out of Singapore and is refined and put into barrels in the Middle East.
We live in a global environment. We cannot put our heads in the sand and say we do not like the Chinese. We have to adapt in a global environment. We have to make the right decisions, the tough decisions, to get the best job opportunities for Territorians.
I make speeches on a regular basis. One common theme in most of my speeches is what I have learnt most in the last three years. That is, the easiest thing to do is nothing.
If you make one decision you will upset people. Today we announced the successful tenderer for the gas pipeline was Jemena, a 60% Chinese state-owned and 40% Singapore owned company. This will cause concerns.
Labor will run fear campaigns about this. I asked Jemena who they were. They said, ‘You do not know Jemena? We are the second-oldest company in Australia, started in 1834.’
I believe the Bank of New South Wales was the first company. It started AGL, Australian Gas Light Company, and then spun it off. It started many companies. It owns all the transmission power lines in Victoria, and supplies gas to 1.3 million customers in New South Wales. It is a major provider.
The first thing from Labor is, ‘Chinese and Singapore’. It is the second-longest running company in Australia’s history. This is a great thing for the Territory. It will create jobs in the Territory, particularly in the member for Barkly’s electorate, and there will be more jobs in the port area in years to come because of downstream investment.
This MPI is not a matter of public importance in the vein the member for Nightcliff said it was. It is a matter of public importance on how we are smart, run economic agendas, build our infrastructure for the future and create jobs for Territorians.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, I support this matter of public importance on the failure of the Northern Territory government to consult with, or act in the interests of, Territorians by selling the Port of Darwin, the Territory Insurance Office, and public buses, and threatening the public ownership of the Territory’s power and water systems.
I listened closely to the member for Nightcliff’s contribution and the Chief Minister’s contribution to debate. I heard the term ‘up hill and down dale’ a few times. It is a favourite phrase of the Chief Minister. Hearing him speak about the merits behind the sale of TIO and the port, what has happened at Power and Water, and how he feels he has brought forward debate, I feel he does not understand the concept of what genuine, meaningful consultation is. It is a two-way conversation and involves listening to people and engaging back and forth.
One of the biggest criticisms of this government will be that it failed to consult with Territorians when deciding to see the Territory’s assets of the port and TIO.
It failed spectacularly, particularly in the case of TIO, when it comes to genuine public consultation and discussions with Territorians about the sale. Prior to the sale of TIO there were many rumours in the community and people were talking about it. Serious questions were put to the government on numerous occasions about whether it would sell TIO. We did not get a straight answer and most were along the lines of, ‘Nothing is on the table, nothing is off the table’.
At the same time the former member for Casuarina retired and there was a by-election. Two days after the by-election the government said, ‘We’re looking at selling TIO. What would you like to spend the money on?’ They forgot the critical question was, ‘Would you support the sale of TIO?’ People do not consider genuine consultation to be, ‘We’re looking at selling TIO. What do you want to spend the money on?’ That is not a genuine two-way conversation. If you felt you had a compelling case to sell TIO why did you not go to Territorians for the most genuine mandate you could get, being the support of the people.
It was not an issue during the Casuarina by-election. If this was such a fabulous idea, why did you not put it out to Territorians for debate? Instead, you announced it after the event. You would have received a firm answer from the people of Casuarina, as you saw in the polls conducted by the Northern Territory News at the time. It was a deeply unpopular decision. Territorians did not want you to sell TIO. People felt the government was talking at them, that the decision was made and there was no turning back on it. The government had made up its mind and was already looking forward to the next budget, the budget after that and into August 2016, asking where they could spend the money. ‘Where can we win back favour with the people of the Northern Territory because so far we have done an appalling job?’
The government rammed through the sale of TIO in one of the most disgraceful processes we have seen in the parliament.
It appears today the government has regained the numbers to do as it pleases. It will be interesting to see how they exercise that power. Will we see more examples of the disgraceful processes followed by this government in the past, such as ramming through the sale of TIO? The government rammed it through in one day. That is not proper consultation or consideration, and not what is meant to be happening in this parliament.
Let us see what you do now you are no longer a minority government. What will happen now? Will we see more arrogance from this government in its consultation with Territorians, which is talking at them not listening to them? This is what you have done in the last three-and-a-half years of government. The sale of TIO was a clear case of the CLP government’s style of consultation with Territorians. People will not forget that any time soon, that is for sure.
This government has also sold the port. The government will say it is a long-term lease, but 99 years is a long time. That is a sale; it is gone. That is past our lifetime. If the government wanted the ultimate mandate – with less than a year until the election, and the time this sale went through was one of great uncertainty with the numbers for this government – why not try to get it from the people. Why not genuinely consult with Territorians on a deeper level, and why not take it to the next election? For example, you had an opportunity in the Blain by-election to test it with the people you did not. One questions the level of deep and meaningful consultation this government engages in, and its definition of consultation.
This matter of public importance not only looks at the lack of consultation around selling TIO and the port, but also at the future of Power and Water. I am sure we will hear from the Treasurer on this. There is still uncertainly, and people have questions.
Questions and concerns have been raised about what is happening with system control at the moment. I would like the minister to explain what is happening. Is there a system control within the Power and Water Corporation? There was talk of it becoming a separate government owned corporation. Is it being partly privatised? To use a term the CLP likes, will there be a transfer of ownership of part of system control? It would be good to get some clarity on that and see if there are changes. Many concerns have been raised about it, so it would be good to hear the minister’s thoughts and for him to put on the record what is happening there. There has been a lot of conversation about it and people would like answers.
There have been some significant changes to Power and Water during the term of this government. The most significant one is that people are now paying 30% more for electricity, 40% more for water and 25% more for sewerage. For an average family that is an extra $2000 a year on top of their power and water bills, and this government has decided to ram people’s bills up by an extra 30% for electricity, 40% for water and 25% for sewerage. This does not take into account the 1 January 2015 5% increase everybody copped whether in the urban centres or out bush. Looking at the Power and Water annual report, at that time the government had collected an extra $150m in revenue from the power increases alone.
They are pocketing more money yet taking money out of the pockets of Territory families. I remind you, that is an extra $2000 a year an average family in the NT is paying because of the CLP government’s decision to break a promise after the 2012 election about lowering the cost of living. Instead they rammed power and water prices through the roof. That has created great burden and pain for many families because they have to pay a hell of a lot more.
I come back to the issue that people want certainty on. If the CLP government continues to consult with Territorians the way it feels is appropriate, which is not listening and talking at people, can we hear? This government has a tendency to say one thing and do the other. I will take the opportunity, every time I can, to ask them to put something on the record. I want to rule out that you will sell or transfer ownership, whole or part, of anything in the Power and Water Corporation, Jacana Energy or Territory Generation between now and the next election.
I call on the Treasurer, and the government, if they intend to partly privatise or transfer ownership of assets or parts of Power and Water Corporation, Jacana Energy or Territory Generation, get the ultimate mandate, which is the Northern Territory election in August 2016.
This is an important matter to discuss tonight. We have seen huge changes in the last three-and-a-half years of this government, especially around the sale of Territory-owned assets without a mandate from the people and without consulting Territorians at a genuine and meaningful level. This government is cashed up from the sales, so let us see what they intend to do with the money they now have.
Let us see what they do between now and August to try to win back favour with people across the Territory who they have smashed their relationship with. They have gone about government in an arrogant way, and not consulting people properly means Territorians do not trust them. They have a great deal of ground to make up, friendships to mend, and relationships to build on. That has probably been made a bit easier by having more money, but people do not have short memories. They remember the pain of the 30% and 40% power increases. They remember the pain of the 25% sewerage increase, and they know they are paying $2000 extra per year because of your increases.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, what an interesting matter of public importance from the member for Nightcliff. Setting aside the fact she cannot spell the Speaker’s first name and uses capitals in the middle of words, it is just nonsense. It is like handwriting from a kid in Year 1 learning to write. Hopefully she does not become Education minister somewhere down the track. In any case, she probably failed Year 1.
It is a ridiculous matter of public importance. I was interested in the Chief Minister’s explanation of what went on with the port. I was fascinated with his take on Richardson Park. I had never thought about Richardson Park that way. Exactly what is Labor’s policy when they abandon it and have it bulldozed? Will Labor put a brand new suburb there? Will there be high rises in the area, as was previously planned by people from Darwin rugby league? What would Labor do once they got rid of the Territory asset at Richardson Park? It is a good question and something Labor has not commented on. They simply say they want to move rugby league to Freds Pass. That is pretty well out of mind, out of sight.
Put it in the scrub, down in the rural area where no one wants any development. It could be hidden away somewhere with limited access to services because there are limited development opportunities. More than likely, the members for Nelson and Goyder would oppose that because it would represent development in the rural area, which is something they do not want.
Mr Wood: As usual, you digress.
Mr TOLLNER: I do not digress; I am speaking on the matter of public importance. The fact is the government saved TIO. Unequivocally, this government saved TIO. Without a doubt, TIO was dying on the vine.
Some 30 years ago TIO had 100% of the marketplace, and today it sits at about 40% or less. What happened over the last 30 years is interesting, because 30 years ago or more no insurance company wanted to come to the Northern Territory. It was too small a marketplace with too many big problems, and there was no interest by anyone in bringing products to the Northern Territory.
Rightly, government formed the Territory Insurance Office. Over the last 30 years a plethora of companies has come to the Northern Territory and entered the marketplace. People on the other side cannot seem to comprehend the concept of a marketplace.
In the world of socialists and communists, you do not have a market, you have a provider. There is no market, there is a provider and a user, and people who have enterprising ideas are shunned. Government controls everything.
That is the world they live in. They do not appreciate the fact that these days there is an insurance market in the Northern Territory and participants in that market – a range of providers.
Over the last century or so, insurance companies have become larger, and not for the desire to get larger just to be big. They grow because of the economies of scale – the ability to dilute risk across a range of areas, places and problems.
That is why insurance companies get bigger. As we have seen across the globe, insurance companies are generally backed by only a handful of really large insurance companies that diversify their risk across the globe.
In the Northern Territory, the government owned insurance office could not diversify its risk. Its entire risk portfolio was 90% in Darwin and 10% in the rest of the Northern Territory. The problem with that risk being so concentrated in one location is that they needed to pay more and more for their re-insurance costs.
Re-insurance costs for the Territory Insurance Office, when we liberated it from government ownership, were around 30% of premiums. The rest of the market was paying between 5% and 10% of premiums for re-insurance costs because they diluted their risk.
The reality was that Territory Insurance Office’s mandate was to only insure in the Northern Territory. They could not spread their risk. Consequently, every year that went by, every day that went by, the Territory Insurance Office became more and more uncompetitive. That is why I said TIO was dying on the vine. Had we gone the Labor way we could have said, ‘Let’s ignore that, the government can bear that risk. When the government falls over, if there is a big disaster, it doesn’t matter because the federal government will step in and take that risk.’ You have to ask yourself what the point is of having an insurance company if everything is backed by the government, and ultimately the Australian government?
It defies logic, so government looked at the situation. We analysed what was going on with the Territory Insurance Office and understood it was on the brink of collapse. Frankly, if a major cyclone like Tracy hit Darwin again, this government would have been wiped out along with every house and building in the Top End. This is the risk Territorians faced with continued ownership of the Territory Insurance Office. Liberating TIO from government ownership and allowing it to diversify and dilute its risk into a much greater pool brought down its reinsurance costs, made it much more competitive and allowed it to continue operating in the Northern Territory. Allianz has an enormous pool of risk across the globe. It is one of the largest insurers on the planet if not the largest, and has the ability to diversify its risk across the globe.
That was a sensible decision because, fundamentally, Territorians value their TIO. They like the brand, and rather than see TIO die in a ditch, we decided to liberate it from government ownership so it could continue to operate for decades to come in the Northern Territory as the Territory Insurance Office.
Instead of Labor politicians explaining those simple facts to Territorians, what have they done? They have whipped up a storm of concern not because it is good for Territorians, but because that suits their political objective. To create fear in the community is the Labor Party objective. It is similar to what I heard the member for Wanguri say in relation to threatening public ownership of the Territory’s power and water systems.
I was scratching my head over this MPI, wondering what the hell this mob was talking about. We do not intend to privatise the Power and Water Corporation. Then the member for Wanguri asks, ‘What is happening with system control?’ Again, it is convenient for members opposite not to understand markets. The other side wants to control everything, the same way communists want to control everything. When it comes to system control, it has to be handed over to somebody to manage the market.
We have made no bones about the fact we want to see a utilities marketplace in the Northern Territory, with competition on the generation and retail fronts. Part of that is about dragging in the Australian Energy Regulator, the AER. The AER is a government organisation put in place by COAG. Labor members opposite will not remember this, but about 20 years ago governments around Australia signed up to competition reforms, agreeing to put in place market mechanisms to see utilities markets established in Australia. Labor acknowledged that when they changed the Power and Water Authority to the Power and Water Corporation. That was a step in the direction of implementing the market reforms agreed to in the 1990s at COAG, and good on them. I give them a pat on the back for taking that step. However, they did not continue that reform process because it all became too hard for our communist friends on the other side. The idea of having a market in place is an anathema to Labor members in the Territory.
Part of having a marketplace is that we want a market operator. In Australia we have the Australian Energy Market Operator, AEMO, another creature formed out of COAG. States and territories agreed to form the Australian Energy Market Operator so companies could operate in a marketplace. Part of that means transferring system control to AEMO. AEMO was formed in COAG by Australian governments, and is funded and has its costs paid by industry – generators, retailers and transmission line operators who operate in markets.
I do not know why the member for Wanguri thinks you can have a marketplace without a market operator in the utilities sector. If the member for Wanguri wants to call this privatisation of a government asset – goodness me, I do not know what you could compare that to, but it is certainly not privatisation of a government asset. It is a step towards creating a utilities market. It is a simple thing for most people to understand. Clearly it goes above the pay grade of the average Labor member sitting on the other side because they do not seem to get it.
We have been living in this country – I imagine most of them are passed 20 years so they would have an idea of how other markets around the country operate. I listened to the member for Nelson say, ‘I am curious to know, Treasurer, whether these reforms have taken place anywhere else in the country?’ I thought, ‘Has this guy been living under a rock?’ We are the only jurisdiction in the country not to have implemented these reforms. We are 20 years behind the rest of Australia. The previous government dragged its heels on these reforms.
I will also pass comment on previous Country Liberals governments as well, because they should have been quicker to act on putting in place utility market reforms. This is a ridiculous matter of public importance. They are grasping at straws, trying to whip up fear and concern in the community.
A xenophobic mob sits opposite. The last time I heard comments like this they were coming out of the mouth of Pauline Hanson. She was saying, ‘You’re selling the farm. You’re selling Australia and the Chinese are taking over everything.’ Shame on you mob.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, some of that speech reminds me of the 1950s – the communists and all that stuff – and we do not want to go back there. It surprises me that the government is leasing the port to a private company from a communist country.
We do not have a lot of time with an MPI, but if the government is concerned about the state of Richardson Park, why has someone not secured it? I have visited it …
Mr Tollner: Never had it. It was owned by the DRL, Gerry. We have only just got it back.
Mr WOOD: Be quiet for a minute. Put a sock in it and listen to what I have to say. When I mean secure it, I mean put a fence around it and protect it from damage. If you think the asset is worth keeping why have you not protected it? We have looked at it, and if you do not want people breaking the place up then you should protect it. Its future will be part of the discussion. Anyway, enough of that.
In relation to TIO, the Treasurer misses the point. It is not whether it should have been sold but that there was no discussion about it. I remember calling a public meeting at the university, and we got the CEO of TIO, Richard Harding, to come along, and the Leader of the Opposition, but we could not get the Chief Minister. The government, at that stage, missed the point of what people were concerned about.
The government had a good point about the future of TIO and the changing structure of insurance in the Northern Territory, but it did not get that message out. It was not willing to talk to people about why TIO did not have a future, or that insurance rates would go up. It was a fact of life whether TIO or another company would take it over, and it would be difficult for TIO to survive in that marketplace. That is what the issue was about and why people were annoyed.
I was also annoyed with the sale of the printing office and the public bus system. They were done after parliament had sat. There was no attempt to debate either sale in this House. At least with TIO and the port there has been debate.
I do not support the section of the MPI relating to the port. The sale of the port is unpopular but it is a government decision. To say there has not been any discussion in the public arena is not correct. I was part of the Port of Darwin Select Committee, and prior to that committee – at the beginning of last year – the government introduced legislation to allow the port to be sold. I took off on my own accord because I needed to understand what a private port was all about, so I visited the Port of Portland. I will probably always remember that visit because that was the time of the failed coup d'tat.
I also visited the Port of Adelaide, which Flinders Ports owns. I met with stevedores, agents, users and managers at both ports. When I returned the government decided to set up the committee, and I had a list of what the committee did. The committee had private briefings with Flagstaff Partners and MinterEllison lawyers. Obviously they were working for the government to ensure everything was done correctly on such a serious matter. The committee visited the Port of Brisbane, the Port of Adelaide, the Port of Portland, the Port of Albany and the Port of Geraldton, the Port of Fremantle, and had a final look at the Port of Darwin.
Two public hearings were held on 31 March and 1 April which included Asciano, Patrick General Stevedoring, the Port of Darwin Project Steering Committee, the Northern Territory government, the Maritime Union of Australia, the Australian Agriculture Company, Vopak, Bhagwan Marine, Qube, the Northern Territory Livestock Exporters Association, Genesee & Wyoming Pty Ltd and the Northern Territory Chamber of Commerce, and it also received public submissions. Those meetings were open to the public, and the public had an opportunity to make submissions.
I understand that from those submissions only one opposed the sale, which was the union. The issue with the union has been an issue of concern to me as well. I had an undertaking from the Chief Minister – I hope he does not think I am verballing him, but he understood the issues the workers at the port had and basically said he would make sure they were fixed. I take the Chief Minister’s word on that, and I have not heard any negative feedback in regard to the issues.
When you consider the size of this port sale, the concerns of the employees were something the government needed to make sure it fixed. I am not sure if it is completed, but I would like to hear how it is going.
When it finished in April 2015, the committee brought out the Port of Darwin lease model and a series of 18 recommendations, and the government responded to all those recommendations. I do not have the time to go through them all, but that is what the government has done.
It was a bipartisan report. Labor, the CLP and the Independents supported privatisation of the port. Sometimes it is difficult, even for people like me – I am not an expert on these things and sometimes have to rely on what other people say.
Perhaps one of the failings of the government in putting forward its case for privatising the port was not using some of the material we put in this document to promote its view.
There is a section which talks about the risk of private sector involvement. It talks about the ACCC’s view of these things. My understanding, from reading some of the documents, is the main recommendation from organisations like the ACCC is they generally support the principle of privatisation of businesses such as ports. It talks about public ports frequently lacking professional management, and senior positions often being filled through a political selection process. Furthermore, there is a layer of bureaucracy separating those responsible for operations from those who manage the port.
In contrast, private operations have very thin management structures, with clear assignment responsibility and accountability.
Point 4.20 of the report says:
The report also says there are some concerns. There is a section on the risks of private sector involvement.
The report was well researched and well presented. We had nothing to do with the details of the sale of the port; that was entirely up to the government. If people have issues with that they should see if the government has dealt with the recommendations in the Port of Darwin Select Committee report.
I was concerned that foreign ownership of the port might conflict with present port users, and there has been a lot of discussion about that lately. I believe some of the information is not correct. My understanding is that the Australian Department of Defence looked at it. If people have concerns about it that is fair enough, but some of it goes back to the Department of Defence. If the government has, by due diligence, gone through the process of making sure it is okay for Landbridge to run our port, and people have a different view, the issue is not with the Northern Territory government but the people in Canberra who supported that decision. They need to make sure those concerns are backed up with facts.
I worry about the relationship between the United States, Australia and China. We all know what has happened in the Spratly Islands of late. I am not a foreign policy expert but I am concerned. I have to trust that people in the know, presumably the Department of Defence, which includes the Army, Navy and the Air Force, had some input into the decision. If they are not concerned, that should be sufficient. If people are concerned they need to take it up with the Department of Defence rather than the Northern Territory because the Northern Territory has done what it said it would.
I was hoping for more investment from Australia. It is sad there is not, but I was advised it is difficult to get 100% privately owned companies interested in buying a port. Many superannuation companies do. The port in Portland is run by a superannuation company. I understand many of those companies are backed by foreign banks. It is difficult to find a 100% Australian owned company that is interested. I do not want that 20% to go anywhere. I would rather it be retained by the government to make sure there is some Australian ownership of our port.
I accept that sometimes hard decisions have to be made by government. Many ports in Australia are now privately owned in both Labor and Liberal states. In fact, in Western Australia, which has a Liberal government, the three ports are all government owned. In Victoria, a Labor state, all the ports are privately owned. It varies up and down the east coast.
It is not as simple as saying a private port is better than a public port. The information the committee received – we spoke to as many people as possible – was that this was the best way to go.
I was also concerned because I did not want this money spent on an advertising campaign for the government prior to the next election. I have suggested to the minister that some of this money should go to remote communities. I have also suggested that the government could look at self-help housing programs. For communities not on the housing list it could create jobs, or in communities with materials to build houses it could reduce overcrowding in houses. We need to look at micro-developments in the Territory which, when totalled up, would be equivalent to a fairly large infrastructure development. I hope we do not only look at the big shiny projects, but we make sure people throughout the Territory receive benefits from this sale. Otherwise it looks like the big smoke gets it all and the people in the bush get nothing.
I understand some of the issues regarding the MPI. Whilst I agree with them, for me the issue was to talk about the port. People may have a different view, but I believe this was the right decision.
Mr BARRETT (Blain): Madam Speaker, this matter of public importance says:
The first part of this matter of public importance relating to the failure of the Northern Territory government to consult with or act in the interests of Territorians by selling the Port of Darwin – first, it is a lease not a sale. The two are different and that was established in the committee’s report. Second, the Port of Darwin is a loose term. What are you talking about? Is it everything inside Charles Point? It is so poorly formed and written that it is embarrassing.
The MPI refers to a failure of the Northern Territory government to consult. Stakeholders were consulted repeatedly. We sent many letters out to many people asking for input and what they thought the recommendations should be. The Leader of the Opposition can verify that. In some cases we went twice or three times, and we phoned people saying, ‘Please let us know what you’re thinking’. I remember calling Ian Wright from OM Holdings, the manganese exporter, to say, ‘I know you have the e-mail. Can you please put a submission in? Send me something. You are the only bulk exporter, and if bulk exports are missing from the consultation it will stand out.’
I know this port, I know the people there, the players, and I understand how the port functions end to end. I know the vast majority of people who work there, and when you say with a smug smile, ‘The fate of the Northern Territory, failing to consult or act in the interest of Territorians’, it disgusts me.
One thing I do not get about politics is that you can say anything you want in this Chamber. It does not have to make sense or line up with evidence, you can just spray it. The worst part is this stuff is sprayed around and it drives me nuts. The opposition does this to scare people. My favourite is somebody saying to me, ‘You guys are getting $5m a year for 100 years because it is $500m’. I said, ‘Where did you hear that?’ He said, ‘The union guy told me’. I said, ‘There’s a big difference between $500m up front and $5m a year for 100 years’.
There is time value of money. Putting $500m in stinking Westpac shares will get you $36m franked tax free. Telling people this was a crap deal because we got $5m a year is insanity and shows a complete lack of understanding of the processes, and a lack of depth of the people on the other side who are trying to convince people to hate us by saying this and spreading stories of no consultation. You cannot disengage in a process and then say you did not consult.
It is embarrassing for the member for Nightcliff’s leader that she is effectively saying the Leader of the Opposition did not consult. He was on the committee that made the recommendations and knows who was consulted. I do not understand why someone would come into this Chamber and do this just to pick a fight or waste time. It never ceases to amaze me when I see this happen.
I look at the important things happening in the Northern Territory. I look at the things that matter to me, what is going on, the problems we are trying to address, and we get the failure of the Northern Territory government to consult. We even had post consultation. I spent a lot of time with stevedores talking about it through it and after it, and with people who work in the industry. ‘What are you feelings? What are people around the port saying?’ The nastiest comment was that people were apprehensive. Sometimes the misinformation that is spread – the opposition talks everything down to the point where people believe the lie. I do not know why you do that because when somebody finds out the truth they will say to the opposition, ‘You told me this was true’.
When that person said, ‘It’s $500m so $5m a year is a terrible deal’, I explained the time value of money. Do you know what they did? They phoned the person who told them and said, ‘Why did you tell me that? You made me look stupid in front of Nathan.’
When you convince people of foolish things you know are wrong you are showing your own foolishness. People will know how hollow you are if you do that. It is hollow, baseless and embarrassing.
Selling the Territory Insurance Office – they know as well as we do the issues with the Territory Insurance Office.
Let us go to threatening public ownership of the Northern Territory’s power and water systems, because that was a big issue during my by-election; it raised heads. A bunch of ETU guys were terrorising people at polling booths, picking fights and arguing with people saying that we would sell Power and Water, and scaring people. It is as if they stop at nothing and it is embarrassing.
The Northern Territory’s power and water system – the member for Wanguri said, ‘You guys are taking $150m off consumers and it is going straight into the coffers’. They keep sprouting the same stuff, which is embarrassing because anyone who understands finance will know the problem was you did not cost it right. When things are not cost reflective there is no such thing in economics as a free lunch. Someone has to pay the bill; the money has to come from somewhere. Will it come from debt? Will you debt fund it ad infinitum?
It is insanity. The reason the price had to increase was the cost being charged per kilowatt hour was not cost reflective of generating, transporting or charging for it. You cannot say we are ripping people off because we made something cost reflective. From the data I have seen it is still not cost reflective; all it has done is improve the position somewhat.
To say the government has robbed Territorians of $150m – that $150m would have gone on the credit card. That puts the trust back on the fiduciary. That is the worst financial management because you are just kicking a can further down the road. That can is getting bigger and somebody has to pay the piper. You know full well, when you tell people the Giles government is ripping people off because it increased Power and Water tariffs, it was being made cost reflective and restored some fiscal balance to the Northern Territory because we are on a watch, and to Power and Water so it was not in the can as much.
People have to remember that when we are on a negative watch – if we are downgraded by Moody’s it changes the interest rate on our debt. That makes a big difference to Northern Territory expenditure on things we cannot get back. It will not go on things that are deliverable to the people of the Northern Territory. It will go because some person on the other side of the floor, for years in a row, decided the price of power and water would not be cost reflective for whatever reason. At some point it had to be corrected.
Saying the Northern Territory government is doing nothing to lower the cost of living – the Northern Territory government solved the tar baby problem relating to fuel prices. It has done a lot of work to enable Power and Water to operate more like a GOC should.
We ask why privatisation happens. The underlying economic reason for privatisation leads you to the underlying reason governments exist. Governments are there, from an economics point of view, to redistribute income and join into markets where market failures exist.
If we look at how mature the insurance industry in Australia is we see the industry is not in market failure. Why should government compete with and crowd out businesses in the Northern Territory?
Why should we run a port, something that can be regulated and run more efficiently and effectively with investment from outside sources? The opposition says, ‘Why did you sell it? It’s not in the Territory’s interest.’ What was not in the Territory’s interest was racking up debt.
If you want to talk about the failures of the Northern Territory government, I point to the failures of the previous government to not work with TIO when it had the opportunity, not deal with the port and not correct the issues in Power and Water. You can turn that little finger around to yourselves and say, ‘We are to blame for these issues’.
I am proud of what the Northern Territory government is doing to lower risk so future industry and business can come to the Northern Territory. We are acting as a government should – as a de-risking agent so the numbers stack up and people will bring new industries here.
The Marine Industry Park and the shiplift are great examples of that. It shocks me that people do not understand the magnitude of the shiplift.
Picking up military contracts is fantastic. If we get military contracts for Cape-class vessels, suddenly all our built-up capacity in the Northern Territory will have two clients, not one. There is built-up capacity not completely geared to gas. A downturn in the gas industry no longer means that capacity leaves Darwin. It means they have two customers, one being a baseline customer that will keep things ticking over. As the gas industry ebbs and flows with global commodity prices we will see those industries grow and shrink, but they will stay, and that is the important thing. That is what we are talking about when growing industry in the Northern Territory.
This matter of public importance, the way it is written and everything it insinuates, is a disgrace. I am almost ashamed to waste time answering it and putting on the record the facts about the four issues raised in it.
Discussion concluded.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended would allow me to move the following motion and subsequently have the question determined:
1. that the Speaker is removed from office by the Legislative Assembly in accordance with section 24(2)(d) of the Northern Territory (Self-Government Act) 1978 (Cth)
2. that a new Speaker be elected pursuant to Standing Order 7.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Port Darwin has just moved a very grave and serious motion. I ask that the motion is signed and distributed to all members so we are able to see the exact wording and terms of the motion.
Mr Elferink: Madam Speaker, it is being circulated now.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask that you suspend for 10 minutes until we receive the motion. It is grave and we deserve to see it.
Madam SPEAKER: It is unprecedented in the history of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council. I agree with the member for Karama and suspend parliament for 10 minutes while the motion is being circulated.
The Assembly suspended.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, the member for Karama truly identified this as a grave and serious motion, and, quite correctly, as unprecedented in the history of the Northern Territory. The motion before the House has only been drifted to on two other occasions I am aware of. In those circumstances the Speakers, for the sake of the dignity of the House, chose to …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, it is not a motion before the House. You are only speaking to the suspension of standing orders.
Mr ELFERINK: That is correct, Madam Speaker, so I have to make out the case for suspending standing orders.
Madam SPEAKER: Continue, just have it correct.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, Madam Speaker.
The issue essentially comes down to what can be found on page 163 of House of Representatives Practice 5th edition. I ask members to indulge me in this because it is important that I am able to describe the structure of this argument. An argument of this nature requires proper structure and effective prosecution.
House of Representatives Practice says:
This infers a very important quid pro quo. It is a serious penalty in this House to reflect on the Speaker other than by way of substantive motion, such as the motion we are about to discuss. To reflect on the Speaker is considered a grave sin because the Speaker is supposed to rise above us all. She is our referee, our guide and the person who adjudicates with impartiality.
That infers and implies that the Speaker is duty bound not to reflect on members, as parliamentary practice demands, both inside and outside the House. House of Representatives Practice 5th edition reflects on the Australian environment at page 164:
Further, on the same page, it says:
Madam Speaker, in your dealings in the House you have set a very high standard for yourself. There was an occasion in the not so distant past when government sought to suspend standing orders. You chose not to participate in that knowing full well the consequences. Whilst I do not want to enter into the partisanship of that decision, the reason you gave not to suspend standing orders was that the integrity of the House was of such a standard and importance that you were not prepared to set aside the normal standards to support government, or anybody for that matter. That is the standard you set, which places the bar very high indeed.
That is also reflected on page 165:
That sets the standard we expect in this House and is the challenge we have today. It has become increasingly evident with the passage of time that such impartiality one would expect from a Speaker has not been coming from the Chair either inside or outside the House.
It is not unusual for you to make a number of Facebook posts during the course of the sitting day and at other times. You make many Facebook posts and I will give you a number of examples. On 24 April 2015 you reflected on the member for Fong Lim in relation to urban blocks and then stridently criticised a member of this House. On 14 September 2015 you stridently criticised government, and on other occasions you have chosen to reflect on members of this House -government and non-government – thus raising the doubt of your lack of partisanship in this House.
When I call a point of order in this House, whilst you may deal with the point of order fairly or unfairly, after being criticised and reflected upon in this House I always ask if the treatment I receive at your hands is fair. It is not always guaranteed because I have been the subject, as have other members, of a number of reflections from the chair. I find it surprising that partisan comments are made on Facebook from the chair whilst we sit in this House. If I am not mistaken that occurred today whilst you were sitting in the Chair.
There is no shortage of comments from you reflecting on members in this House and their conduct. That is indicative of a failure to apply appropriate standards of impartiality. Those constant reflections on members of this House risk demeaning and diminishing this House in the eyes of not only the people who occupy it, but also more generally.
As Attorney-General and defender of the courts, I often have to bridle in my defence of them. I may not agree with what they do, but I am the voice of those courts. You are the voice of this House in maintaining its integrity.
I do not suggest that you are not a passionate member of this Assembly. You obviously care about your constituency. You care about many of the issues discussed in this House, and if the member for Goyder continued to do so that is a matter for the member. It is not possible to separate the member for Goyder from the speakership role no matter how artificially you try to.
A case in point is the letter I found on my desk at 10 am today. You authorised yourself to commence a motion before this House to refer a matter to privileges. I spoke to you in your office less than 24 hours prior to that to brief you on what the government intends to do. Within those 24 hours you determined, under the auspices of the speakership, to move a motion through the privileges process.
I received an e-mail from your assistant at 9.50 am, which was an invitation to the condolence motion at 10 am. The first I was aware of it was when you spoke in this House, because the envelope remained sealed on my desk. Even if I had opened it at 10 am, as other members may have, it was still very much a surprise.
I was dismayed with the paragraph on page two of that letter, which said, ‘I am therefore writing to all members to make clear my intentions to outline the procedure so there can be no claims of surprise, and to demonstrate I wish the matter to be dealt with fairly by the Assembly itself’.
On the contrary, the surprise was absolute. This letter was not in my possession until you were on your feet. I was not aware of it because I did not get an opportunity to open it. I had no prior notice and do not believe other members received prior notice of the motion you moved this morning.
This morning’s motion had all the hallmarks of a contrivance in the sense that the Deputy Speaker was in the House ready to assume the Chair, but you chose to bypass the Deputy Chair and place the member for Karama in the Chair, who I suspect had notice of the intended motion.
Madam Speaker, it appears you are tweeting as we sit. You have just tweeted, ‘The government wants to sack the Speaker as they disagreed with my member for Goyder motion’. This is not the reason, Madam Speaker. The reason is I cannot speak in this House without reflections on what the government is doing.
This is not how a Speaker and honourable members of this Chamber should conduct themselves. I ask members to remind themselves of the demands placed on the Speaker, and for the sake of members I will repeat the important principles in play here:
Madam Speaker, you tweet and make Facebook posts that are critical of members in this House while debates are occurring. This is not what we should expect of a Speaker in this House.
I fully understand this motion will generate great excitement amongst the members opposite. It is not something that I or the government choose to do lightly, but we find ourselves in a position where we cannot expect, on any reasonable grounds, any form of impartiality from the Speaker. The Speaker is clearly not able to separate her duties as a Speaker and a politician on the floor of this House. Simply authorising yourself, without any form of reasonable notice to the members of this House, to lodge a privileges motion is not what we or any reasonable member of parliament would expect from a Speaker.
Madam Speaker, as the member for Goyder I am sure you will be a passionate and strident representative of your electorate. From my perspective, and I suspect many in this House, you are also the representative of this House. You maintain the integrity of this House and, sadly, sitting in the Chair tweeting reflections on individual members of this House is not consistent with the office, and expectations of the office, of the Speaker.
There is no thrill or trill of excitement in me by bringing this motion before the House, but it is necessary to make sure the integrity of this House and the office of the Speaker are maintained so we can give comfort to the people of the Northern Territory that the Speaker of the House understands the role.
Speaker McCarthy was a quintessential Speaker when it came to the integrity of the role, rising way above partisan politics. I did not see him in a parliamentary wing meeting when he was Speaker.
Speaker Aagaard had to navigate the difficulties of minority government, and whilst occasionally voting with the government, I always felt she was concerned about the integrity and reputation of the House. It is not tolerable that members are being reflected upon in the public domain on Facebook, the tweeter-sphere domain, etcetera, by the Chair.
It erodes my and other members’ confidence in this House that I will get a fair hearing when I raise a point of order or an issue of some dispute or contest, Madam Speaker.
It is a clear cut argument that I put before members of this House ...
Ms Fyles: A few tweets upset you.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on the interjection that a few tweets upset me – a good interjection. A few tweets from the Chair, whilst the House is in session reflecting on people in the House, is not appropriate. It would be the same as a referee on a football field calling out a personal opinion on the players then being surprised when the players bridle at some of the decisions the referee makes. That is what is occurring here.
This is an unprecedented motion. To put not too fine a point on it, I understand that you were informed of the likelihood of this motion earlier today by the Chief Minister.
On the two other occasions this situation occurred in this country the Speaker, for the sake of the dignity of the House, chose to step aside rather than bring the motion on.
Madam Speaker, you have chosen not to do that, and that is your right. You will even, no doubt, enjoy a right of reply, as you should well do. Unfortunately the many tweets, public comments on radio and television, even today, reflecting publicly on whether or not payments are being made to the member for Arnhem, are not appropriate for a Speaker.
I do not enjoy this motion, but it is one the House has to consider. I advise Madam Speaker and all members of this House that this motion was considered carefully and thoughtfully.
Mr GUNNER (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, Labor does not support the suspension of standing orders or the late night coup on the office of the Speaker. This is an outrageous, unprecedented attack on the office of an independent Speaker, a Speaker who has acted over the course of her tenure with respect, in a considered fashion, a sensible fashion, and in a manner that has earned the respect of Territorians. Labor supported Kezia as Speaker when she was a member of the CLP because we knew she would do a fair and considered job in the Chair. Labor supported Kezia when she chose to become an Independent for the same reason, but with the added rider that we had seen her by then operate in the role of Speaker in a fair and considered manner. That is all you can ask of the Speaker. She has done it by action and has earned the respect of Territorians and of this House, and she has earned better treatment than what is being meted out tonight by the CLP.
Today the CLP regained a majority in this House. The first thing they did was revert to their base instincts, which are to be arrogant and to bully. Tonight is an act of vengeance against the member for Goyder. It is not an act that will go down well with Territorians, the people you have a trust deficit with. This is no way to go about restoring the faith of Territorians – another late night coup. When Territorians are asked who they trust, the CLP or the Independent member for Goyder who sat in the chair as Speaker, there will only be one answer: the member for Goyder, Kezia Purick.
This action will not sit well with Territorians. You have already set a new low bar for government in the Northern Territory, and tonight you are plumbing to new low depths.
We stand with the Speaker. There are government members who should do the right thing and stand with the member for Goyder as well. She has executed her duty and had the strength of her convictions. She has acted in an impartial manner, as we all should, for her constituents.
Let us look at the sequence of events that has brought us here. The CLP decided to make a political stunt out of an ice bill. They called it on urgency and the majority of this House said, ‘No, we will consult properly with Territorians and stakeholders. We will act appropriately, as members of this House should.’ The CLP did not react well to that. They ran advertisements in the paper which are potentially in contempt of this parliament. As the member for Goyder, the Speaker made the considered decision she wrote to us about and moved a motion.
I will read from her letter:
That is really important because the CLP does not like scrutiny or being held to account. The member for Goyder’s grave mistake in their eyes is daring to hold a government to account.
It is our job, as members of this Chamber, to speak on behalf of the constituency. The CLP has chosen to hang the member for Goyder for doing her job as a local member. I will continue reading from her letter:
We believe you are a fair and respectful Speaker. We do not always agree with you, but we respect the fact you make decisions in a considered manner and we live with them because it is your job as a Speaker to do that. I will not speak for the Independents, but I can safely say they also respect your decisions, and we believe that is your role as Speaker.
That is what you do in this Chamber. You might not like being kicked out for an hour, but when it happens you take it. You might not always agree with the decision, but you wear your lumps. As far as the CLP are concerned and their base instinct goes, it is arrogance and bullying. Tonight we see an act of vengeance. This government does not like scrutiny and does not want to be held to account. The first action they take when they get the numbers is to hang the Speaker.
Territorians will not forgive this. You have done many bad things during your term of government, but this may be a step too far. This act will not be forgotten or forgiven by Territorians. You can kiss goodbye any chance of fixing the trust deficit you have with Territorians.
We do not support the suspension of standing orders. We do not support the late night coup on the Speaker, and we will fight this all night and in any way we can. We support the member for Goyder as Speaker.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, the government has just dug a hole bigger than the hospital hole at Holtze. No matter what the reason, if they think the public will agree to this they have rocks in their head. They might have a concern about how quickly your motion came before us this morning – it might not have been the way to do it. Is that a hanging offence? Not at all.
The issue the member for Goyder raised today is one I am also concerned about. If people read my media releases they would realise I had written to the Auditor-General about those ads and would understand I was extremely angry about them ...
Mr Tollner: You should have moved the motion, not the Speaker.
Mr WOOD: The member for Fong Lim says I should have done it. The Speaker is also the member for Goyder. We have a seat here for her. Some people have criticised her, and I understand why, for having the member for Karama sit in the Chair. One should remember it is very unlikely that people on the support side in this ad would support the member for Goyder’s motion.
The member for Goyder is my friend, am I am not speaking just because she is a friend. She is slightly eccentric. She gets those genes from her mother, who sat here in this parliament. That is the way she is, and the way many rural people are. I do not always agree with her. She has said things I would not say in a month of Sundays, but perhaps we should be proud of that because we are the Northern Territory. We are not stuck up all the time. We have some leeway in what we do and what we debate. We are a little free and easy, one of the benefits of living in this part of the world.
The motion today should not destroy the Speaker. People should be happy that we can debate an issue as serious as this in parliament without the threat of being hung, drawn and quartered because you have been brave enough to raise it.
Does that mean the next Speaker will be a puppet Speaker? Will that Speaker do what the Country Liberal Party government wants them to? They will not rock the boat because they will be out the door. You have an Independent Speaker. I was an Independent Deputy Speaker when we had an Independent Speaker before the Labor party got rid of them. I believe having an Independent Speaker is the best way to go.
The Independent Speaker has raised an independent issue. The issue relates to false claims in an ad with her name: Kezia Purick, Goyder. Who had respect for the Speaker when they did that? Do you blame the Speaker for saying, ‘You put my name in this ad. I will use parliament to say you have done the wrong thing.’
This motion to suspend standing orders is to set an execution in place which should not happen. The issues you raise today are not that important. Yes, you can be critical. I do not always agree with the Speaker, but is this a hanging offence? Some people have their noses out of joint, and some are scared we might debate a serious issue taxpayers paid for and which was a bunch of lies. Are you scared to face up to that? Are you scared to have that debate? I think you are, and the way to get around being scared is to sack the Speaker. You will look like dills in tomorrow’s news. It will take ages for you to recover because you will be seen to set up a puppet Speaker to do your bidding. You will look foolish.
I cannot support the suspension of standing orders. We should have a cold shower and go home. Let us deal with the issue another time – adjourn it – and move on. This is an unnecessary motion.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I too will not support the suspension of standing orders. I had no doubt, after this morning’s reaction from the member for Port Darwin, the Leader of Government Business, that they were not happy with the decision you took to uphold the integrity of this House. You did that by taking on the serious issue of government use of taxpayer funds to misrepresent what happened in this Chamber at the last sittings. It shows how dearly the member for Goyder holds the integrity of this House that she was brave enough to do that.
The issues the Leader of Government Business led in the suspension of standing orders from the House of Representatives reference were impartiality and to be seen as unbiased on party issues. At any sittings the member for Goyder has been just that. I say that because I have felt the brunt of the member for Goyder’s displeasure by being tossed out of the Chamber. I have felt the brunt of the member for Goyder as Speaker threatening to take me to privileges. I had to apologise over a media release. I cannot count the number of times the CLP, in opposition, issued media releases against the former Speaker, the former member for Nightcliff, but she was a stickler.
Our Speaker does the job as required: impartially. She continues to do that as an Independent, and the feedback I get from the public is, ‘We are so glad there is an Independent Speaker’. They see the bullish, arrogant and over the top behaviour of the government, know the numbers are precarious and want and like to think there is fair debate. Yes, we are guillotined from time to time by the Leader of Government Business; he uses the blunt guillotine to gag motions. When he is not exercising that, people get to debate things and the Speaker keeps the order of the House.
The Speaker, so many times, refrains from voting on matters when she has the opportunity to. On rare occasions she leaves the Chair to talk about matters she is passionate about, particularly rural planning. That is fair enough because she also has to represent her constituents.
Impartiality has been a hallmark of the years the member for Goyder has been the Speaker. It is evident she is unbiased on party issues by the fact she is now an Independent. She will always have her conservative leanings and her deep and valued friendships within the CLP, and that is natural. However, being unbiased on party issues is what you can achieve as an Independent.
A blunt and brutal guillotining and execution of the Speaker tonight would be one of your greatest follies, Chief Minister. The disingenuous speech from the Leader of Government Business pretended it was purely coincidental that the Speaker’s tweets and Facebook posts are proof she is not impartial.
That is unbelievable. Territorians will not be fooled by this brutal execution of the Independent Speaker by the CLP. They will not be fooled by any attempt you make to install one of your own into the Speaker’s Chair. Maybe there is an outside chance – a deal done with the Independent member for Arnhem. I have my money on the member for Blain, who is very ambitious. He has been an agitator against the Chief Minister in regard to numbers. This will be one way to stop that agitation.
People will not be fooled. They will see this for what it is: a vengeful retribution against the member for Goyder for standing up for the values we hold dear in regard to honesty. The advertisement, Chief Minister, was a bald-faced lie.
The Committee of Privileges would have to consider that. It is a motion to consider it, and you have the numbers on the Committee of Privileges. You could have dealt with it or, as you showed this morning with the numbers, adjourned it. You could have debated it and used your numbers to stop any referral to privileges, but you are not that smart. Instead, you chose to do something as ridiculous as this blunt and brutal action tonight. If you were smart, Chief Minister, you would have cooled your heels. You would have slept on it. Someone with some wisdom, hopefully somewhere in the halls of government, would have said, ‘Don’t be foolish. Don’t take on the member for Goyder. She is already popular because she is seen, believed and understood to be independent, fair and generous.’
Look at the number of people who engage with parliament as a result of the Speaker reaching out to the community. That is a good thing. People enjoy it; they feel welcome. The delegation from Niue felt welcome. She is very Territorian in her approach. She is friendly, not full of airs and graces, but nobody’s puppet. She is impartial. Will you install a puppet and make yourselves seem like bigger clowns than you are already perceived to be.
Cool your heels and sleep on it. Understand that you will not always agree with the Speaker. The Speaker will not always agree with you, just as with members of the opposition and the cross benches. That is what impartiality is, and the member for Goyder displays that constantly.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, the midnight bulldozer rumbles again! This is another midnight coup in Territory politics. We are already the laughing stock of the nation and you just added to that by wanting to sack an Independent, fair Speaker. Why sack her? Is it because you do not like being called out? You do not like accountability.
The Attorney-General said a few tweets and some Facebook posts were the reason to remove a fair, Independent Speaker. If it was not so serious it would be a good comedy. This is an outrageous attack on a Speaker who is fair and Independent.
Labor supported the member for Goyder becoming Speaker when she was part of your team. I can speak about her fairness because I was the first person kicked out of this Assembly, and not just once. That is okay because it is a House of passionate debate. I accepted it was nothing personal and that she had a role to uphold. Decorum in this Chamber is something those opposite have no idea about. You are the unelected Chief Minister who hung on after a midnight coup by refusing to resign and now, in the true style of the Giles government, there is another coup late at night to roll an Independent, fair Speaker. Maybe the Speaker will do an Adam and refused to resign. We will wait to see. You do not like scrutiny or being called to account.
Labor does not support the suspension of standing orders. We believe the Speaker has done a good job. We do not always like her decisions but we respect them. She has ensured that the role of Speaker has been upheld. She has withheld from voting. I have said to her, ‘If you agree with that, Madam Speaker, why not vote?’ ‘Because I am in the Chair and it is not appropriate’. She understands the role, something those opposite do not.
You are attacking an Independent, fair Speaker who stood up for her community. You claim you have no agreement with the member for Arnhem, yet if you are so confident of the vote there must be more to it. Territorians will not believe you.
We do not support the removal of an Independent Speaker. We supported the member for Goyder when she was appointed to the role as a CLP member, and we continue to support her as an Independent member of parliament. She has been firm, fair and honourable in her decision-making. In August this year we looked at whether the parliament should have an Independent Speaker because we felt that Independent role has been a good thing.
This motion is appalling. The reason given that this morning you did not have notice is appalling. You put an ad in the paper which was a lie. All our names were on it. You used the government crest. Did you think about that when you placed the ad? No, and someone has to be called to account for that. The Speaker has respected us and you should respect her.
To suspend standing orders late at night is the gravest motion this parliament will see. It is an arrogant move from an arrogant government, and one you will not live down. If you had any hope of regaining the trust of the community you have lost it after this. The member for Goyder is one of the most popular Independent members. People respect her because she says what she believes and represents her community fairly. She has a dual role in this parliament as the Speaker and as the member for Goyder, and she has done both well.
Your arrogant government was clearly not thinking. This is another thought bubble, to put it politely. Every one of you, before you agree to this motion, should think about it because this will reflect on you in your electorates. You might laugh, but it will reflect at the election next year. We do not support the suspension of standing orders.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I urge members to support the suspension of standing orders so we can get to the debate.
The reality is this Speaker has not been independent for a long time. The points the Attorney-General made were extraordinarily well put and discussed. I have been somewhat disgusted by the actions of the Speaker over recent months. The Speaker has appeared on television saying I am a disgrace. I have nowhere to go with that and cannot respond. I am dragged into parliament and there is a motion, but if you reflect on the Chair you are dragged into privileges and asked to explain. You feel defenceless against a bully when the Speaker is on the television publicly naming and shaming you. There is no way this Speaker can be considered independent.
The fact is 13 people blocked the ice legislation ...
Ms Moss: The urgency motion.
Mr TOLLNER: There was a reason for it to be passed on urgency and that was explained. Every mother and father with a kid addicted to ice, or every policeman dealing with people affected by ice, has to do it on a daily basis. It might not matter to people opposite, who only care about what is in the newspaper. The first item of business today was debate on the ice motion. When did we get to it? At 8 pm, after all the business the other side and the Independents consider important. There is no care for the mothers and fathers of ice-addicted kids or the police who have to deal with it …
Mr Wood: Rubbish. You are so arrogant.
Mr TOLLNER: The member for Nelson says it is all rubbish. If there is no committee involved and we do not spend tens of thousands of dollars on public consultations, he is not happy. Nothing can happen unless we form a committee. That is not the way government works, member for Nelson. At times you have to do things on urgency, and 13 people stopped that.
It was right for them to be named in the media. The government had the right to let all the mums, dads, police officers, medics and people involved in this know who stopped the legislation coming into force more than a month ago.
Today we have stunts from the members for Nelson and Goyder, trying to suspending standing orders so we could debate a censure motion on the government for an ad.
You talk about petty things! For an ad? A couple of months ago we had to suspend standing orders so you got notices of statements 24 hours in advance. The Attorney-General, the chief law officer of the Northern Territory, did not know about a possible privileges motion when he walked into parliament. You are screaming blue murder now, after suspending standing orders several months ago so you could get a statement 24 hours in advance. The reason you do not get statements is you cannot be trusted with them.
It is disgraceful. All you try to do in this House is create chaos. Ever since there has been a minority government, the opposition and the Independents have gone out of their way to create chaos.
You wonder why we laugh at the PAC. The member for Araluen suspended standing orders in the middle of the night to appoint the PAC. She received a $25 000 pay rise and no one batted an eyelid. Do you think that is appropriate? This was supported by our Independent Speaker? You have to be joking.
It is all about creating chaos and, as Speaker, your job is to maintain the integrity of this House, not create chaos. When a Speaker is actively involved in creating chaos you have serious problems. Territorians want stability in their parliament and government. They do not want a bunch of Independents and a riffraff Labor Party backed by a dodgy Speaker creating chaos.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, withdraw that comment.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw.
The idea of creating chaos in this House is obscene, but the Independents seem to think that is the way to go. The way to bring the government down is to create as much chaos as possible. This is supported and endorsed by the Speaker, who is leading the charge. Any one of those 13 people mentioned in the ad could have moved to suspend standing orders, but the Speaker did and there was no debate.
The Leader of Government Business should have been heard when he said, ‘A point of order, Madam Speaker! We are opposed to this.’ No, we did not debate that. No, we went straight into it. It is appalling behaviour from someone who is supposed to be above all that.
This Speaker has brought disrepute to this parliament. It has been shameful to see the conduct of this Speaker over the last few months. This did not just occur today; this is a culmination of events. This morning was the ultimate disgrace. This Speaker set aside standing orders, marched to a chair and put the member for Karama in the job when we have a duly elected Deputy Speaker. Again, you see the orchestration of chaos. The member for Karama is not even on the Speaker’s panel ...
Ms Lawrie: Yes, I am.
Mr TOLLNER: Since when?
Mrs Lambley: This morning.
Mr TOLLNER: Again, it is orchestrated chaos. It is a big call to remove a Speaker. You have to be pretty bad for the call to be made. The fact we have the riffraff on the other side, the muddling mob of Independents who are largely not independent and only interested in creating chaos in the House, is a disgrace. The Speaker should be above that, but in this case she has gone into the mud with all the grubby people who want to create chaos in the House, and she led the charge this morning. That is appalling behaviour.
The member for Nelson has a certain affection for the member for Goyder, and good on him. That is great. We all have at some stage. However, over the last few months I have been the target of the Speaker’s wrath ...
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: I am not complaining, but it is time to go.
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: It is not revenge. It is a love for the institution of the parliament.
Mr Wood: You are a little boy.
Mr TOLLNER: I could not give a stuff what people call me. I have been called names before and it does not bother me. When it comes from the Speaker in such a public way and I have no right of response, it is appalling, and the Speaker has stepped way beyond anything that can be considered independent.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I do not support the suspension of standing orders. This is an outrageous move by a desperate government. It is unwarranted and unprecedented to remove the Speaker from office on the whim of a motion that the Speaker, as the member of Goyder, moved in this House this morning on very valid grounds.
I have known Kezia Purick for close to 20 years. She ran the Minerals Council of Australia Northern Territory Division, and I worked in the mining sector. Whilst we did not have a close association during those years, when I worked in the minerals sector I had a lot of time for Kezia Purick. She knew her business, knew the Northern Territory and she knew her job.
When she and I were sworn in on the same day in 2008 I was pleased to see her. It signalled the chance you have in the Northern Territory, a chance people in other parts of Australia do not get. As Deputy Leader of the Opposition I have watched the member for Goyder and listened to her participate in debates, and, importantly, observed how she operates not only as a member of parliament but as a member representing her constituency.
Given the many years the member for Goyder has lived in the Northern Territory, she has a big reputation and a big following because of her integrity, her genuine interest in people and her capacity to fight for people and do the right thing. These qualities have made her a very good Speaker of this parliament, given she was dumped from the role of Deputy Chief Minister by the CLP and handed the role of Speaker. She has done the job extremely well.
I have been on the receiving end of Madam Speaker’s wrath. I have been asked to leave the Chamber once or twice, and asked to pipe down during debates. She is a rational, clear-headed person. She is not biased. She is entitled to her opinion and views, but she has undertaken her duties as Speaker of this House with dignity and diligence. Let us be honest, the only reason you want her out is that you are a desperate government desperately clinging to power.
You will go to any lengths to remain in power. We know nine government members, in a midnight coup in February, did not support the member for Braitling remaining as the Chief Minister, but somehow he is still there. What does the member for Braitling hold over you? How is it that even though he is so unpopular, not elected and flanked either side by the two men who led the midnight coup in February, he is still there? Somehow he is clinging on. Is it that to remain in that seat and hold on illegitimately to the title of Chief Minister he has to get rid of the Speaker? It is unprecedented in the history of this parliament.
Tomorrow our parliament will be in the national headlines once again. We will be a laughing stock. People will wonder about this – as described in The Age recently – exotic breed of Liberals in the Northern Territory known as the CLP. It is disgraceful. I do not believe every one of you supports this. I do not believe the member for Katherine, representing a rural constituency, has his heart in this. He knows his election prospects are damaged by unceremoniously tossing out the Speaker. I do not believe the member for Daly supports this, and we know he will reconsider his position at Christmas. I do not believe the member for Brennan supports this. I believe he has more decency than many on that side. I do not believe the quiet member for Arafura genuinely believes this is a good thing. He probably feels uncomfortable. You all seriously underestimate the backlash come the next election, the next edition of the Northern Territory News and the next bulletin on the ABC.
One of the best litmus tests in the Northern Territory as to how you are travelling is what Col Wicking puts in the Northern Territory News. I believe one of his cartoons in the next day or so will show a big bloke with a fag hanging out of his mouth and a big chair with a little man sitting in it. There will be some commentary around the boys club picking on yet another woman. Somehow, magically, the member for Braitling, unelected, unpopular – nine out of 14 did not support him – is still there. What hold does he have over you? I was gagged from talking about this during the last bill but we have been talking openly about it now.
This is what it comes down to. My name is on here as well. I did not block laws; we did not block laws. We exercised our democratic right to be informed about debate.
You have taken out taxpayer funds, member for Fong Lim. As Treasurer you should be ashamed. You put the government crest on, and spent taxpayer funds on, and advertisement in Northern Territory newspapers saying these people, including the Speaker, blocked the laws.
You have no reputation, member for Fong Lim, which is why you are not running in your seat. You are fighting with the member for Drysdale for pre-selection for Spillett. You know you are on the nose. You are all on the nose. Be it on your heads, this motion. I support the member for Goyder remaining as Speaker. She has done an excellent job. I wait with great interest to see who on your side is rewarded and put in the seat.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I do not support the suspension of standing orders. What is happening now is a bloody disgrace. I was fortunate enough to have dinner with Madam Speaker. The Minister for Business, the member for Sanderson, gave Madam Speaker a very affectionate kiss and cuddle. We were having dinner with the delegation from Niue, and now I know it was the kiss of death. Seriously, member for Sanderson, how can you support this?
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing order 62. That is offensive. I have a good relationship with you and it goes above what happens in the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Johnston, please withdraw those comments.
Mr Styles: You are a disgrace.
Mr VOWLES: I withdraw.
I find that comment offensive but I am big enough to take it on the chin. It does not affect me that much.
We know what happened this morning with the member for Goyder’s motion. We differentiate the roles she plays. This is about how she stole the thunder from the massive gas pipeline announcement.
For two or three weeks we have been hearing rumours about the member for Arnhem going back to the CLP or supporting the CLP in this House. We saw that today. We know the headlines are about what happened this morning and the member for Arnhem supporting the government. We know there is a deal. It will be announced and the deal will come out in the open. This morning took away your credibility and announcement of the gas pipeline. That was the worst kept secret we have heard about.
We thought bringing Larisa back, either supporting you or joining you in the next few weeks, was the nail in your coffin. The public will destroy you because you are showing you want power at any cost. Whatever it takes you want the majority back. You want to ram through legislation and do whatever you want in parliament. What do you need to do? You need another member so you work on the weakest link. ‘Let us get the member for Arnhem. Let us visit her, do things and get her back on board. We can do whatever we want.’ That is what happened.
During the lunch break I opened the NT News. Hello, on page nine it said, ‘CLP – Houston, we have a problem’. There was a negative 56 rating for the Chief Minister. The member for Fong Lim had a lower rating than Paul Keating at his worst. I am sure the member for Fong Lim wears that as a badge of honour. He is taking the hit.
The Leader of the Opposition has a positive rating because people trust him. They do not trust the Chief Minister, the member for Fong Lim or this government. We have polling. Your gas announcement was wiped out, you have the member for Arnhem back, and you have a page nine story saying you will be destroyed at the next election if something does not change. Eleven hours later we are committing this disgraceful act in parliament. We are sealing our fate. The public, because of this government, thinks we are idiots, are in this game for ourselves, do not think of anybody else and are all a joke. This – everybody in this room knows it – proves it. There have been some lows in this Chamber, but this is the lowest of my three years as a member. This is the lowest of the low.
I have been tough on the Speaker and she has kicked me out a few times. Once she kicked me out and I did not even say anything. I took it on the chin. I might have mumbled a few things under my breath but I went out the door and said, ‘She’ll kick me out for an hour. I will come back in an hour and I’ll learn a bit more. I will suck it up but I’m coming out here.’
When the Speaker says something you believe it. We supported the Speaker when she said she would become an Independent – ‘I want to be the Independent Speaker’. It is a monumental thing to go to both sides of politics for approval to be an Independent Speaker. It shows the respect we all have for her in that role.
Tonight the member for Port Darwin said there were a few tweets. His ego was hurt a bit by it. She was tweeting and Facebooking – this is the modern world. We live in a technology era. These things happen.
The member for Port Darwin, the Minister for Health, wanted to slap the member for Nightcliff. He had prisoners escaping. We had the Palmerston hole that is not a hole that is now – I do not know what it is – ripping $39m off the federal government for a payment because works had to start on the facility.
I go back to Peter Styles, the member for Sanderson, at dinner tonight. I find it unbelievable that people can look someone in the eye, have a conversation, then 45 minutes later vote against somebody they said they respected, said is a good person and does a good job as Speaker. You want to get rid of her because she does not fall in line with you and because you have had a few issues today, and over the past few months, with her not supporting you.
Has anybody on that side been kicked out of the Chamber? There would not be too many.
Mr McCarthy: None.
Mr VOWLES: No one on that side of the House has been kicked out, and we have robust debates. I find it hard to believe that, all of a sudden, the member for Goyder’s position of Speaker is untenable. I struggle with that. It is a disgrace for all of us. You will not come back from this with the public. Having the member for Arnhem support you is a terrible look for politics. Whoever thought of that strategy seriously needs to get another job because you have sealed your fate. Now we are doing this. You are about to remove probably the most popular member in the public’s eye – I say that with a slightly hurt ego – and put someone in who will tick and flick anything you want. That is a disgrace for democracy and for this House.
On that side of the House there is a big morality problem. The member for Katherine has done more for relationships with Vietnam than anyone previously. The relationship in Katherine has become a bit dodgy, and with you supporting this, member for Katherine, you are seriously jeopardising any opportunity you have of being re-elected. I know you support the member for Goyder. I know the minister for Sport, the member for Daly, is a great supporter of the member for Goyder, and I struggle to believe he supports this motion.
I am a little nervous about numbers on your side of the House. I am sure you will let the member for Arnhem out of the office to vote. She is probably locked in Adam’s office waiting to come down for the vote.
We need to seriously look at ourselves and ask what we were elected to do, who we represent and what we are trying to achieve. My wife just finished studying psychology, and if you look up the meaning of narcissist – a lot of people on that side of the Chamber tick all the boxes for a narcissist.
What we are doing here is a disgrace, and it is disgraceful that this parliament has sunk so low. The realms of reality have melded into one. Just like the member for Port Darwin’s goatee, this needs to stop and needs to go. That is not Madam Speaker, the goatee needs to go, member for Port Darwin.
Let us do the right thing and not remove Madam Speaker, the member for Goyder. We should support an Independent Speaker, not someone who will tick the boxes for whatever you want. You are the government, so lead. Be the government you are supposed to be and do the right thing for Territorians. This is not the right thing for Territorians.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I do not support the suspension of standing orders that would allow a dastardly, low and dishonest motion to be debated in this House.
I fess up straightaway that I am a techno dinosaur. I am more comfortable on a high-frequency radio but I made two tweets tonight. The first one said, ‘CLP moved to remove the NT Legislative Assembly Speaker and replace. Bad day at the office for government with usual CLP tantrums. Grow up.’
When the member for Fong Lim was on his feet I tweeted, ‘Tollner pleads aggrieved by NT Speaker. Big fella takes a dive. Get up, Treasurer, and run the ball.’
My wife has just texted me to say, ‘Get on your feet and defend Kezia’. I have joined the technological age, Madam Speaker, and I pick up on that lead because it is a technological age. I thank the member for Fong Lim because he, by default, allowed me to benefit from the Dave Tollner school of media: any media is good media. The ice poster with my name at the top which got all the television coverage created a perfect platform for me to discuss with my constituents exactly what it was about. Thank you, member for Fong Lim, because it was great media for me. It was an opportunity to have an honest, open and accountable conversation about what took place when the government used taxpayer funds in a punitive sleight-of-hand attempt to discredit members of parliament.
I go further to prosecute a budget process and an entry in the CLP government budget books where $35m was transferred to the Chief Minister’s department. That became the Chief Minister’s new fund. We said then and see now it provided a lucrative opportunity to run this type of tactic. It was about the advertising. We have seen saturation advertising on television, in newsprint, on radio and in social media. Then we had the low depths of the ice campaign, with the ad in the Northern Territory News almost immediately – like spoilt brats. They were not able to cope with an honest debate or an open and accountable opposition in the House of the people so they put a cheap ad in the newspaper, and it has completely backfired. That has been brought back into this House to hold the government to account. Fair cop. Anybody would fess up and accept responsibility for that motion to be debated.
No, we have seen a twist and turn. We have seen a very bad day at the office, an incredible tantrum, and an unprecedented move in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly to remove the Speaker. The government is failing and the Leader of Government Business, who had the most integrity of the CLP outfit, has really dropped the ball.
We have seen a litany of failures over a number of weeks now. I can understand the stress and psychological pressure the member for Port Darwin has been under. He is a heavy hitter, a hard worker, and an intelligent human being who has had one litany of failures after another. The member for Port Darwin would have an ego to match his intellect. It must be hurting and be seriously impacting on his ability to make clear and decisive judgments. In the House tonight we see the result of his poor judgment.
I am disappointed personally because, as I have said many times, I learn lessons from everybody. I learnt lessons from the member for Port Darwin in opposition, and I learnt lessons from him in government. This is a disgrace. I believe the pressure is too much and he needs to seek help, because this decision is not typical of the member for Port Darwin, I know. This is desperation politics.
However, it fits a pattern. There has been a litany of failures across a number of portfolios over an extended period of time, some serious hammering in the media, no support from colleagues because they are a divided bunch and, consequently, poor decision-making and the search for a scapegoat. His scapegoat is a respected Territorian not only because of her family and position in the Territory, but also as the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly.
The other thing that concerns me about the member for Port Darwin bringing this motion to the House today is we heard extensive debate about the sacking of Ken Middlebrook, the Commissioner for Correctional Services. That, to me, was an example of the minister not taking responsibility. He looked for a scapegoat. He was quite happy to sidestep that responsibility and allow a public servant to take the fall – the end of a career in the Northern Territory which does not fit the character I came to know.
Again, I believe this is stress. There is something seriously wrong here. The debate used me as the scapegoat and desperately clutched at any semantics possible to paint everybody else as the perpetrator, and the minister, the member for Port Darwin, as the victim. While listening I was thinking, ‘I had the privilege of working with Commissioner Middlebrook for four years’. The member for Port Darwin had the privilege of working with Ken Middlebrook, the Commissioner for Corrections, for just over three years. The minister has had 36 escapes, an incredible litany of failures trying to deal with complex juveniles in the Northern Territory, and a major media disaster pouring concrete and wasting $27 000 worth of taxpayers’ money. It has been one disaster after another but it fits the pattern of just blame somebody, get somebody else to take the fall and we will move on.
There seems to be a common agenda amongst members opposite that if we sack our Speaker we will replace her with somebody who will allow an easier flow within the parliament. I do not think there will be trust in this decision.
The member for Johnston mentioned today’s Northern Territory News. It seems to be another coincidence that some serious polling suggests you guys are on your way out no matter how much of that $35m you invest in advertising across the community. No matter how many economic projects you add to your signature, no matter what you say or do, it seems nobody believes the CLP, nobody trusts the CLP, and for a government that is a very serious position to be in.
It is ironic that you woke up to that news story today and tonight you want to sack the Speaker. It seems the victim blame mentality has intoxicated all of you. This is not the solution. It is completely out of order, and we should show respect for our Speaker and thrash it out across the House. We should be strong and have the courage of our convictions to thrash it out. If there is a motion before the House to refer a matter to privileges, let us debate it.
It was pushed today but is still on the Notice Paper. We suddenly see a radical move to sack the Speaker, the member for Goyder, who brought the motion to the House.
It is interesting when you live and work in an electorate which set up the first work camp in a new era of corrections. I celebrate lots of the initiatives of the Barkly Work Camp, and it is great to keep a close relationship with the staff and inmates at the Barkly Work Camp. I sincerely say that the prisoners at the Barkly Work Camp saved our football league. We could not get umpires or administrative staff and were slowly running out of generous and diligent volunteers in the community. The prisoners were training and started to take over the duties. They saved our league so all our players and their kids could participate in the sport they love, administered by the Barkly Work Camp, and others now, but they saved it.
I wondered tonight, when listening to this motion, how it would be if I suddenly took offence to the Barkly Work Camp and their umpiring of the Barkly AFL and wanted to sack them. I could say, ‘No that’s not good enough, you tweeted something about me’. I could say, ‘You didn’t support my team’. I could also say, ‘My team seems to be disadvantaged by your administration so I will sack you’. How would that stand in the community? On the opposition benches we have a similar position, questioning whether government will gain any credibility in the community from this decision. You have to ask if you will get the desired outcome. Will it increase your polling? Will it increase your parliamentary performance? Is it better to take it on the chin and work through it like Territorians?
It seems to be in your hands until there is a division. Members on this side of the House have questioned whether you really have this together because there are some serious concerns about your teamwork and collegiality. Tonight there has been mention of a dysfunctional government and a litany of failures. You will be judged by this motion and, at the end of the day, no matter which way it goes the people of the Northern Territory will decide, and the people are always right.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, I do not support a suspension of standing orders. It is past midnight on another extraordinary day in the Northern Territory parliament. It is shameful that we have come to this. The position of the member for Goyder, a firm but fair Speaker, has been challenged.
The government has had some challenging moments with numbers recently. This morning it appeared it had managed to gain a number and can win on the floor. The government’s true colours are again coming through loud and clear, and we can see that through the extraordinary actions this evening.
The reason people have such strong views about this government is because of its actions. It has been consistent over three years. People have seen an arrogant, ruthless, menacing government. They have seen a bullying and vengeful government. Today we see another example of that.
I listened to the member for Fong Lim. Two government members have spoken to this motion to suspend standing orders. I am curious to see if more government members will speak to this very serious motion before the House.
I do not believe all government members believe this is the right move. Many people in the government, advising the government, have grossly underestimated the consequences of this. They have grossly underestimated the value Territorians place on the Speaker and the respect they have for the member for Goyder. She is extremely well respected in the community because she talks the talk and walks the walk.
She has been firm and fair as a Speaker, and today she had the guts to stand for something she felt was grossly wrong and moved a serious motion about a government action that was completely out of line. That action was running the now infamous ice ad, an ad that crossed the line of decency and what Territorians expect from us as members of parliament. It crosses the line of appropriateness when a politically charged and misleading ad is run by government at taxpayers’ expense. That is unacceptable, and I have received a lot of feedback about it, as have other members. People can see the need for the government to be scrutinised over that ad because it was way out of line.
It is the midnight hour and the government is trying to remove the member for Goyder as Speaker because some serious questions have been asked about its answers. Again, it is taking vengeful and arrogant action that will not go down well with Territorians. This will backfire on you badly. You already have huge trust issues across the Territory. People have seen nothing but self-inflicted chaos from this government over the last three-and-a-half years. What you are doing tonight will not improve the situation or help regain ground in the trust stakes. You will lose a lot of ground. You have grossly underestimated what you are doing tonight.
In the midnight hour we have spoken about Twitter. I have a tweet, #Remember the dream team. It is a picture of the members for Katherine and Port Darwin in the Elsey Room after the midnight coup. If they had managed to pull that off I wonder how different this year would have been. Where would the CLP sit with Territorians now? How would this year have been for the Territory? What more could we have achieved? We would have seen a different style of leadership and would not be in the position we are now, with this arrogant and vengeful government trying to overthrow a firm, fair and Independent Speaker.
This is a shameful act. I cannot believe we are going through more extraordinary times. I do not believe the rest of my political career will be as bizarre or interesting, but also as shameful, as the last three years. It is a silly move by the government and you have grossly underestimated it. Let us see who else votes to suspend standing orders and remove the Speaker.
This is not a good move. You will lose even more ground and, my goodness, you have a lot of ground to make up so think carefully. It will not reflect well on this parliament.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, you have always been a friend. I was very disappointed when you left the CLP and I have no qualms in saying that. I do not think you and I have ever had words, but I am happy to be corrected.
Tonight we are talking about a suspension of standing orders to remove the Speaker. I would not like to see that happen because I would love to see the member for Goyder remain as Speaker of the Northern Territory parliament. However, what has happened in this parliament over a number of months has seen public confidence in the parliamentary process eroded.
The member for Fong Lim spoke about elements of chaos in parliament. This continues to make the parliament a laughing stock. That is not the government, but parliament. That is a significant challenge.
Some people in the Chamber talk about the ad, ice and so forth. This suspension of standing orders has nothing to do with that.
A perfect example of how parliament has disintegrated to unprofessional levels was highlighted in this debate when the member for Johnston made derogatory remarks about the member for Katherine and Vietnam. Funny it may be, and the members for Casuarina, Wanguri and Fannie Bay laughed at it.
Mr Vowles: You did it to me on ABC radio. You accused me and it was proven not to be true.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Johnston.
Mr GILES: It was allowed to go uncorrected in this Chamber and it is not fair and reasonable to make personal attacks across the Chamber. Attacks of a personal nature about partners or otherwise should not be made. It is not the first time it has been done in this Chamber. I have been subjected to it and it goes untested ...
Mr Vowles: Proven you lied on it.
Mr GILES: And again, Madam Speaker.
My preference is for the member for Goyder to be Speaker. This motion is about how we improve the quality of parliament in the Northern Territory. How do we ensure it is not about chaos but about process and procedure, it contains robust debate, and we continue to deliver on the principles of democracy? Yes, some small examples have been cited of the Speaker talking on social media, the Speaker doing this and the Speaker doing that. I believe the Speaker should be independent and should not hold an opinion. I know as the local member you speak as the local member ...
Ms Fyles: A guaranteed independent member.
Mr GILES: I gave you the privilege of being quiet when you spoke, member for Nightcliff.
I believe that any local member has an obligation and an opportunity to represent the views, interests and concerns of their constituents. However, when you take a different position, whether as a minister, a Deputy Chief Minister, Leader of Government Business or Speaker, you take on added responsibilities and you need to rise above many of the issues that present themselves.
At the start of today I thought, ‘Here we go again, more chaos.’ Despite the members opposite trying to pinpoint individuals on this side, everybody here has had a gut full. They were all annoyed about it. You are pinpointing the wrong people – those you thought might have had more of a gut full than others. People had just had a gut full. Every time we come to parliament it is, ‘Let’s run as much muckraking and chaos as we can. We will not hold government to account. Let’s not debate tough issues or advance issues for Territorians.’ This has been an issue in the Chamber for months and I have wished, hoped and prayed that the Speaker would stamp her authority on improving performance in the Chamber, but that has not occurred.
This morning the Speaker sought to make a ruling on her own motion. From an independent point of view that is unheard of. It is like a football umpire playing for the other side during the game. The orchestration of the game – ‘I have sent you a letter’. I have just been told my letter is in this envelope on my desk. I had no idea it was there. It arrived at 9.50 am. The Deputy Speaker, who is elected by this parliament, did not sit in the Chair; it was the member for Karama, and the member for Port Darwin was not allowed a point of order.
I know it sounds trivial but this is the culmination of many things. We need to improve, collectively, the performance in this Chamber. For the Speaker to make a judgment ruling on her own motion then step aside goes beyond the pale. While everyone on this side was saying behind the scenes, ‘Let’s get rid of the Speaker today’, it challenged me because I want the member for Goyder to remain as Speaker. However, there were certain challenges I faced today.
There are many examples of the member for Goyder publicly speaking on a range of things, and I believe she has gone beyond the Speaker’s role in some of her commentary. Yes, there were Facebook comments and Tweets, but tonight on the ABC news I saw the Speaker of the Northern Territory parliament asking what cash had been given to the member for Arnhem to get her to vote with the CLP. Those comments are not becoming of a Speaker or of a Chief Minister. How can the Speaker make those comments? This is not personal. I have always liked and respected the member for Goyder, but how can a person in that position make that comment? To me that is too hard?
Ms Fyles: How can someone in your position refuse to resign?
Mr GILES: Member for Nightcliff, you are bringing the debate up again. You are really improving the level of debate.
We started today with chaos on the floor of parliament – no control, no respect for process, no respect for standing orders and the history of democracy through the Westminster system. We then went straight to the PAC stuff. We were not debating the first order of business, which was legislation about the misuse of drugs and trying to get ice off our streets. In all electorates people are talking about that – parents and kids. They are not talking about the Speaker moving her own motion. They are not talking about the PAC. They are talking about ice in the community, and that is why we are here. That is the improvement in parliament I want to see. That is why I support this suspension of standing orders.
I went to the Speaker today twice – without breaching any conversation …
Madam SPEAKER: Once.
Mr GILES: I spoke to you at the Chair the second time, Madam Speaker. I went to your office the first time and said, ‘Government members have lost confidence in you as Speaker. What can we do about it?’ I will not go into the rest of the conversation. I thought there was an opportunity to make some repairs. I mentioned it again as you sat in the Chair.
Changing a Speaker is an enormous thing and not a good thing; however, we must have a parliament that delivers confidence to the community. It must be strong, robust and independent. It has to be independent, and that is one of the challenges I face here. Although three members have spoken, everybody was disgusted this morning. We want to debate it. If you want to talk about the ice ads, let us talk about the ice ads. If you want to hold us to account, hold us to account, but we need a parliament that performs. That is incumbent on all 25 members of this Chamber, and for those who hold higher office their obligations and responsibilities are greater. You cannot ask who is receiving cash donations. Allegations of corruption are serious. Independence at that level of office must be maintained.
Labor does research; we do research. The biggest issue on anyone’s lips is instability in our parliament, yet we come into parliament and it is chaotic immediately. We know at the start of parliament Tuesday morning there will be chaos. By Thursday afternoon Labor and the Independents will be tired and it will be calm. Then at the next sittings it is the same thing. It is not about business; it is about how much chaos there is at the start and how quite it is at the end.
Every week is the same. The opposition gets all cock-a-hoop on the Monday before parliament and says, ‘Here we go’. The media asks how I am going. Am I stressed? We know what will happen. You will run some silly game at the start of parliament on Tuesday but by Thursday afternoon it will be calm. The wind will be out of your sails, you will go away and we will not hear anything until the next parliamentary sittings. You will spend all that time building up the next chaos plan. What can we do to erode confidence in the institution of parliament in the Northern Territory?
Earlier today the member for Nightcliff mentioned the number of people leaving the Northern Territory. We are losers in net migration every year and always have been. People also leave the Territory when they lose confidence. The more you talk the Territory down and show a destabilised level of governance, the more you erode the confidence of individuals and business. That is a challenge we all face.
We may have different philosophical ideas about how we want to see government run, policies run or programs, designed and that is fine. We all have differences of opinion.
This is one of the challenges. Be robust, but be mature. That is all we are asking for.
Madam Speaker, what you did this morning was outrageous and not becoming of a Speaker. What I saw on television tonight was highly offensive to any member of parliament. I support the suspension of standing orders.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I do not support the suspension of standing orders.
What I see tonight is the execution of another woman by the CLP government. It is plain and simple. This is not about process, not about what the Chief Minister said, not about the Speaker not adhering to the rules of parliament; this is about the government losing control of this parliament and seeing it as a necessity to execute the Speaker of the House, the member for Goyder.
Over the last 12 months this government has been obsessed with executing, alienating and exterminating. There are other examples of that which I will not go into.
The rhetoric I have just heard from three members of the government about standards of behaviour and adhering to process and protocol is the pot calling the kettle black. It is hypocritical and shallow. The only group in this parliament that Territorians do not have any confidence in is the government. Have you read the polling on page nine of yesterday’s NT News?
Mr Tollner: Labor polling.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Obviously not. It is not Labor polling, it was commissioned by the NT News and was not aligned to any political party. Even if it was attributed to a political party, member for Fong Lim – who continues to interrupt my speech after having a go at someone else for interrupting the Chief Minister’s speech – it still indicates, as have all the other polls over the last 18 months, that this government is in deep trouble. Why on earth would you go down this path? I do not understand why the government would try to execute the Speaker of this House tonight or any other night. It is insane. It is suicidal. Why are you doing it? It makes no sense at all. Have you not read the polls in yesterday’s paper? The previous five polls all indicate that your popularity is going down the drain, clear and simple.
Joe Bloggs sitting in Moil, Alice Springs or Tennant Creek can read and understand it. Obviously you cannot. Why are you doing it? The only reason that comes to mind is that you have lost control of this parliament. You are still a minority government. You have never come to terms with it and today, in the face of what the member for Goyder did in trying to uphold good process and protocol within this parliament, you could not stand it. You had a dummy spit. You have illustrated what can only be described as terrible judgment by doing something that is unprecedented in the history of the Northern Territory government. You want to throw out the Speaker because you cannot stand to not be in control of this parliament.
National notoriety is what we will have once again in the papers and on television tomorrow morning for being the most dysfunctional parliament in the Northern Territory. You can blame the opposition or the Independents, but you only have yourselves to blame. This dysfunctional government has executed several women now, not men, from the ranks of the CLP and cast them aside. Now you want to cast the Speaker aside because you cannot cope with a lack of control in this House. It is despicable and unheard of. What are you thinking?
It is a kamikaze act in the history of the Northern Territory parliament and of the Country Liberal Party of the Northern Territory. I can only imagine what party members are thinking if they happen to be awake at this time of the morning listening to these shenanigans. It is disgraceful. I cannot imagine what is going through your collective minds. Why have you come to this decision?
The Speaker of the House, the member for Goyder, your former colleague, has stood by you for the last seven or eight years, working alongside you, as have I in the past, and as have the members for Namatjira and Arnhem. Time and time again you illustrate to the people of the Northern Territory you are not willing to compromise or to play ball. You just want to exterminate people who get in your way or make you see a side of an argument or a perspective that does not appeal to you.
It is not how adults, good politicians or good representatives of Territorians conduct themselves. What you are trying to do in this House tonight is beyond the pale. I utterly reject it.
Ms ANDERSON (Namatjira): Madam Speaker, I want to make sure I put things on the public record. I do not support the suspension of standing orders. In general I want to talk about your family and you.
The government is making a huge mistake. The Purichs are an old Territory family and they have not just worked in the Northern Territory. Kezia’s sister has worked in Western Australia in the Ngaanyatjarra lands and Pitjantjatjara lands. She is a fluent Ngaanyatjarra speaker and Pitjantjatjara speaker. Aboriginal people across all that country respect this family. Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory respect the Purichs.
You will regret the decision to remove the Speaker, who has been a fair Speaker. Like everybody else in this House I was thrown out by the Speaker on one occasion, and we all take that. I thought this morning’s motion was the Speaker showing us the integrity of this House, teaching us right from wrong – you cannot break the rules. Her job is to make sure she outlines that for all of us as individuals, as members of parliament, and makes sure we act with integrity, respect this House and uphold the integrity of this parliament.
I do not believe anyone will like this news. I dare any one of you to walk down the streets of Darwin at lunchtime. We want to see that because there is more support for Kezia Purick across the Northern Territory than any of the 12 of you sitting on the other side. You will regret this decision.
Ms MOSS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I do not support the motion before the House to suspend standing orders.
Quite frankly, I am appalled. What an incredible first year I have had in parliament with the things I have seen. Thank you very much to those opposite for providing a real lesson in what not to do in government. Tonight the Chief Minister gave reasons for suspending standing orders. He spoke about not wanting to start every parliament in chaos, yet at 12.45 am we are debating this appalling motion to suspend standing orders to remove an Independent Speaker who is highly respected. Territorians, tomorrow morning, will be waking up to this news …
Mr Wood: This morning.
Ms MOSS: This morning. Thank you, Gerry. This morning Territorians will be waking to this news wondering what on earth happened overnight. You will be judged harshly for it. No matter what happens, whether this succeeds and we debate what the member for Port Darwin believes he can sell to Territorians about why we should remove the Speaker, you will be judged harshly for what has happened in the House tonight.
You will be judged because the member for Goyder is a highly-respected member of this parliament and a highly-respected Speaker. I have had the pleasure of watching Madam Speaker, and I acknowledge that she is sitting here tonight while we debate whether or not she should be removed as the Independent Speaker of the House, how difficult that must be, and how she is conducting herself in the manner she always does, with respect to every member of this House.
The Chief Minister talked about an erosion of public confidence and about chaos, things he knows very well. He also said this all started a few months ago which, as has been pointed out by other members of the House, was when we first had a minority government. The government was not interested then in showing respect for other members of parliament. The Chief Minister did not show any respect for the Independents or the opposition. The government has lost control of the House. The government does not like that and is looking for someone else to blame. Something has to change here and I do not believe it is the Speaker.
Of course the member for Goyder is passionate about issues on behalf of her constituents. That is the reason she is sitting in this House, just like every other person. She was elected by her constituents to represent them. She has a right to act for the true welfare of the people in her electorate, and she does that with grace and great passion. We have all witnessed the member for Goyder standing up for her constituents with great gusto.
She also conducts herself in the role of Speaker with fairness, integrity and grace. I have had the pleasure of watching the Speaker over the last week with the Commonwealth Youth Parliament – young people who were here for a week. We had a sister parliament in here today, and I can only imagine what they will be thinking when they see what has happened.
The Speaker represents the parliament and welcomes the community and our parliamentary colleagues from around the world. She is highly respected for that for good reason.
I want to point out the hypocrisy of the people moving this motion. Today we called for the resignation of the member for Port Darwin, a minister who has made a range of highly-inappropriate comments and actions over a long period of time, including, as the Minister for Disability Services, mocking a member of this parliament who has a hearing impairment and comments about senior Territorians with a terminal illness. There is a range of things we can point to. He is the Minister for Children and Families, the Minister for Disability Services and the Minister for Correctional Services, and members of this House debated his record today. We talked about the passion the member for Port Darwin has for his job and his achievements in the role. The Chief Minister showed his support for the member for Port Darwin. Yet we are here at 12.50 am debating removing the Independent Speaker of the House, who, as far as I can tell, has done nothing to deserve this treatment.
That is hypocrisy. This is a serious motion to put before the House. I would like to hear from more government members because we have only heard from three. The Chief Minister claims everyone on that side supports this motion, so perhaps we will hear from the member for Sanderson. Maybe the members for Daly or Blain, or others, can tell us why they believe we should suspend standing orders tonight.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, members have spent a lot of time tonight talking about independence. The issue I raised was impartiality not independence. I do not mind if Madam Speaker is a member of a political party or not, is an Independent or whatever. The issue is, and must always be, an impartial Speaker. A Speaker who constantly criticises members of this House, makes suggestions of impropriety and questions their motives, cannot sit in judgment of those members. The Speaker is the judge. This is the highest in the tradition of the Westminster system. This is the highest court in the land. How would members respond if a judge of the Supreme Court was tweeting or passing comments about the performance of witnesses in the witness box or lawyers at the bar table?
There would be outrage; people would be upset. What do we expect from our judges? Impartiality. We want impartial judgments passed upon us based on the issues before us. Members have said they have been thrown out by the Speaker. That is a reflection of their conduct and a matter for them and the Speaker.
You cannot assert yourself as an impartial judge because you are required to make judgments in the Speaker’s role time and time again. When I stand here knowing the Speaker has been making comments in the public domain, reflecting on me and my performance and whatever else, how can I have faith in the judgments being made? How can I have faith that the impartiality I look to the Speaker for exists when I know he or she is not showing impartiality? The Speaker is being quite partisan and that is the problem. It is not independence but impartiality. It is a clear and important distinction to make.
The Speaker must be beyond reproach and beyond the manoeuvring that happens on the floor of this House, yet this morning we saw exactly that sort of manoeuvring.
It was about getting involved in the game. A judge in the Supreme Court does not buy into the game. He sits back and gives directions where they are needed. Ultimately, the contest that occurs before the judge is the contest the judge then passes a judgment on. That is the role of the judge. That is the role of the Speaker. I cannot, nor can any member who is being criticised by the Speaker publicly, often unfairly, have confidence in the fact a judgment will be passed in accordance with the merits of the matter and not necessarily a reflection of some judgment made or premade before we came into this House.
That is the failing I am trying to address in the House today. The absence of impartiality is, unfortunately, highly pronounced. It is writ large in the House of Reps practice, and it is writ large in the implications of how this House should run. That is what I am, and I presume other members of the government are, contesting.
I do not wish to speak at great length as there are a number of items of business to get to, subject to this suspension being successful. I think we just get on with the business.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 13 Noes 12
Mr Barrett Ms Anderson
Mr Conlan Ms Fyles
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Mrs Lambley
Mrs Finocchiaro Ms Lawrie
Mr Giles Mr McCarthy
Mr Higgins Mr Manison
Mr Kurrupuwu Ms Moss
Ms Lee Ms Purick
Mrs Price Mr Vowles
Mr Styles Ms Walker
Mr Tollner Mr Wood
Mr Westra van Holthe
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker I move that:
1. the Speaker is removed from office by the Legislative Assembly in accordance with section 23(2)(d) of the Northern Territory (Self-Government Act) 1978 (Cth)
2. a new Speaker be elected pursuant to Standing Order 7.
I will not go through the whole argument again.
Ms Fyles: We are!
Ms Lawrie: It is important enough.
Mr ELFERINK: That is fine.
Madam Speaker, I explained my reasons in the motion to suspend standing orders.
It is a matter of impartiality and of being able to trust the call of the Speaker, a Speaker who rises in judgment above us all and is able to convince us that she or he is able to sit in judgment by virtue of the integrity of the position they hold. I do not have that confidence, sadly, because of the reasons I outlined earlier.
I have been careful to make sure the issue of impartiality is well understood by every member in this House because it is writ large in the history of our Westminster system. I took the time to read those lengthy quotes to demonstrate the importance of that impartiality. It is vital. There is a contract between the Speaker and every member of a parliament, and that contract is that we cannot and do not reflect on the Chair. I have always been extremely careful not to do so and have deferred to the judgment of the Speaker. When I felt slighted I had, on occasion, cause to press on. However, eventually I sat down because I deferred to the Chair, and outside this House equally so.
I have never attacked the Speaker publically because I have been very mindful of the contract that exists between me and the speakership, but like a contract it has to be a meeting of the minds. There has to be a quid pro quo, a something for something, consideration of contract, and the consideration which must pass from the Speaker as a contracting party is that when I do not reflect on her she should not reflect on me or any other person in this House.
It is for that reason that Speakers live in that rarefied atmosphere. If a Speaker conducted themself otherwise there would be a breach of that contract, and that is the problem here. If you, Madam Speaker, were interested in maintaining the terms of that contract, the advice in relation to what you planned to do this morning would have been given to me in the meeting I had with you yesterday afternoon. No such advice was received. The letter claimed you did not want a surprise tactic, but it was delivered in such a way there was no other option than to be interpreted as a surprise. That is not part of the contract. It means the member for Goyder, in the embodiment of the Speaker, has stepped down from the speakership and lowered herself into the Chamber. She can no longer sit in judgment because she is part of the political fight and has abandoned her impartiality in the process.
When I call a point of order and it is flatly ignored, do I feel that is an impartial judgment? No, I do not, because the Speaker has made any number of comments about me publicly and reflected upon my role as a member of this House.
The contract is breached, and one of the resolutions of a breach of contract is that the contract can be terminated. That is what this motion seeks to achieve.
Mr GUNNER (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, we have heard three very weak arguments from CLP members about your integrity in this role and the grounds for the decision to bring forward an outrageous unprecedented attack on the office of the Speaker. The CLP said you dared to use social media, you dared to do your job as a local member and somehow you are responsible for the chaos in the CLP government. That is a whole new level of delusion.
Madam Speaker, you have done your job to the best of your ability and in a manner we believe retains confidence that you uphold a considered and sensible approach to the office. The minister who moved this motion against you is, at the moment, guilty of gross incompetence in the carriage of his duties. He has been prosecuted in the House today, including a censure motion over prisoners who have escaped under his watch, specifically the last one, an axe-murdering rapist who has been roaming the streets of Nhulunbuy.
We also saw him fraudulently dig a hole and fill it in at the Palmerston hospital site, and a number of other contraventions of his duty as a minister. Today he dares to call into question your ability to do your job. That is an outrage. Territorians trust you, but they do not trust that mob. Their use-by date has well passed.
Territorians cannot wait to kick you out of office because you have failed your duty to them and today you are being arrogant bully boys again. Everything you are guilty of doing over the last three-and-a-half years – you come here at midnight and do it again.
As soon as you get the numbers you revert to your base instinct, which is being arrogant, bullying people and being vengeful. Territorians will not forgive this action. They will wake up in the morning to this news, and I doubt you will like their response. For the life of me I cannot understand why you are committing an act of gross political stupidity.
This attack on the Office of the Speaker diminishes the parliament. You have abused the trust of the people and are an embarrassment to the Northern Territory. You are making us more of a national disgrace, and I cannot understand how you can blame the Speaker for your gross incompetence as a government and the chaos on your side. Deciding to take an oval away from a school without consulting, and digging a hole and filling it in, are examples of gross incompetence by the CLP, yet Madam Speaker is somehow responsible for that and you want to execute her. It defies belief.
Madam Speaker retains the confidence of this side of the Chamber and we will be nominating her, if she will accept it, to remain as Speaker. She does a good job and should be the Speaker of this House. The question before this House is who should be Speaker. We believe the member for Goyder should be Speaker. She retains the confidence of this side of the Chamber and we believe she should stay in the Chair.
Madam Speaker, you have our vote of support.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, this new debate revolves around you being removed from office. I listened to the member for Port Darwin, and I often wonder if people go straight for the throat when they have a problem or if they look for a solution. Tonight we have gone for the throat.
Madam Speaker, you are not perfect, I am not perfect, no one is perfect. We all make mistakes and do things that are not quite right. If the government believed you were not doing your job properly, one member could have said to the Leader of the Opposition, ‘I have some issues with the Speaker. Could you and I have a meeting with the Speaker to discuss them?’ I do not know if that happened, but that is the first thing to do. It is like, ‘Shall we go to war? Before we do that, which could cause a lot of damage to ourselves, we might look for a peace treaty.’ We might say, ‘Let’s talk these issues through’.
If the members for Port Darwin and Fong Lim are finding it difficult to cope with things because of the Speaker – I have no doubt the Leader of the Opposition, being a member of this parliament too, may also have issues. I am sure they would be willing to meet with the Speaker, and perhaps the Clerk as a neutral observer, to discuss some of the issues. That way we could find a solution without going down this path tonight.
I ask the government to reconsider and look at another process to take it up – if they believe the issues are legitimate – with the Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition and the Clerk. Surely we do not have to go down this path to achieve a solution to issues you believe you have with the Speaker.
I accept what the member for Port Days says, but he raises the issue of impartiality. He raises other issues which may be fair enough, but a lot of what has been said tonight has occurred over a few months. The issue of today’s letter arose because the government also crossed the line of impartiality with the Speaker. The government placed this cowardly and untruthful advertisement in the paper which named the Speaker, and the government brought the Speaker into this Chamber by saying she blocked ice laws. We all know that is not true. What was blocked was an urgency motion.
The member for Fong Lim is scraping the bottom of the barrel when he says I have no concern for mothers and fathers affected by drugs because we asked the government not to rush this legislation through. After all, the government stuffed up. Is the government incompetent too? Who put two sittings of parliament close together? Who did that? Who designed the sittings so that the government did not have the 30 days it needed for legislation to be looked at and had to rush things through? That is the government’s fault. Should the government be censured for poor management? Should whoever designed this be sacked? No, we hope they do a better job next time.
These issues have not previously been raised in the parliament. I know people get the proverbial when they are kicked out, and some deserve to be kicked out, but this issue has not raised its head publicly before. I do not know if the Speaker has been spoken to in a formal manner by the government, through the Clerk if necessary, to discuss issues of concern.
No one has mentioned there being a reasonable approach to the Speaker about these issues. They have said, ‘We’ve had a few problems. Some of us have been unfairly dealt with by the Speaker. The Speaker has put things on Twitter.’ I reckon people who tweet are twits. Some issues may irk the government so why not discuss it with the right people outside this Chamber? No, we go straight for the jugular and say, ‘Goodbye, Madam Speaker. We will put our own version in place.’
I believe the general public respects the idea of an Independent Speaker. I believe you will be making a big mistake if you elect a member of your party to be Speaker. I have been around long enough to know where the bias will be, and it will not be on this side that is for sure.
I ask that we have a secret ballot for the vote. I will amend the motion ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Perhaps I can assist the member. My motion already refers to Standing Order 7. If it is a contested election it will be by way of secret ballot by virtue of that standing order.
Mr WOOD: I might need a ruling, Madam Speaker. We are not contesting a new Speaker ...
Madam SPEAKER: No, the motion is to remove the Speaker.
Mr WOOD: We are removing the Speaker. My advice from the Clerk is that we can have a ballot to see whether the Speaker should be removed. I am asking that a secret ballot be conducted for that.
I move that after the word ‘that’ in the motion we insert the words, ‘a secret ballot is conducted to determine whether the Speaker is removed from office’.
Speaking to that amendment, it is important to use a secret ballot. I was talking to people before about my experiences in Canada, where members, including the Speaker, the Chief Minister and ministers, are elected by the parliament through a secret ballot. It is a great way to do things. That means the parliament operates as a parliament, not a series of political parties. When there is an election for the Speaker, if there is more than one nomination there is also a ballot. Such a ballot is allowed in this parliament.
This is one of the most serious days in this parliament. We have had some serious debates on very serious issues. I remember the removal of abortion from the criminal act to the medical act, and regardless of people’s opinion on that we had a long night debating it. It was an excellent debate. We have had serious debates in this House.
This one is probably the most serious because it reflects on a person, their character and on the position of Speaker. I hope the government decides, before we take this ballot, that we will give the Speaker an opportunity to discuss this issue with both sides of parliament. In other words, let us withdraw this motion. That is what I would prefer. I know we do not have the numbers, so that would definitely be a move by the government.
This will have political ramifications for the government. Perhaps the government does not care. That is life in politics. That is not the reason to not proceed with this motion, but from a commonsense point of view we need to do this the right way, and this is not the right way.
Have you given the Speaker the opportunity to hear your views on problems with the way she operates as Speaker? Nobody is perfect. The Speaker has some idiosyncrasies other Speakers may not have. So what? If there is a problem with the way she operates, why not work through it? Why do we have to go down this path? Is this the one and only chance then you are dead? Do we discuss this with our Speaker as parliamentarians?
The member for Port Darwin spoke about the importance of our Speaker. I believe the Speaker is important enough to be given an opportunity to speak for herself. You, as members of parliament, you, as the government, should talk to the opposition and deal with this issue outside this parliament. Let us see where we go from there. This seems to be sudden death. ‘We made a decision in that room. We got upset.’ I do not believe there is chaos to the extent it is being used as an excuse here.
Yes, obviously this issue was dropped on people’s desks this morning. The reason the Public Accounts Committee put its motion forward was because members believed it had to be done while tenders were out for the development at Richardson Park. Also – it was proven in two votes today – we believed the government had won over the member for Arnhem and got her vote. If we did not bring this forward today – I have already heard that discussion – the government intended to wipe out the existing PAC.
We had no other option but to bring it forward today. That is what the so-called chaos was about. We believed the government was planning to make the present PAC defunct. That would have meant the PAC could not present its report. I do not know of any legislation – not urgency bills – that has not been passed by this parliament under a minority government. We have debated them. We have tried to bring the government into line to make sure the bills have had proper time to be discussed, but, as far as I can remember, no bills have been blocked by this side of the parliament.
There has been a lot of debate and that is normal. The great thing about a minority government is that some of us recognise we need to be mature, debate issues and recognise there is a government. The advantage is that the government has to work harder to show its legislation is worth supporting. Is that a bad thing? I do not think so. Does the government believe there is chaos? Yes, because things are not so easy. You cannot pass things when you feel like it; you have to work harder to get things through.
Are you blaming the Speaker for that chaos? That is an excuse for finding it a little more difficult to do your job now you are in a minority government. However, that is all irrelevant because I have no doubt you have won over the member for Arnhem. That has been proven tonight. Surely, if the member for Arnhem was not on your side she would have voted for the Speaker, but that has not happened.
Madam Speaker, I am not sure if this is the last time you will be in the Chair, but I hope not. I hope the government sees some sense. Regardless of your faults and what some on that side of parliament have said, I think you do a pretty good job. You control a mob which could sometimes be called rabble and sometimes is a rabble. You have a good understanding of the standing orders. When I was deputy I struggled with standing orders. You have your faults but are still a good friend of mine. I support you, and this is a despicable day in this House.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for his eminently sensible suggestion not to take the CLP sledgehammer approach to the parliament, to the Office of the Speaker, to our Speaker, who has been impartial and dealt with both sides of the Chamber in a tough but fair way when occasions have called for it. I thank the member for Nelson for suggesting that the Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition sit with the Clerk, that this motion is withdrawn, and issues either side of the Chamber might be aired in a respectful way.
I add, member for Nelson, that as father of the House and given the House has six Independents, you should be around that table too, but that would be for you to consider. As an Independent I respect your experience and wisdom at that table.
During the debate on the suspension of standing orders I heard a variety of contradictory reasons from members opposite for this despicable move to oust the Speaker. The first contribution from the Leader of Government Business was a denial that it was to do with the referral to privileges motion and that it was about Facebook and tweets. Then a contradiction came from the member for Fong Lim, who went straight to the chase, that it was the privileges referral; then he went into his personal grievances. We then heard from the Chief Minister that it was chaos in parliament. The man lives in a bubble of denial. The chaos in the politics of the Northern Territory – you cannot go past three Chief Ministers, more than 12 Cabinet reshuffles, members departing the CLP and a revolving door. During this Assembly we have witnessed the member for Arnhem go from the CLP to the Palmer United Party to Independent to some sort of arrangement to support the government.
The chaos has not been the doing of the member for Goyder. In fact, when the member for Goyder could no longer bear the chaos of the CLP and became an Independent, to the great disappointment of many Territorians she confirmed that she would support the government by not supporting a motion of no confidence. There was great hope in many people’s hearts who had been hanging out for an election to let Territorians have their say to end the chaos of the CLP when the member for Goyder announced her departure from the CLP, the fourth departure in a few years. It is unprecedented. By your own actions you have lost your own, not by the actions of the parliament or the Speaker.
The member for Goyder chose the honourable path for her former party, the CLP, and her former colleagues, who now sit in judgment of her without the decency of trying to work out whatever issues each of you has as a gripe or a dummy spit today. She chose the honourable path of maintaining a government in minority and trying to work with everyone, as many of us have witnessed over that time. When I was Leader of the Opposition she threw me out or threatened to take me to privileges, but that did not alter the fact I had a respectful working relationship with the member for Goyder. I would go to her on occasions and say, ‘As Leader of the Opposition, these are the issues I want to raise with you about what occurred in the Assembly today’, in a mature, respectful manner, because that is what you do.
Do not take the sledgehammer yet again. Do not get me wrong, it will give me a lot more ammunition to throw at you in my electorate, which is embracing the movement of Independents. They are over the behaviour of the major political parties ...
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: Little wonder when you hear the chortling and guffawing from the member for Fong Lim, who rates as the most unpopular politician in the Territory. Let us try to find someone else to blame, Dave.
You have an opportunity to remove the sledgehammer approach and take the diplomatic approach, as proposed by the member for Nelson. Be sensible. You would probably get credit from some corners if you did that. You also have an opportunity, if you continue with the sledgehammer, to do it in an honourable manner and allow a secret ballot on whether or not the Speaker is removed. Given that a secret ballot is allowed on a contested ballot for Speaker, it is not a big step to have a secret ballot on the grave question of removing the Speaker.
If there had been a skerrick of consistency in the arguments put forward by the government tonight – into this morning – about the reasons to remove the Speaker, you might have been onto something, but in your usual manner – where each of you fly off with your own deep-seated personal grievance issue rather than take a mature approach – you go in your chaotic directions – this has not been a credible debate by government. It will not be well accepted by the public because people are over this sporadic behaviour. Our parliament is well served by someone who, as the member for Nelson pointed out, understands the rules of the House, the integrity and importance of the parliament, and embraces and encourages interaction with parliament.
This is another chance to take a deep breath and apply some diplomacy to the grievances people pursue from different perspectives tonight. Sort it out as mature adults and let us keep an Independent Speaker, a truly impartial one. For all the complaints you put forward, I could stack up a series of complaints of my own, but I respect that it is what an impartial Speaker does. They dole it out on both sides. You find that hard to cope with, I get that, but that is what impartiality is.
Instead, you could install a puppet and open the path of greater arrogance at your own folly. Maybe you have decided you are on the slippery slope to a great election thrashing as polls are trending, so you want to do whatever you can without being held to account. Ultimately, every day Territorians are holding you to account for your actions. Take a deep breath on this one.
The member for Goyder, whether she is Speaker or not, will represent her constituents, and that is not the issue. The issue is fairness and reasonableness. Is it fair and reasonable for the government to attempt to remove the Speaker simply because it had a dummy spit today? No, it is not, and it is not in the interests of the Assembly. Take the member for Nelson’s sensible suggestion to sit around the table, but at the very least if you pursue this foolish action allow a secret ballot.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, nothing the CLP has put tonight provides any defence for these actions tomorrow. Tonight we saw an arrogant, bully boys’ government where members could not even look each other in the eye. The member for Arnhem snuck in and stood as far away from the government as possible but still provided it with her vote. The member for Daly left quickly. The question must be asked: what is this about?
We went from tweets and Facebook to some personal grievances from the member for Fong Lim. The Chief Minister tried to blame the chaos of the Northern Territory parliament on this. It is appalling. The CLP chose you as Speaker and you have acted in fairness. You have done nothing for this to happen tonight.
The Labor opposition is happy to take on board the member for Nelson’s suggestions. We are happy to be part of peace talks if that is what it takes, because right now we look pretty ridiculous. On Twitter and Facebook, if you care to look, everyone is talking about it. It is another midnight coup. This chaotic and dysfunctional government continues.
We heard today in speeches …
Mr Tollner: How did that get on there?
Ms FYLES: I pick up on the interjection and laughing from the Treasurer, the member for Fong Lim. Today in speeches it was claimed that the chaos and dysfunction was affecting the Northern Territory and our prospects, yet tonight we have seen a chaotic and dysfunctional move to remove an Independent, fair Speaker. We do not support that. The Labor opposition supported Madam Speaker when she was appointed to the role, and we continue to support her as an Independent member of parliament.
All on this side have spoken. A few of us have mentioned being asked to leave the Chamber. We do not necessarily agree with it but we get on with it. You have been firm, fair and honourable in your role, Madam Speaker. In fact, we looked at whether the Northern Territory parliament should always have an Independent Speaker to help make our parliament transparent and accountable. That is something this government hides from.
Territorians do not trust the CLP. I do not know what the government thinks this move will do or if it will somehow gain the confidence of Territorians. Our Speaker is well liked and has done a good job, yet, in an appalling move after midnight, you try to sack her. Is this because you need the Speaker’s vote to prop up your failing government?
Some serious questions need to be answered. However, right now we are trying to find a way to work through this. The member for Nelson has proposed discussing this. Attorney-General, you are always looking for ways to discuss things off the floor of the House. The elected Speaker is being sacked yet our unelected Chief Minister stays. It does not make sense.
I did not realise government members cared so much about the system of government and decisions, because members certainly do not act that way.
The member for Fong Lim feels he has been attacked and has nowhere to go. How do you think people in the community feel when you arrogantly ignore them and ram decisions through which affect them without any consultation? That is how they feel.
To say we only care what is in the newspaper is ridiculous. The Speaker has kept order in this House for three years. She has refrained from voting on a number of issues I am sure she would have liked to. She has taken her role seriously and acted with fairness.
This government does not like it when anyone holds it to account, whether it is the Speaker or the media. This motion tonight continues the arrogant record of treating members of the community with disrespect.
As the midnight bulldozer rumbles through again, the member for Port Darwin says our parliament is at grave risk. The Chief Minister tries to blame chaos, yet we have real issues which we spoke about earlier today – 36 prisoners escaping from correctional facilities, a hospital that seems to be a complete failure – we dig a hole then fill it in – which raise serious questions.
This is an outrageous attack on anyone who calls you to account. You do not like scrutiny or being held to account. We urge the government to stop and think. We do not know what the motives are behind this, but this certainly raises some questions. You are in a precarious state. You seem to have somehow gained the support of the member for Arnhem, but what is this all about? Do you realise what you are risking? It is an appalling decision.
Mr CHANDLER (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, it is with sadness that we have reached this point but I support the motion. The member for Goyder and I go back many years. Generally she and I have a good professional working relationship. The issue tonight has nothing to do with that but relates to a member’s capacity and conduct in the position of Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory.
The role of Speaker is the most important in the parliament. Judgment is a critical aspect of the role. The calibre and judgment expected of the Speaker ultimately comes down to the best interests of the parliament and the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory. Today a fatal error of judgment was made by the Speaker, and that is why the member for Goyder can no longer hold the position. Today the Speaker acted in complete contravention of all usual standards of judgment, justice, fairness and reason. The Speaker decided she would be judge and jury in consideration of her own grievances, regarding government advertising, pursuant to privilege under Standing Order 83. The Speaker considered and ruled on her own complaint, on her own allegation and on her own prosecution of a matter in which, she as member for Goyder, is the only named aggrieved party.
The Speaker then determined that her motion as the member for Goyder was so pressing that it should take precedence over all other parliamentary business. The Speaker determined it took precedence over the condolence motion for the victims and people of Paris, France, the misuse of drugs legislation and over Question Time. These miscalculations for purely personal political gain have destroyed the member for Goyder’s credibility as Speaker.
If the member had reasoned enough to pause, even for a moment during the morning’s proceedings, she might have taken notice of the numerous objections coming from the Leader of Government Business. Those objections, loud and clear, were justified because the actions of the Speaker, aided by the member for Karama, in attempting to hoodwink this parliament cannot be justified.
Today’s decisions are the equivalent of a judge in a court of law deciding to set aside a murder hearing for the day in order to hear his own complaint regarding a parking ticket he has received. The errors of judgment are threefold. First, the Speaker should not have considered her own matter moved under Standing Order 83. Indeed, this was apparently only done to ensure an outcome desirable to the member for Goyder. Second, the Speaker should not have given her own matter precedence over all other parliamentary business, because it inherently fails any reasonable measure of urgency and of detriment. Because it is her own matter it should have been raised as an ordinary motion in the course of the parliamentary program. Third, the Speaker should not have concluded in any way the prima facie merits of her own motion.
In separate correspondence to me in the September sittings of parliament, the Speaker made it clear that, unlike in the Commonwealth parliament, it is not her function to establish the prima facie evidence of a matter. Yet, in the Speaker’s correspondence to members today, she did just that. It can only be concluded that this was done to prosecute and promote her own grievance rather than being reflective of an objective consideration of the motion as Speaker.
The Speaker should show impartiality in the Chamber above all else. The Speaker should ensure standing orders are interpreted objectively. The Speaker embodies this Assembly and the office should be above the individual. Unfortunately, today the individual reigned supreme over the office. This fatal and fundamental error of judgment means that today we must say the member for Goyder, as Speaker, no longer carries the confidence of this parliament.
Madam Speaker, I support this motion to vacate the office of Speaker pursuant to the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, the member for Brennan has clearly been scripted by the member for Port Darwin with yet another angle around why you are in the wrong. It beggars belief.
It is not about you, Madam Speaker, as an individual bringing a grievance forward; it is about 13 people on this side of the House who, when this legislation was being rushed through with no consultation – I said in the debate today that when the urgency motion failed, the minister’s office instructed his people to send the second reading speech, the bill and the explanatory statement to 32 stakeholders. It had not been consulted on. We will not support legislation that is not consulted on or not evidence based from the bully boys on that side of the House.
That is not how government operates, not how this parliament operates and not how we on this side of the House operate. Losing the motion on urgency, which is what this is all about, goes to the heart of the matter. The government spent taxpayer funds on newspaper ads in the Northern Territory. It is politically driven and politically motivated by your political agenda. You are in breach of the act. You used the crest of this House. It is misinformed and wrong, and it is lies.
On the strength of lies you are now unseating the Speaker of this parliament. It is unwarranted, unprecedented and unforgivable. The member for Braitling is unelected, unlike the Speaker who was elected by members of this House, and somehow he remains in that chair. What does he have over you? Every one of you, including the two men who sit either side of him, in February – fond as they are of midnight coups, and it is now 1.45 am – led the coup. The new Chief Minister, the new Deputy Chief Minister and the member for Port Darwin have resolved that, and now here we are. They are sitting either side, supporting the unelected, unpopular Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, who, under his failed leadership, is entirely responsible for the chaos the government is in. It is through your doings that you are a minority government, and you are desperate. You cannot get laws through or things you want to do. You cannot hide things under the carpet anymore because you are a minority government.
That does not suit you so you are getting rid of yet another woman from your side. You will go to any length to ensure you retain government and have the power. Well, good on you. Go ahead, you can and will do what you want.
The polls show your electoral prospects are dismal. You are going backwards, and I bet London to a brick, member for Fong Lim, you will not be pre-selected for Spillett. If you sit in Fong Lim you will not win that seat. It is not up to us; it is up to Territorians. Territorians will decide your future. Let us hope it is sooner rather than later so we do not have to suffer under the havoc you wreak on the Northern Territory. Speaking of reek, you are on the nose.
Madam Speaker, I wish you well and hope you retain the Chair. You are a good Speaker and have served this parliament fairly and in the best interests, not of yourself, but your constituents and Territorians.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I speak on behalf of the constituents of Barkly. I agree with the member for Nelson that if the government wants to claw back any thread of credibility in this total hypocrisy – the member for Brennan gave a synopsis of hypocrisy in his scripted piece – let this be decided in a secret ballot. Let me go home and tell the constituents of Barkly it was decided in a secret ballot and showed a semblance of justice. It is a great amendment and I support it.
Mr STYLES (Business): Madam Speaker, like the member for Nhulunbuy I was not intending to speak, but I am compelled to say a couple of things ...
Ms Walker: That you support the Speaker and not the motion. Say that!
Mr STYLES: One of the reasons I feel compelled to speak is because the member for Nhulunbuy has been continually interjecting and sniping, and getting away with it a lot of the time.
This is not about a particular incident or an ad in the paper. That is a subjective view of the member for Nhulunbuy. It is about many things, not one incident. We heard before – obviously the member for Nhulunbuy did not listen – that it is about a bridge too far.
I will not go through what happened this morning because it has been articulated in the House this evening. The member for Nhulunbuy was hurling abuse at members on this side, which seems to be the way she prosecutes many of her arguments in the Chamber.
This has been happening for quite some time. Members opposite may say things under their breath and are not happy with some of your decisions. We, on this side, are not either but generally we accept it. We do not like it, they do not like it, but you are the umpire and that is what has happened. We question many decisions. There have been times when points of order have been called, but this time everyone said, ‘We have had enough’. The debate on our side is about having too much ...
Ms Fyles: Territorians have had enough of you but cannot get rid of you.
Mr STYLES: That is the problem. You try to have a rational debate but all you get is abuse from those on the other side of the Chamber. They continually interject as if they do not want to listen to what we have to say.
Ms Fyles: No.
Ms Lawrie: Unbelievable.
Mr STYLES: They laugh. The member for Karama is laughing. Maybe you do not want to hear what we have to say. I listened to what you said, but I do not get the same courtesy. You get away with it time and time again, and that is one of our problems.
I remember when Jane Aagaard was Speaker. She was pretty fair, but there have been times lately when it did not seem fair. The member for Johnston has a problem identifying what is professional and what is private. I am not surprised because that may be the way he runs his life. However, I can make a distinction between what is private and what is professional.
To answer your question, when I called a point of order because I found what you said offensive, you can have a relationship with people – I know you have good relationships with people on this side of the Chamber – but, professionally, you can have a tussle over an issue but retain a friendship. I am friends with people on that side of the Chamber, but professionally you have to make the distinction.
Member for Johnston, your sleight on what I did or did not do tonight and what decisions were and were not made at the time was offensive.
I have been friends with the member for Goyder for many years and am happy for that to continue. On a professional basis – this is not about me, you or the member for Goyder. This is about the Northern Territory government, the parliament of the Northern Territory and how people choose to run it. Everyone has a choice. You choose to run it whichever way you like, but the fact remains this is about the Northern Territory and the representation of Territorians. The Office of the Speaker has to be held in high regard …
Members interjecting.
Ms Lawrie: Go to the polls.
Mr STYLES: I try to articulate to these people. Maybe they do not want to hear what I have to say. Generally, when you extend the courtesy to them they do not return it. That is also part of what is happening in the Northern Territory parliament. No wonder people in voter land say this is like kindergarten. I try to articulate a reasonable argument and members on the other side interject. I do not know if they are listening to each another, let alone the debate in the Chamber.
Madam Speaker, I felt compelled to deal with several issues that members opposite raised this evening. I support the motion.
Ms ANDERSON (Namatjira): Madam Speaker, I do not support this motion and say you do not deserve this. I apologise for the behaviour of this House because I believe you have been fair. They want to crucify you for trying to act with integrity regarding the rights and wrongs of that advertisement.
Territorians will not cop this. Believe me, they will not cop it. People are livestreaming this now. I have been getting text messages from all over the Northern Territory about what is happening to the member for Goyder. If you boys over there have any guts, get into the street tomorrow, but be prepared to run from rotten tomatoes and eggs because that is exactly what will happen to you.
The Purich family is highly regarded in the Northern Territory, not only by non-Indigenous people but also Indigenous people. The member for Goyder’s sister worked across three jurisdictions – the Northern Territory, South Australia and Western Australia. She speaks Pitjantjatjara and Ngaatjatjarra fluently. Your candidate will go to Docker River, Imanpa and Mutitjulu, and I will ask Thisbe to tell people there, in Pitjantjatjara and Ngaatjatjarra, not to vote for you mob. She will do that. You have dug your own grave so be prepared for it.
Madam Speaker, I apologise for the government’s behaviour.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, I support you as Speaker. When your name comes into conversation in my electorate I frequently hear people say they hold you in very high regard. They think you do a very good job. You are a straight shooter and straight talker, and you treat your role in this parliament with the utmost seriousness. You show that in your conduct every day.
This has been a hasty process and another example of how desperate this government is to cling to power. The government is avoiding answering some very hard questions about the ice advert it ran, which was completely inappropriate, politically driven and paid for by taxpayers. It was misleading and untrue. This government is again showing how vengeful it can be.
We see a good Speaker with a good reputation across the Territory, who is held in high regard as a good member of this parliament. You feel the full weight of this government’s vengeance when it does not get its way and when people try to hold it to account.
I place on the record my support. I feel I am speaking on behalf of my constituents in Wanguri because the feedback I get is that people hold you in high esteem and regard. This has been a disgraceful process tonight, and I stand by you. The full impact of what the government is trying to do tonight has been well and truly underestimated.
The government has not thought this through properly, or how Territorians will react to it. It is another episode in the saga people are being subjected to by the CLP government.
Let us see what the consequences will be when people wake up and find out what has happened. There is a high possibility there will be a new Speaker. I hope not; I hope people see sense. If this goes to a secret ballot, some may think about what is happening, who is the best person for the job and who is doing a fine job in the position.
I urge members on the other side to think carefully about this because it will not go down well with people across the Territory. They will see it as another demonstration of the chaos and dysfunction of this government. People do not want to see vengeance; they want to see a functional government.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I understand the proposed amendment but will not be urging members to support it because the Opposition Leader has already indicated he will nominate the current Speaker for the position. The effect will be the same. There will be a ballot with, I suspect, only two applicants. It will be done by way of a secret ballot so it makes no difference.
The second observation I make about secret ballots is they mean the people of the Northern Territory will not know from the Parliamentary Record who voted which way. One of the great things about the Parliamentary Record is that on any contentious vote – and this will be a contentious vote – Territorians will want to know who voted which way. Some members opposite say the public has a right to know. You know what? They do. The public has a right to know who voted which way. Because of the way Standing Order 7 operates …
Mr Wood: It is not Standing Order 7 I am using.
Mr ELFERINK: I know that. When we get to the ballot – in every livelihood it will be Kezia versus our nominee – it will have exactly the same effect you are trying to achieve. It any instance, we will not be supporting the amendment to the motion. There will be an opportunity for a secret ballot later on, for the same result effectively.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment moved by the member for Nelson be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Amendment not agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, before we put the vote I would like to say a few words from the Chair. I thank the honourable members on the cross benches for their kind words. It is very humbling and I thank you for your support. To my local member, Gerry Wood, thank you for your support and, of course, Delia, Alison and Robyn.
Sadly I cannot say the same thing about people on the government benches. From what I have heard tonight there is clearly little understanding of the role and job of the Speaker, but if there is to be a new Speaker that person will find out very quickly what is involved. Next week there is a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference and that Speaker will be required to be here all week because they will be chairing the conference. There are also other commitments required of the Speaker.
It is disappointing, but that is the way it is. As for friendships, member for Sanderson, Peter Styles, you clearly do not understand the true meaning of the word, regrettably.
I have enjoyed the role of Speaker, there is no doubt about that, and I wish the next Speaker and Deputy Speaker the best of luck.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 13 Noes 12
Mr Barrett Ms Anderson
Mr Chandler Ms Fyles
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Mrs Lambley
Mrs Finnocchiaro Ms Lawrie
Mr Giles Ms Manison
Mr Higgins Mr McCarthy
Mr Kurrupuwu Ms Moss
Ms Lee Ms Purick
Mrs Price Mr Vowles
Mr Styles Ms Walker
Mr Tollner Mr Wood
Mr Westra van Holthe
Motion agreed to.
The CLERK: Honourable members, the Office of the Speaker now being vacant, does any member propose another member to take the Chair of the Assembly as Speaker?
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Clerk, I move that pursuant to Standing Order 7 the member for Greatorex do take the Chair of the Assembly as Speaker.
The CLERK: Does any other member second the motion?
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Yes.
The CLERK: Does the member for Greatorex accept the proposed motion?
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Mr Clerk, reluctantly, I do.
The CLERK: Is there any further proposal?
Mr GUNNER (Opposition Leader): I nominate the member for Goyder.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): I second the nomination.
The CLERK: Does the member for Goyder accept the nomination?
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Yes, Mr Clerk.
The CLERK: Is there any further proposal? There being no further proposals the members may now speak for up to five minutes on the proposals.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Clerk, this is a straightforward nomination. The member for Greatorex is a very experienced Deputy Speaker. He would fulfil the role admirably and bring the desired impartiality I, and members on this side, seek to the House and the Chamber.
He is a forthright and forceful entity. I have already experienced, under his role of Deputy Speaker, the lash of his tongue as an impartial decision-maker. As a consequence, I think he is well qualified and has a splendid radio voice to bring to the job to boot.
Mr GUNNER (Opposition Leader): Mr Clerk, I nominate the member for Goyder to be Speaker of this House as the most qualified and experienced person in this Chamber for the role. She has the best understanding of the gravity of the role, the standing orders, and of what is required to be a Speaker in this Chamber. She has proven she will act without fear or favour. She has proven she will be impartial. She has proven, over three-and-a-half years, she commands and deserves respect. She has earned the trust of Territorians. She has managed the people’s House well and for the true interests and welfare of Territorians. She is an exceptional candidate for the role of Speaker in this Assembly. She always acts for the best interests of Territorians, is considered and sensible, and is the most qualified and experienced person in this House for the role. She is the most logical person for this House to appoint as the Speaker, as the caretaker and custodian of the standing orders and responsibilities this House must oversee. There is no other person in this Chamber who can carry out this role as well as the member for Goyder.
If we are to be a credible parliament, which we have struggled to be for three-and-a-half years under a CLP government, we have a moment now to pause, reflect and choose the member for Goyder to be the Speaker. It is the only sensible choice if we want to be a parliament with any respect in this country. We should choose the member for Goyder as the Speaker of this Assembly.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Clerk, I support the Leader of the Opposition’s nomination for the member for Goyder to continue as the Speaker. She has provided us with good guidance and fairness, and is extremely qualified. She has a good understanding of the role and of the standing orders, something the Attorney-General lacks.
She has also done much to open this House to the people. She has been very encouraging and invitations to events have been forthcoming. She has worked with various community groups to encourage them to use parliament and our role as parliamentarians to help focus on charities and other groups across the Territory. She has also spent much time and energy with the Youth Parliament, and with the Niue delegation that is currently visiting. She goes above and beyond to make sure Parliament House is open and welcoming, and people can understand the process, something the government should focus on.
It was interesting that the member for Port Darwin did not want a secret ballot. He was quite adamant that Territorians need to see who voted for whom. To members opposite who have been doubtful of this process, this midnight coup, now is your opportunity – no one will ever know – to place on that ballot paper the name of the rightful Speaker of this House and not be led by an incompetent, unelected Chief Minister, a Treasurer who does not listen to the community and an Attorney-General who is upset by a few tweets and Facebook posts. I urge you to consider your ballot. This is a very serious motion but it is not over.
The member for Goyder has been fair. She is experienced and qualified, and can continue to lead this House. We can be the laughing stock of the nation tomorrow, but hopefully, after that, we can put it behind us.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Clerk, the choice is between the outgoing Speaker and the current Deputy Speaker. Obviously the outgoing Speaker is far more qualified in understanding the operations of parliament and the standing orders. Both have some understanding of operating agencies. The Legislative Assembly is a small agency located in its entirety – with the exception of electorate officers on contract – in Darwin. You have the choice of a Top Ender or a Centralian for a solely Darwin-based agency. I do not know if the CLP-nominated candidate for Speaker would want to follow what he did previously, which was to move public servants to Alice Springs. Wow, would we have an Alice Springs parliament? That is an interesting notion.
What on earth are you guys doing? I supported the member for Greatorex when he was nominated for Deputy Speaker. I was Opposition Leader at the time and felt it was a chance for him to step into the role. I have watched him carefully in that role. At times I felt he was fair when I did not think he would be, but he always skated very close to the edge to make sure the government’s agenda was upheld.
What I am most concerned about with the CLP choice is that the Speaker has a lot to do on the global stage representing the Northern Territory with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I do not pretend to know all the details, but I know the Speakers I have worked with over the terms of parliament have all been actively involved in the CPA. For most of us it is an annual meeting we turn up to. It is being held this Thursday, but we do not like attending it. We will not be able to wait for it to be over, and it will be done and dusted in about three to five minutes. For the Speakers of parliaments, the CPA is important. They represent us as a jurisdiction in Australia, in our region and globally.
I will mention the elephant in the room, Matt. I did not know about the Tokyo stuff when you were nominated as Deputy Speaker. Media will go there, as will the chitter chatter of parliaments. Is that what you want? Is that what you are choosing? I do not even remember the name of the girlie bar because I do not rate it. The position, however, represents us globally as a parliament and is held in high esteem. Do you really expect us to make a choice between the member for Goyder, who has operated with the utmost character in her role in parliament and her community, and someone who will be associated with a girlie bar in Tokyo? Seriously? No offence, Matt. I am saying what other people will talk about.
If you want to make a decision, make it with eyes wide open. Do not kid yourselves about that. The Speaker’s role in this parliament is incredibly important, but the Speaker also represents us on national, regional and global stages. Speakers are usually people with impeccable characters and track records in their parliamentary service. Keep your eyes wide open when you make this decision, CLP.
Ms ANDERSON (Namatjira): Mr Clerk, I thank the Opposition Leader for nominating the member for Goyder back to the Speaker’s position because it is really important. She is a female and I will always stick up for females. Looking at executive positions across the country, people are talking about promoting women to higher positions. In the Northern Territory the high office of Speaker is held by a female, yet all the governments wants to do is hang her for an offence when she was only trying to uphold the integrity of this House, trying to teach us to do the right thing and not continually misuse Territory taxpayers’ money. Is this a hanging offence? Is this something to lose your job over? I do not think so.
You will regret this come August next year. This will be like a wart on your backside when you go to the Territory election on 27 August next year.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Clerk, when I came to the 12th Assembly I was disillusioned because Labor had lost an election, but I clearly remember discussing the election of the Speaker in the Labor Caucus room and having a united consensus that we would support the member for Goyder. We would support, to be crass, the best of a bad lot, and we had a lot of discussion that day.
As that unfolded I was able to see another side of the member for Goyder because before that she sat as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I saw integrity, and I saw a true Territorian from a fine family with a great history put that stamp of the Territory on those multi-platforms. It was great to see.
We are three years in and now it is becoming completely destabilised and trashed, with a questionable agenda from a government running scared in minority and desperate to cling to the last of an election cycle.
That relates to the member for Greatorex. I commend your aspirations, but you have made it public that you are on the way out. You have had enough of politics and your heart is not in it. It is quite evident that you are not focused on this House, and therefore it makes sense to continue with the member for Goyder, the Speaker who was elected to the 12th Assembly.
If anybody aspires to be Speaker, the esteemed position the member for Port Darwin speaks about, line yourself up for the next Assembly. Put yourself in the public, get yourself elected as a community leader, lobby your school of politics for the position, stand proud and represent the Northern Territory and learn from this disgraceful episode tonight. Learn lots of lessons. Matt, no problems, but you should stand down and we should support the member for Goyder.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Clerk, it is obvious that the ex-Speaker has no hope because she does not have a good radio voice. If that is one of the considerations, the member for Port Darwin is being a little flippant. We want someone who is independent and experienced. The member for Goyder has lived in the Territory for a long time, in fact most of her life, and has an understanding of the Territory from top to bottom from her previous role as CEO of the Minerals Council.
She has experience in parts of the Territory which give her a good background for the job. The job does not require you just to read this book; you also need knowledge of all the constituencies in the Northern Territory, and she brings that experience to this House.
It is sad we have reached this stage. The Territory has many things that set it apart from the rest of Australia. I do not know what our friends from Niue must be thinking. At lunchtime today we discussed how parliament was working. They sat at the evening meal with the then Speaker. What they will think when they wake up in the morning I have no idea, but they will probably think the Territory is a strange place when it comes to how it runs its parliament.
Madam Speaker brings independence. People might argue that they did not like this or that. We have had Independent Speakers in the Northern Territory. Loraine Braham was an Independent Speaker and I was the Independent Deputy Speaker.
We need an Independent Speaker. That is the way we should go. We should not have people elected by parties. That is not the way, in this day and age, we should operate the speakership. The speakership should be independent, and the best way for that to happen is to have an Independent Speaker. The member for Goyder has the experience and a good knowledge of the standing Orders. I am not saying Matt does not have that experience, as he does a good job as Chair. Occasionally I get a little miffed when he does not give us some flexibility in the committee stage, but he knows his stuff, that is for sure. In the end, the member for Goyder should be Madam Speaker again because she is the right person for the job.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Mr Clerk, the execution process is almost complete. The government must be feeling very happy with the imminent result, but for what it is worth I would like to make some comments.
The position of Speaker of the House is one that should be held in the utmost regard and esteem. Integrity is a critical characteristic of anyone who holds that seat. I have to agree with the member for Karama; the member for Greatorex’s indiscretion puts a question in my mind as to his integrity and how that will play out nationally and internationally. You cannot escape that.
Unfortunately the government tends to wear its indiscretions like a badge of honour. I look around the ranks of government and not too many do not wear a huge badge honouring their indiscretions. I suppose for the government it is not a huge consideration, but for someone like me who is a little old-fashioned, it is of the utmost importance that the integrity of the Speaker of the House is beyond question.
The member for Goyder has integrity. I do not believe any parts of her history bring her reputation into disrepute. There is nothing I am aware of, nothing I have read in the Northern Territory News, unlike what I have read about other members of the government over the last three years.
This concerns me. We should be repairing the reputation of this Assembly not bringing it down further. We should be discerning and very careful how we move beyond this point. We are now midway through November and the election is on 27 August. There are only 10 months for the new Speaker to operate. That is a significant length of time on one hand but not on the other.
I would like to see the member for Goyder continue in the position. She has done a good job. She brings a certain amount of wisdom, maturity and femininity to the position, which I admire and value. Women are generally not respected in this parliament; they have not been by the government. Removing a woman and replacing her with a man with a questionable recent history is another big mistake of this parliament, and ultimately is the decision of government.
As everyone on this side of the Chamber has highlighted tonight, you will have to live by these mistakes. They are mighty mistakes and Territorians will not forgive you.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Mr Clerk, I cannot let those comments pass. I have said numerous times that the member for Araluen is one of the most self-righteous people I have ever come across in my life. To use this as an opportunity to attack the member for Greatorex is appalling. I put her in the same box as the member for Karama. They throw mud at the first opportunity. I have no idea what the indiscretions are that you refer to ....
Mrs Lambley: Homophobia.
Ms Walker: Red Rose.
Mr TOLLNER: Now you are at me. You are quite happy to throw mud everywhere. I have known the member for Greatorex for more than eight years and he is a decent man. I am not aware of any indiscretions. He will make a fine Speaker, without doubt. I can understand people talking up their favourite person in this, but I do not understand why people have to get into the gutter, two in particular. Members for Karama and Araluen, you are both disgraceful the way you impugn people’s character at every opportunity. It is disgusting and we have had enough of it.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Clerk, the best candidate for this job is the member for Goyder. Without a doubt she is the most qualified person for the job. She has proven she is committed to being a Speaker of high integrity and hard work, and somebody who gives you a fair hearing and frank and appropriate advice. She has also brought a real energy to the parliament, and during this term of government has opened up the Territory parliament to so many people. She has advocated strongly for this to be a place for Territorians to come into and be part of.
We are going into the final quarter of the match and it will be a full-on last 10 months. I would like to think our Speaker is the most qualified person who knows how to do the job and handles themselves well.
I also point out to the member for Fong Lim that what the members for Araluen and Karama were referring to is fact. It has been reported on and clearly you do not …
Mr Tollner: Because it has been reported on does not mean it is fact.
Ms MANISON: I pick up on the interjection. There have been adjournments, there have been questions in estimates and there have been freedom of information requests. It is fact, and to not realise that you have clearly had your head in the sand, member for Fong Lim.
I support the member for Goyder.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Clerk, I support the nomination of the member for Goyder. We have just spent several hours going through a flawed process triggered by incredibly poor judgment on the part of the government, which was bullying behaviour towards the Speaker. We have pretty much become accustomed to that in this House, particularly towards women.
Members of the government have one window of opportunity left to turn this around. I know some of you on that side, in your heart of hearts, know this is the wrong thing to do. In the event you now get to cast a vote, you cannot go past the experience and integrity of the member for Goyder. She has been in the job for three years and does more than just chair parliament. She is responsible for the running of the Legislative Assembly, the electorate offices and the many duties that go with that, including, as the member for Karama explained, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.
With all due respect to the member for Greatorex, who I think does an okay job as the Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees, he stated his reason for resigning from Cabinet was because he needed to spend more time with his family in Alice Springs. He has young children. Like me, he travels to this parliament, but he would have to spend a lot more time in Darwin and away from his family. It would involve CPA travel around the country and some overseas travel. It would involve being in Darwin when there are dignitaries or events the Speaker would normally look after and host. I wonder if the member for Greatorex has thought about that, or even had an opportunity to advise his partner of his potential new job.
Again, with no disrespect to the member for Greatorex, he has a history, unfortunately, that has been tainted by some episodes that have made quite significant media. It is a matter of fact, member for Fong Lim. It is small wonder your colleagues keep you out of the media these days, and it is only when you are here on the microphone you just go blah. It is not a good look for our parliament for the head of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory to not be a person with a good, strong history and strong integrity. What I am saying effectively is to be a cleanskin.
Members opposite have one last chance to do the right thing and I hope they take that opportunity. I endorse the member for Goyder to return as Speaker.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Mr Clerk, I support the nomination of the member for Goyder. We are all knackered. It is nearly 2.40 am, but I am happy to stay here all night if it means we come to the right decision, and that is re-electing the member for Goyder as the Speaker of this House and bringing some respect back to this House.
As the member for Nhulunbuy said, there is one last opportunity to do the right thing and not ridicule our parliament, which is all of us, in front of the rest of the nation and across the Pacific. We have a delegation here at the moment and a South Pacific conference next week. We will look amateurish and ridiculous. We will look like a joke, and we are, because at 2.40 am we are debating removing our Speaker. We can change leaders, can change Chief Ministers, but do not change the Speaker. This is the wrong thing to do.
The member for Goyder is a Territorian and loves the Territory. She is the Territory. She epitomises being a Territorian. Her way – smashing the gavel down too hard sometimes – is unique, and that is what the Territory is about. It is about having somebody who understands the Territory. It is about having somebody in this parliament who has been respected by both sides of the House for a number of years, somebody who knows her values due to her strong family links to the Territory, who is accountable to her electorate, does the right thing by her electorate and stands up for people.
Even this side says, ‘Kezia has said something against her own party’, but we respect that. We respect that she is doing the job she was elected to: look after her constituents. That is what we are supposed to do. I will stand here all night if it means the member for Goyder is re-elected as Speaker. We need to do the right thing.
I would have supported it if the government said it wanted to change the fixed-term legislation on urgency and go to an election. I doubt anybody on this side would have said, ‘No, let’s not do that’. I would support the Leader of Government Business introducing changes to the fixed-term legislation on urgency so we can give Territorians the option of an election now. That would be the right thing to do as well.
I support the member for Goyder, and I hope everybody in this Chamber, in this last opportunity to do so, does the same thing.
Ms MOSS (Casuarina): Mr Clerk, I support the member for Goyder’s nomination to fill the role of Speaker. We have already heard a range of reasons why we should. I remind members on the other side of the House that they have an opportunity to do the right thing this evening and the right thing by their constituents.
If you want minimal disruption for Territorians tomorrow and when we are debating important issues like education over the next few days and into the next sittings, I urge you to consider sticking with a Speaker who has demonstrated her experience and commitment, and who can fulfil the role with integrity.
I have no doubt the member for Greatorex is a decent bloke. We have all had the opportunity to see the member for Greatorex in action as Deputy Speaker. It is unfortunate that all colleagues had to say tonight was that he is a decent bloke with a great radio voice, whereas we have heard many reasons why this House should support the member for Goyder. She has experience and knowledge in this House, and has demonstrated that she can represent us well both here and abroad. We have commitments over the next few weeks. Let us make the right decision.
I urge you to throw your support behind the member for Goyder and let us move on and debate things in this House that are important to our constituents.
Mr CLERK: There being no further speakers, I will outline the procedure for the ballot.
Before the Assembly proceeds to the ballot the division bells shall be rung, as for a division, for three minutes, pursuant to Standing Order 7. When two members are proposed, as they are today, and seconded, each member present will deliver to the Clerk a ballot paper in writing containing the name of the candidate for whom the member votes. The votes will be counted by the Clerks at the Table, and the candidate who has the greater number of votes shall be the Speaker and shall be conducted to the Chair.
Having been conducted to the Chair, the member elected gives their acknowledgements to the Assembly for the honour conferred, and thereupon sits in the Chair. Then the mace, which is now under the Table, shall be laid upon the Table.
I will now ring the division bells, and during the division bells being rung the ballot papers will be distributed. At the conclusion of the division bells being rung, the ballot papers will be collected by the two Clerk Assistants.
The Assembly balloted.
Mr CLERK: The results of the ballot are: Matt Conlan 12, Kezia Purick 13.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business: Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of two Year 6 classes from Parap Primary School, accompanied by Temira Wallis and Rebecca Dearden. On behalf of all members, welcome to Parliament House and I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
MESSAGE FROM ADMINISTRATOR
Message No 29 – Assent to Bills passed in October
Message No 29 – Assent to Bills passed in October
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received Message No 29 from His Honour the Administrator notifying assent to the bills passed at the August sittings. The message is dated 5 October 2015.
TABLED PAPER
Warrant for Deputy Chairs of Committees
Warrant for Deputy Chairs of Committees
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table a warrant appointing the members for Blain, Nelson, Karama and Araluen as Deputy Chairs of Committees pursuant to Standing Order 12. It is dated 17 November 2015.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I would like to also acknowledge and welcome into the Speaker’s Gallery our guestS from the island of Niue, which is our twin sister parliament. We have Hon Joan Viliamu, Chairperson of the House Committee and Common Role; Crossley Tatui, Vice Chairman of Bills, Committees and Common Role; and Hon Dion Taufitu, a member of the Bills Committee, a member of the Public Accounts Committee and the Toi Village constituency.
Welcome to Parliament House and Darwin, Northern Territory.
Members: Hear, hear!
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Move Motion on Privilege
Move Motion on Privilege
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table a letter circulated to members this morning. Pursuant to Standing Order 83(3), an order of continuing effect dated 23 May 1996, I give my reasons for granting precedence to the member for Goyder to immediately move a motion concerning privilege.
I determine that this is an occasion where the Assembly’s power to adjudge and deal with contempt is required to provide reasonable protection to the Assembly. Today is the first opportunity as the Assembly meets for the first time since the advertisement referred to appeared in the media.
In applying the order of continuing effect, I note that if the Assembly does not deal with this matter immediately it may be construed as encouraging the author of these advertisements to continue to act in a manner which may tend to obstruct members in the performance of their functions. I do not find any other remedy in existence apart from this matter being dealt with immediately. I now call on the member for Goyder.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: No, there is no point of order.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! We had no notice of this whatsoever. This is a clear trap and connivance that has been introduced into this House. Frankly it is deplorable conduct from the members opposite …
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, which standing order?
Mr ELFERINK: … and this is politics at its most base. Welcome to the parliament of the Northern Territory, ladies and gentlemen.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Member for Goyder, you have the call.
MOTION
Referral to Committee of Privileges
Referral to Committee of Privileges
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that:
1. the Assembly refers to the Committee of Privileges the publication of two advertisements appearing in the Northern Territory News, dated Friday 18 September 2015 and Monday 21 September, which alleged that named members of this Assembly prevented the passage of legislation which still remains on the Notice Paper
2. the committee investigates whether the creation and publication of the advertisements may constitute a contempt of the Legislative Assembly
3. the committee considers whether the Chief Minister or another identifiable person is responsible for the publication of the advertisements
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, the advertisements I am referring to claim that certain members of the Legislative Assembly blocked the passage of legislation. The Speaker has tabled copies attached to the correspondence circulated in the Assembly this morning.
As members are aware, on Tuesday 15 September the Attorney-General gave notice of the introduction of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill 2015 (Serial 136) to occur on Wednesday 16 September, and also gave notice that he would move on the next sitting day – 16 September – that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill 2015 (Serial 136) passing through all stages during these sittings.
On Wednesday 16 September the Attorney-General presented the bill and moved it be read a second time.
The debate was then adjourned on the motion of the member of Nhulunbuy in accordance with the established practice required under Standing Order 178, which requires a period of one month must elapse between presenting a bill and putting the question that it be read a second time.
The Attorney-General then proceeded to move the suspension of standing orders, in particular the requirement of Standing Order 178, which was debated throughout much of Wednesday and eventually defeated by a majority vote on a division. The second reading debate on the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill remains on the Notice Paper today.
The members who voted against the motion to suspend standing orders did not vote against the second reading of the bill. To claim they did so is misleading the community at large, and to frame the advertisements as they have the person responsible has attempted to interfere with the orderly business of the members of this Assembly and attempted to obstruct those named members in the course of their duty.
Publication of the material, which is aimed at unduly influencing a member and disruption of a member in their role, is a possible contempt of this Assembly. This is what I am asking members of this Assembly to have the Committee of Privileges consider and investigate in detail, and I can give personal examples. I received a couple of e-mails pleading with me not to block ice legislation. I spoke to the people personally and said that is not what it was. The ads were completely misleading, false and inaccurate.
I ask all members to support this motion to allow the committee to consider this serious matter in the context of the independence and integrity of the institution of the parliament, and make recommendations for a report back to the Assembly.
The power of the Assembly to punish contempt arises under section 12 of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 and section 5 of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act.
If it is established that the advertisement was aimed at directly impacting upon the named members of the Assembly who the advertisement claimed blocked drug laws from being passed, then contempt of the Assembly may have been perpetrated. This advertisement reflects the attitude of its author, or authors, who appear to be the Chief Minister or his agents. The Assembly does not exist to do the bidding of government. It is where all Territorians are represented through their elected member, not just a place where the executive is formed.
While the NT News has published the paid advertisements, I maintain the responsibility lies with the government because the advertisement carries the crest of the Northern Territory government. The Northern Territory Flag and Emblem Act outlines the authority for use of the Northern Territory coat of arms at section 6, and the relevant minister with the control of the act under the Administrative Arrangements Order is the Chief Minister.
It is time for the government to realise that in our Westminster system the government exists as a grouping of members of this Assembly who form the executive, not as a group of members of this Assembly who can hold the Assembly itself in contempt and can publish untrue advertisements about what occurred in this Assembly.
I reluctantly use the word ‘lie’ in this debate due to the motion I am moving. We do not use that word lightly in this Assembly. It is only in this context, by way of substantive motion, that any member may allege that the act of lying has been deliberately perpetrated by another member. The lie is that the laws which remain up for debate were blocked. They were not blocked. They remain a matter for consideration of this Assembly.
I commend the motion to honourable members and welcome their contribution in debate today.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that debate be adjourned.
The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 13 Noes 12
Mr Barrett Ms Anderson
Mr Conlan Ms Fyles
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Mrs Lambley
Mrs Finocchiaro Ms Lawrie
Mr Giles Mr McCarthy
Mr Higgins Ms Manison
Mr Kurrupuwu Ms Moss
Ms Lee Ms Purick
Mrs Price Mr Vowles
Mr Styles Ms Walker
Mr Tollner Mr Wood
Mr Westra van Holthe
Debate adjourned.
TABLED PAPER
Report on Funding of Rugby League Facilities in Darwin
Report on Funding of Rugby League Facilities in Darwin
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I table the Public Accounts Committee report on the funding of rugby league facilities in Darwin. This Assembly directed the Public Accounts Committee to inquire into all matters relating to the funding of rugby league facilities in Darwin, particularly ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! The normal process for tabled papers can be found at Standing Order 90. In relation to Tuesday’s and Thursday’s, papers are No 8 on the Routine of Business and should accordingly follow the Routine of Business. There is no motion before this House to upset the Routine of Business, and I urge that we get on with the business of the House in accordance with standing orders.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The chair of a committee can table a report at any time. There was no question before the chair. The member for Araluen has the call and is able to proceed.
Mrs LAMBLEY: This Assembly directed the Public Accounts Committee to inquire into all matters relating to the funding of rugby league facilities in Darwin, particularly the original budget allocation for new facilities at Marrara and the decision to spend $20m to upgrade Richardson Park. The object of the inquiry was to ascertain what the original plans for rugby league at Marrara were, to investigate why there was a change to Richardson Park, who made that decision, who else had a say in that decision, what due diligence occurred before that decision was made and whether Cabinet was involved in the decision.
I regret to report that on a key point of the terms of reference we have failed; we do not know why there was a change to Richardson Park. On the other points, however, the committee was largely successful in answering the questions posed by the Assembly. We were asked to look at the original budget allocation for new facilities at Marrara. In asking this, the Assembly erred for there was no budget allocation for Marrara ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Behind the scenes I have just …
Madam SPEAKER: What is your point of order? What is your standing order number?
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, this is out of order by virtue of the fact that this …
Madam SPEAKER: Sit down. It is not a point of order.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker! The committee has not yet agreed on a position in the report.
Madam SPEAKER: It is not a point of order. Sit down!
Member for Araluen, you have the call.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Department of Sport and Recreation …
Mr Elferink: Madam Speaker, the …
Madam SPEAKER: You do not have the call. Sit down, member for Port Darwin!
Member for Araluen, you have the call.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. You have no standing order. Please be seated, member for Port Darwin.
Mrs LAMBLEY: The Department of Sport and Recreation had developed a business case for a $100m stadium at Marrara, and Cabinet decided, quite rightly, that was too big a drain on the public purse. Instead, Cabinet made a provisional funding decision for a stadium, with its location not specified, for up to $42.5m. As far as the committee could determine, this was the original and only Cabinet decision on the stadium. That decision was made in March.
The budget needed to be finalised. As is usual, Cabinet gave the Treasurer authority to finalise the budget. There are many decisions required to finalise the budget, and they cannot all go through a complete Cabinet process. The Treasurer needs latitude to make last minute tweaks …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 22 relating to reporting progress. I have not heard anything so far to suggest this is a progress report. The advice I have received from the member for Blain is that the PAC has not resolved the issue of this report yet.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, the PAC committee has met and, as I understand it, has deliberated and heard from witnesses. The NT government has not appointed members to the PAC. I have received no advice that there are two new members on the Public Accounts Committee.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Speaker, I can clarify this point for the member for Port Darwin.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Speaker, this is the final report on funding of rugby league facilities in Darwin, not a progress report. I will continue with my statement.
The combined government agencies’ submission to the committee explains that:
- Subsequent to the decision further deliberations took place between relevant Ministers regarding the location of the stadium.
The submission further outlines:
- In accordance with a Budget Cabinet decision that authorised the Treasurer to make further budget adjustments necessary to finalise the 2015-16 Budget Papers, an amended decision was made to not proceed with the original proposal put to Cabinet.
On 10 April the amended decision was approved by the Treasurer for a $20 million project on the 2015-16 Capital Works Program for expanded facilities and seating capacity at Richardson Park, capable of hosting rugby league, rugby union and soccer.
As to why this decision was made the government submission stated:
- Given Richardson Park’s history and that a number of studies had previously been undertaken in regard to upgrading Richardson Park, it was concluded that it would be better value for money to upgrade Richardson Park, while still achieving the stated objectives and benefits of the original proposal.
A previous study, undertaken in 2009, had estimated that the cost of redeveloping Richardson Park would be $10-11 million. Other factors also taken into consideration in making this decision were the lead time for construction and the resolution of land tenure of the Marrara site, given it was not owned by the government, compared to Richardson Park which was government owned.
To the casual observer that sounds like an acceptable reason. However, it is relevant here to mention the first two findings of the committee.
Finding one is that the government did not undertake any consultation with sporting bodies, residents or other interested groups, or hold any public discussions on upgrading Richardson Park before deciding to do so.
Finding two is in a similar vein. The government did not ask for or receive any advice or analysis on upgrading Richardson Park from any of its agencies.
Let me be clear, the committee did not simply find there was inadequate consultation but that there was no consultation. The committee did not find that the analysis by government agencies was inadequate; it found that no government agency had been asked to provide any analysis on developing Richardson Park. The government’s reason for developing Richardson Park was that it is better value for money, but there was no attempt to compare what value $20m spent elsewhere could provide.
This leads the committee to its fifth finding:
- The assertion that the $20 million Richardson Park decision was based on value for money because the cost of development at Marrara was $100 million is unreasonable as the Department of Infrastructure had costed a suitable but more modest Warren Park stadium for $25 million.
The next question referred by the Assembly was who made the decision. The committee’s fourth finding was:
- The decision to fund a $20 million upgrade of Richardson Park was approved by the Treasurer following discussion with ‘relevant Ministers’ and did not appear to go to a Cabinet meeting.
This leaves open the question of who the relevant ministers were who considered this issue before it was given formal approval by the Treasurer.
The Minister for Sport and Recreation was the only minister to appear before the committee, despite the Chief Minister and the Treasurer also being invited. The minister made it clear he would not lift the veil of Cabinet confidentiality and discuss the internal decision-making of Cabinet. However, the minister told the committee the Treasurer convinced him of the Richardson Park upgrade. Given that Treasury told the committee it was advised of the proposal after the decision was made, that leads to two possible conclusions: either the minister was involved in the decision but disagreed with it until Treasury convinced him otherwise after the fact, or the minister was not involved in the decision.
The Assembly also referred the question of who else had a say in the decision. The committee knows it was not any Territory sporting body, all of whom were surprised by the decision. The committee knows it was not Treasury, the Department of Sport and Recreation, the Department of Infrastructure or the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment, all of which were advised after the decision was made.
The final question referred by the Assembly was what due diligence occurred. To answer this question one must define what diligence is due for a government-funding decision. It is an important principle for our system of government that Cabinet is free to make whatever decisions it thinks is best for the Northern Territory, but that does not free the Cabinet to act unreasonably. Ministers are bound by the Legislative Assembly (Members’ Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards) Act, which sets in law minimum standards for decision-making for all members, including ministers. Clauses 10 and 11 are particularly relevant. Ten is about responsibility:
- Members must act in accordance with the principle of responsibility.
This means members must endeavour to ensure their decisions reflect a proper consideration of all relevant matters, including the reasonably foreseeable consequences for those likely to be affected by their decisions.
Eleven pertains to public interest:
- In performing official functions, members must act in what they genuinely believe to be the public interest.
In particular, members must seek to ensure their decisions and actions are based on an honest, reasonable, and properly informed judgment about what will best advance the common good of the people of the Territory.
This leads to the committee’s ninth finding.
- It is questionable whether the relevant Ministers’ decision to fund an upgrade of Richardson Park conforms with clauses 10 and 11 of the Members’ Code of Conduct.
Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I table this report today. The process has been undertaken with some degree of urgency given the fact that tenders close for the Richardson Park upgrade this Friday, 19 November. The Public Accounts Committee felt that to ensure that this report was relevant we had to produce and table it this sittings. Originally, as the member for Port Darwin mentioned, there was talk of a progress report, but given the fact that we completed our public hearings into the matter last week, we spent considerable time deliberating over the information received. We felt we had enough information to complete the inquiry and the report.
MOTION
Note Paper – Report on Funding of Rugby League Facilities in Darwin
Note Paper – Report on Funding of Rugby League Facilities in Darwin
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be noted.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Whilst I appreciate members would like to speak now, the normal tradition is that the matter be adjourned off so other people get to read the report before the matter is debated out. In fairness to all members of this House, and in accordance with the normal procedure of this House, this debate should be adjourned. In fact, I move that the debate be adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, you had the call for a point of order not to adjourn the debate.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, the Public Accounts Committee …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move that the debate be adjourned.
Motion negatived.
Ms FYLES: Madam Speaker, perhaps the minister would care to listen. If the government had cared to listen to the community it would understand the need for urgency with this report into $20m of taxpayer funds being spent without any consultation. Both Northern Territory Rugby League and the National Rugby League, in their words, were surprised $20m was being spent at Richardson Park. That sums it up.
We are not talking about whether an investment in sport should happen or not, because everyone agrees rugby league deserves a home. We have Marrara Sporting Complex, where a number of sports are based, which is a fantastic facility. What is being debated today is that the government did not seek advice or consult with the community or the sporting community before it decided to spend $20m of taxpayer funds. It did not follow process or seek any evidence. There was no analysis, so we are potentially wasting millions of dollars of taxpayer funds and we do not know how much this facility will cost to run. It was necessary for the Public Accounts Committee to look into this matter urgently. The Public Accounts Committee has already had some indication that costs will blow out by $2m.
With tenders closing in the next few days, it is important this report is tabled. Everyone can see the clear evidence that there was no consultation. What summed up the lack of consultation was when the minister for Sport, who came to the Public Accounts Committee hearing when requested – as a member of the committee I thank him for speaking to us – when speaking about consultation highlighted the opposition’s media releases as part of the consultation phase. I love that my media releases are hitting home, but when they are part of the government’s consultation serious questions need to be asked.
When every sport says it was surprised at the announcement and there is huge community angst, it means there are concerns with the proposal. Ludmilla school was told only hours before the announcement that a large part of its oval and playground would be taken. We are now talking about potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars to rework the school playground in order to build a stadium that keeps changing. Originally it was one field, but all of a sudden we need to build two fields.
The Public Accounts Committee heard evidence from a number of rugby league organisations, including the National Rugby League, about some of the parameters they need to play the top level of the game. Have those been taken into account? Has 5 m on each side of the playing field before any hard surface been taken into account? There was no government department advice prior to this decision being made. This decision has already seen significant changes, will impact hugely on a small community and is taking over education space. We have no advice as to what will happen in the school grounds. There is no indication of who will pay for it. Will it come from the school’s budget or will it come from government?
The government is spending taxpayers’ money, but at the moment you would think it was their own. The Public Accounts Committee became aware the government was trying to rush this through. On some of the tender documents they could not even get the closing date right; they had two different dates. That shows how rushed it was.
The Public Accounts Committee met. Evidence was provided to us from a number of sporting organisations – Northern Territory Rugby League and the national body. We received evidence from touch football, AFL and over 50 submissions. Interestingly enough, two people who could have perhaps enlightened the committee on why this decision was made refused to come – the Treasurer and the Chief Minister. As I said previously, the Sport minister was able to enlighten us a little. It was quite clear a decision had been made that is not necessarily in the best interests of rugby league or the Ludmilla community.
It is worth noting that I attended a community meeting, probably about a month ago now, which the Treasurer also attended. He wore his Parramatta Eels jersey and quite arrogantly told the small community gathering – well, it was probably a larger community gathering, there were 60 to 80 people there – that the reason we have to rush this through is so that in August next year he can see the Parramatta Eels play. That is an absurd reason. Wearing that jersey showed arrogance and upset the small community. He is sitting across the Chamber laughing at me right now.
Minister, perhaps if you listened you would understand that large amount of concern in a small community. You are proposing a massive expansion. We are not talking about redoing a field and upgrading the 1500 seats there. We are proposing a facility that could cater for up to 10 000 people near suburban streets. Imagine if you had a 10 000-seat stadium proposed for your back yard; it literally is in this community’s back yard. We are talking about sound systems and lighting capable of televising, so you can imagine the issues that causes for the community. We are talking about a site that, yes, is the historical home of rugby league, but 65% of rugby league players now come from south of the Berrimah Line, from Palmerston and the rural area.
Fifty-odd years ago Ludmilla probably was the central point of the Darwin area, but not now. It is a small suburban oval, and this is a significant upgrade. We still have no clear answer on whether this will be for sport events or simply $22m a year for one rugby league match. Currently the Parramatta Eels are contracted to play for two more years. We are potentially building a stadium at a cost of $22m, and climbing, that will have a huge impact on the community and could be used for two more rugby league matches.
Some of the evidence presented to the committee shows that rugby league needs a home where they can play every night of the week and have double headers on Saturday nights. Imagine the impact on the surrounding residents, who have had no consultation. Some of them were aware of the budget decision made by the government, a decision made without any consultation with the sport this stadium will be home to. Some of them chased the department and were told that there would be proper consultation.
To date, the Public Accounts Committee has seen no evidence of that. In fact, opposition media releases were referred to as consultation. It shows how disorganised and arrogant this government is, thinking it can push through what it wants without any consultation.
The committee found a complete lack of analysis by the government of a number of issues, including how people will get to the facility. Will that be on buses which will bank up on Bagot Road and they then walk through the school to get to the facility? Will another road be built through mangroves costing millions of dollars? These serious issues need to be addressed before the facility goes ahead.
Prior to this decision rugby league wanted to move to Marrara. They had some concept plans and a number of planning proposals. Marrara is the home of sport in the Top End and it made sense to go there. Traffic plans can be put in place there and rugby union is already housed there. If there were adjoining league fields both sports could use them. We could have an important asset for rugby league and rugby union.
The government has yet to provide evidence why league should stay at Richardson Park. The fact that the Chief Minister and the Treasurer did not attend the committee hearings is interesting. The committee was told Marrara would cost over $100m – $42m for a 5000-seat stadium. Those figures are inaccurate. We are not comparing green apples with green apples; we are comparing avocados with apples. Common sense would suggest this proposal for Richardson Park – redeveloping the field and providing one grandstand and a large amount of temporary seating – could be replicated at Marrara for a similar cost. It is completely inaccurate for the government to say Marrara would cost over $100m and Richardson Park $20m. That is ridiculous.
The committee also found it interesting that no analysis had been done on the ongoing costs of the facility. Rugby league walked away from this facility some time ago citing – they gave the committee evidence – that it cost them $270 000 a year to run the facility. No preparation or analysis of ongoing costs has been done by the government. We are spending a huge amount of taxpayer dollars – $20m to $22m, and climbing – on a facility which could require hundreds of thousands if not more to run each year. Who will pay for that? Treasury likes one-off infrastructure spends. It indicated recurrent operational costs for the facility would come from the sport and recreation budget. This will impact on all Territorians because sport and recreation has a limited budget, meaning other sports will miss out.
Many questions were left unanswered. The evidence indicates this was a bad decision. The spend for rugby league is welcomed by everyone, including Labor. We have first-class AFL facilities and are getting a tennis centre, and rugby league deserves a home, but where that home should be needs discussion. We need to see evidence and some analysis. To date, all that points towards Marrara. There were serious questions about why the government suddenly changed its mind, but we were unable to ask those questions as the Chief Minister and Treasurer did not appear after being requested to do so by the committee.
This decision highlights an arrogant government failing to consult again. Building this facility could have a huge impact on the small community there. Dead-end streets could possibly become through streets. Nobody could accurately describe how they would deal with the noise and light issues, although the Treasurer suggested we could use the big concrete walls you see on the side of freeways.
The committee spent a number of hours questioning a range of sporting groups, which indicated the benefits to them. For example, AFL was keen on the temporary seating and having a facility to host the AFL 9s, which is a growing competition. However, they indicated that location is irrelevant.
Rugby league indicated they had been planning to go to Marrara. The figures they presented showed many players are from south of the Berrimah Line. Rugby league believed investment in Richardson Park is past its use-by date.
It is important to note the concern of the local community. People were very surprised and angry. They were worried by this decision and how it would impact on their lives. They gave evidence that when it was a facility for 1500 people they could hear pretty much everything. This expansion would have a huge impact on their lives.
We were unable to get to the bottom of whether this would be used for sport or be a multiuse facility. There was talk that it may hold concerts and other events. We have one event a year, with a contract in place for two more years and the potential to house a number of events. Lights would be on every night of the week and there is potential for a huge impact on the community.
The government, interestingly enough, when trying to sell this decision to the community after making it without consulting anyone, has said touch football and soccer would go to the facility. The Public Accounts Committee heard that touch is homed at the racecourse and hopes to stay there. We heard evidence from AFL, as I mentioned earlier, that the facility itself is important but not the location.
We do not believe the facility would suit soccer, and the member for Nelson might speak on that point. We spoke to many stakeholders and to residents who still feel they have not been heard and are powerless. We came up with a number of findings in the report.
I urge the government to listen to the community. A large amount of sporting infrastructure dollars is being spent and you have not consulted anyone. Potentially you are leaving Territorians with a white elephant of a sporting facility and they will be unable to manage the ongoing operating costs.
It will have a huge impact on a small suburban community. It will potentially have an impact on a school which, although numbers are low at the moment, everybody acknowledges that the capacity of Parap, Stuart Park and Larrakeyah schools will mean, with redevelopment infill, the numbers at Ludmilla will increase.
There are so many concerns yet such a lack of evidence, consultation and research by this government. I urge members to read this report, look at the key findings and urge the Treasurer and the Chief Minister to stop rushing ahead to build air-conditioned boxes so they can watch the Parramatta Eels before the election next year and do the right thing by Territorians.
As a Public Accounts Committee member I thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak and raise points. I encourage people to read this report, and I really encourage government members opposite to listen because the community is very upset. This decision could be switched to Marrara or the rural area – Freds Pass – but there needs to be consultation. We need evidence and some analysis of the ongoing cost to the community because there is potential to make a very costly mistake.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, Prime Minister Gillard made a captain’s pick and choose Nova Peris to run for a seat in parliament. Prime Minister Abbott made a captain’s pick when he gave Prince Philip a medal. Our captain’s pick was the Treasurer giving $20m to Richardson Park.
I support some money going to develop rugby league in the Northern Territory, especially the Top End. They have been the poor cousins of the AFL for many years. This is not a discussion about supporting rugby league and advancing that code. It is great, and we need to say that up front.
For too long they have had second-grade facilities, and to bring top-grade rugby league to the Northern Territory they require facilities to do so. However, it is more than that; it is about the future of rugby league. We are talking about the Top End, and I will not try to advance it for the rest of the Territory. Katherine has good rugby league facilities, so does Tennant Creek. Katherine plays rugby league, so does Tennant Creek, Nhulunbuy and Alice Springs, but we are referring specifically to the Darwin region.
I thought before the government spent money on the future of rugby league a proper, independent report would be done, enabling all involved – supporters, players, officials and the national body – to say where we should site a facility that could not only host local games, but also NRL games. We would then know the site was supported by the rugby league community. Frank McGuiness, who unfortunately passed away, as Auditor-General continually spoke about auditing to reduce the chance of something happening that would cost the government a great deal of money. In other words, do a risk assessment.
With regard to the Richardson Park funding, I do not believe the government has acted with due diligence to look at the broader requirements of rugby league, which include population growth and suitable areas it could be housed at. Nor has the government looked at the running costs of this facility, something missing from this debate. NT Rugby League was paying $5000 a week and was in debt because it could not cover costs.
The Treasurer decided, and then cloaked it in the government, to spend this money without any of the sporting groups knowing it would happen – to spend $20m on Richardson Park. A few people knew, but unfortunately the Treasurer did not appear before the committee so I could not ask him who said Richardson Park would be a better site. That is fine, Treasurer, people are entitled to lobby anyone but there is a bigger responsibility. Even though people might lobby you and say that is the heart of rugby league, the responsibility is if we spend money we must ensure this is the right place to do it.
Is this the future of rugby league? It is 55 years old. Then it was the centrepiece of sport in the Darwin region. At that stage we were running the speedway at Bagot Park and dust was everywhere. We moved Bagot Park to Hidden Valley, as we moved AFL to TIO.
We have not considered population growth. Palmerston did not exist when Richardson Park first opened, nor did most of the rural area. I am not saying Richardson Park should not be the site, but was due diligence taken by the government when it said it would spend $20m there?
Can the government say how it will make enough money to cover the cost of running Richardson Park? My rugby league place at Freds Pass does not get funding from the Northern Territory government ...
Mr Tollner: What about how the AFL makes enough money to cover the AFL oval? What about how you cover the Leanyer water park?
Mr WOOD: Hang on. It seems the government wants to take over the running of Richardson Park because rugby league cannot afford to run it. If you look at the key findings, NT Rugby League and the National Rugby League were talking about Marrara. The Treasurer might debate this, that and the other, but he highlights the fact that this debate never happened. It is only when we decided to investigate that we had some debate because this was the Treasurer’s decision, the captain’s pick. ‘Knock, knock, captain, we think Richardson Park is the place to go.’ ‘Beauty, $20m.’ That is what appears to have happened.
If the Treasurer thinks I am wrong please show us the facts and figures to say this is a good decision. Not only show us, but present the documents so people can analyse whether the decision makes good sense, because that is what we are trying to do.
I do not care if it is at Richardson Park or not, but so many questions have not been answered that one would have to say there has not been due diligence. You would expect the Treasurer, of all people, to make sure that money would not be wasted on a facility that had not been budgeted for.
I believe the budget for repairs and maintenance or the running of facilities in the Top End is about $4.5m. What is the estimated cost for the government to run Richardson Park per year? Do you have that figure? How much will it cost and how much do you expect to recover? I ask that because when the government said this is what it would do, four sports were mentioned, being NT rugby, soccer, touch and AFL.
We know that those sports were not consulted before the government made a decision. We know from the hearings that they are not interested in going there. If touch football gets an agreement with the Fannie Bay race track they are quite happy to stay there. They might go there for a state game. Soccer would prefer to stay where it is. Rugby union had the option of upgrading their part of the world and developing rugby union in conjunction with developing Warren Park. AFL, as has been said, wants to use it for ALF 9s, which could be played anywhere, but that facility would be available.
We were told it would be used for events, including concerts, and then told at the hearings that it would not be used for concerts. There is another revenue stream that will not exist.
Again, Frank McGuiness would be asking what due diligence occurred before making the decision. What is the risk of this, as the member for Nightcliff said, becoming a white elephant? I do not want it to become a white elephant.
There have been changes since the first announcement was made. It was a one field Richardson Park that turned into a two field Richardson Park. We also know that $20m will not cover things like car parking. What about the Nemarluk Drive extension which has been mentioned? Listening to a representative from the department of Lands and Planning, they may have to purchase land from Anglicare, which is another cost.
What is the true cost of developing Richardson Park? What are the ongoing operating costs of Richardson Park? They are reasonable questions that a Public Accounts Committee should be asking. To a large extent, except for the $20m, we do not know what those extras will be.
Also, was enough effort made to look at alternatives? The classic alternative that was missed is whether the government considered Berrimah when looking at this? The government has just announced tenders going out for the development of Berrimah. Many people will live at Berrimah so what recreation facilities are planned for Berrimah Farm? Would this have been an ideal place for a new facility, halfway to Palmerston and the rural area and halfway to Darwin and the northern suburbs? Was any thought given to that? It appears not.
The government and the department looked at an alternative based on a rugby league field at Mudgee estimated to cost about $25m. It would have 5000 permanent seats and enough temporary seating to bring the numbers up to about 12 000 people at Warren Park. That appears, on the surface, to be a good idea. Another idea would have been to upgrade Rugby Park, which is next door.
We need a reality check in this debate. We are upgrading one rectangular park for one or two games a year, being NRL. We have no guarantee anyone else wants to use it. How could we upgrade and get the best value for money for that short period of time? Rugby Park has and is being used by rugby league for grand finals. It has a grandstand that could be added to and embankments for temporary seating. It has some terrible facilities which could do with upgrades.
One issue raised about Warren Park was that it could have been the centre for sports medicine. I have not heard that about Richardson Park, and do not know why you would put a centre for sports medicine away from the main sporting facilities at Marrara. We have athletics, cricket, football, soccer, rugby league, tennis will go there, and it would make a lot of sense. That was in one of the reports which said we should look at the possibility of including a sports medicine facility at Warren Park.
Unfortunately, the government has made a decision which is not based on reasonable analysis. If it used reasonable analysis it will not release information on it. We do not know on what basis the Treasurer decided to approve $20m. We have some facts and figures about the $100m reserve. Obviously, that was too high. We have facts and figures about a $42.5m proposal, a $25m facility, and an old plan from 2009 that rugby league did which worked out at about $10m. We do not have anything before us to show what due diligence the government took before it decided to go with the $20m option. Many people feel it is a fait accompli.
The government puts out tenders then asks people what they think. That is fine, but we do not believe those views will have much weight because if the Treasurer wants something to happen it will. There should have been general discussions about the future of rugby league and the effect upgrading Richardson Park would have. I did not find too many residents who said Richardson Park should continue as is or get the feeling people were anti-rugby league. It is more that you are moving from a weekend sport with a few games to something that could have a much greater impact on residents.
That is where you have consultation and talk to people about your views. I knew nothing about an extension to Nemarluk Drive except what a rugby league supporter told me. That came out on the last day of our hearings, so issues which I do not believe have been discussed need to be thought through. Ludmilla Primary School and the school council – the Education department only recently found out that was an issue. Consultation has to be genuine.
Theoretically, minister, if the DCA or residents felt that this proposal was heavily weighted against the amenity of the area, would the government say it would not go ahead? Would the government say, ‘We will listen to what people say and make a considered decision. We will work with the community if it needs adjustment, and listen to people sincerely to deal with the concerns they have’? At the moment you feel it is, ‘We need a rugby league field ready by the Eels match in August’. By hell or high water the Treasurer wants that to happen. Thankfully, the Minister for Sport and Recreation said he is not sticking to that time line.
Thank you, minister, for attending. It is good to see a minister at a PAC meeting. One issue with the Council of Territory Cooperation was complaints that ministers were not required to attend committee meetings. The PAC asked three ministers to appear and two did not, which is extremely disappointing. You will see the findings say that goes against the Members’ Code of Conduct, and I have the same feeling.
Clause 11 says:
- … members must act in what they genuinely believe to the public interest.
In particular, members must seek to ensure their decisions and actions are based on honest, reasonable, properly informed judgment about what will best advance the common good of the people of the Territory.
Clause 10 says:
- Members must act in accordance with the principle of responsibility.
This means members must endeavour to ensure their decisions reflect a proper consideration of all relevant matters, including the reasonably foreseeable consequences for those likely to be affected by decisions.
By attending the hearings ministers would have had an opportunity to put their point of view. I am happy to hear the Treasurer’s point of view because even though the Minister for Sport and Recreation will comment on this report, the Treasurer had a lot to do with this decision and we were not able to ask him questions. Therefore we can only presume that he does not want to provide the information.
It is a good report. I thank the staff who worked tirelessly to get this done. We needed to get this out quickly because the tenders are out. We have heard the Treasurer wants a game there next August so we needed to make sure that people knew all the issues. I hope the government accepts the recommendations and is not in a hurry to go down a path which could cause future cost to the Territory. Recommendation 6 says the committee recommends that the government avoid any undue haste in development of the new stadium.
I also thank my fellow members of the committee because it is an important report. It shows the value of the Public Accounts Committee because it is doing exactly what is required, and that is investigating public money being spent. It has done a good job. I believe due diligence has not occurred here, and people need to be reminded of what the Auditor-General would say about making sure there is little or no risk when the government spends our money so it is not wasted. There are plenty of examples where that has happened before.
__________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of a Year 6 class from Parap Primary School accompanied by Tania Hardy. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
__________________
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, I support the report tabled by the Public Accounts Committee, an extensive body of work. It has been a very busy period. There has been much to get through, with a huge amount of work pursued by the committee and staff of the Legislative Assembly who have supported the work.
From the moment Richardson Park was announced it generated a lot of debate and confusion within the community about the government wanting to invest $20m of taxpayers’ funds into the facility. I do not think anybody is against investment in rugby league. We all appreciate what a wonderful sport it is in the Northern Territory, its benefits to people who participate in the sport, the love that Territorians have for seeing the big games, the week to week local competitions and people being able to participate in their beloved sport.
There is a great deal of support for further investment in rugby league. However, some very significant questions were raised regarding how the government made the decision to invest $20m in upgrading Richardson Park, which seemed to come out of the blue. The Public Accounts Committee scrutinised this expenditure and looked at the reasons for the government’s decision to invest $20m into upgrading Richardson Park, the process which has been followed, whether it is value for money and if it is the best investment in rugby league in the Northern Territory. What people want to see when government invests in sport is value for money for the community and a sound investment.
Many questions have been raised about the process government followed in deciding to invest in Richardson Park. The committee called for submissions and arranged public hearings so members could get a grasp of the advice agencies were putting into the Budget Cabinet process in advising government, to ensure government was making informed decisions and following due diligence. We received a great deal of information and had the opportunity to speak to several agencies regarding the process, because Richardson Park is not wholly a Department of Sport and Recreation agency responsibility. Other agencies have a role, such as the Department of Infrastructure and also Treasury.
It was very helpful to listen to staff from those agencies, especially the Minister for Sport and Recreation, who presented evidence to the committee. We welcomed and appreciated it. It was a shame we could not hear from the Treasurer and the Chief Minister, but it was good to have the minister there and hear his point of view and the process followed.
It became extremely apparent the information and advice that went into the Budget Cabinet process, as well as the decision to invest $20m to upgrade Richardson Park, was not based on advice, guidance or analysis presented by the agencies. The agencies were working on completely different locations and projects, and that raised a few questions.
With regard to the consultation process there were a few questions within the agencies, as well as the sporting bodies which would benefit from the move to an upgraded rectangular field facility. It seemed the sporting clubs which would ultimately stand to benefit from the rectangular field investment were not consulted about the move to Richardson Park. They were shocked that the government had decided to invest in upgrading Richardson Park. That was telling in regard to the decision-making process.
There were also many questions about the analysis done to ensure the government was achieving the best value for money by investing in the Richardson Park project as opposed to other potential options. The committee heard that other options had been explored at an agency level for Marrara with about $25m for 5000 permanent seats and the capacity to expand with temporary seating up to about 12 000 seats.
There was also an option around $40m. Then, of course, the $100m all-bells, all-whistles, fully-decked-out stadium option had also been explored. More information from the government that it was making a fair comparison of what was available would have been good to see.
The story from the government initially was, ‘Rather than investing $100m in a whizz-bang flash stadium, we decided to invest $20m in upgrading Richardson Park’. That seemed comparable to the $25m option for Marrara that had been considered at an agency level, but it would have been good to see more analysis of that since most of the sports had been working towards the fact that Marrara was where rugby league saw the investment going to upgrade their facilities and build and grow their sport.
Consultation was a constant theme throughout this. We heard from the agencies that they provided advice with regard to rugby upgrades, none of which was followed in the Cabinet decision. We also heard from other sports that prior to the decision they had not been consulted about the Richardson Park move, and that it came as quite a shock and surprise to them. They are very welcoming of the funding, love seeing big money invested in sport and they want to see their sport grow. However, it was not in line with their expectations or the planning they had been doing, and going back to Richardson Park was quite a surprise.
The community was a big issue throughout the PAC hearings. The local residents impacted by the decision to invest in upgrading Richardson Park had not been considered as part of this decision, and consultation was happening after the decision had been made. In fact, the budget decision announcement was in May and the committee heard that a communication strategy had just been prepared. You would think the community would be a top consideration in plans to redevelop Richardson Park, but consultation came months after the decision had been made. There is a great deal of angst in the community about how this will affect residents, who said they felt they were not being listened to by the government.
One thing that really stood out throughout the committee hearings was whether $20m will get the government there. It is clear that the tender process has not been completed; tenders are yet to come back. That raises questions about whether $20m will deliver this project. The committee heard other studies were being conducted which could ultimately lead to more money being invested in this project.
Also quite alarming is the fact the goalposts keep changing. From the initial announcement of one field it has gone to two fields, yet the bucket of money remains much the same. You wonder if we will have a compromised end product to meet the $20m Richardson Park upgrade, or will we see significant budget blowouts because the true costs of delivering this project have not been considered and included in the $20m? Tenders are yet to come in. I do not believe we will get the full upgrade the government has sold to the community for $20m alone. Many outstanding costs have not been factored into this.
It will be interesting to see how the tender goes and to closely monitor other costs associated with redevelopment of Richardson Park. It seems this project has been moving on the hop, and that government made a call outside Cabinet to invest in Richardson Park without the appropriate analysis, information, advice or consultation which usually goes into informing ministers and government, though the Budget Cabinet process, how to best invest Territory money. In this case that process appears not to have occurred. What will be delivered at Richardson Park for $20m is of great concern, and whether that is a true reflection of the cost of the project.
It is also clear that the government has much more work to do. It announced the investment and, since then, has been scrambling to get people on board. It has been scrambling to consult with other sporting bodies and the broader community. After speaking to people at the hearings, there seems to be no clear plan. Granted the government needs to get that tender into shape and form a clear plan, but if due process and diligence were applied initially this would have all been sorted out. Instead, it is hard to have confidence in the decision-making process and delivery of the project going forward given there are so many unknowns and uncertainties.
There is also a lot of community concern, and we urge the government to consult much more with the community.
Another big issue was the ongoing cost of running Richardson Park. Richardson Park was abandoned because of its huge weekly running costs. It was very difficult to go forward when they had such high overheads and no revenue coming in to support the facility or their sport.
It was also clear that the government had no understanding of the ongoing costs of maintaining Richardson Park. The last thing we want is a sport being put in a hard position because these things were not thought through. Again, it seems the thinking about and delivery of this project was on the hop. We need more information about the true costs to run this facility. Will they be sustainable to ensure rugby league is placed in the strongest position for its future development?
In its promotion of the Richardson Park upgrade the government spoke about getting other sports on board and the benefits that could flow to them through more rectangular fields. However, it seems that touch football, which was not aware of the government’s decision to go to Richardson Park, is not planning its future sporting activities there. It sees itself based at the turf club and, perhaps, using the office facilities at Richardson Park. There was some interest from the AFL 9s, but because these organisations were not consulted about Richardson Park in the first place, it raises questions about the viability and sustainability of the facility and how these costs will impact on rugby league.
More numbers need to be crunched because people want to see rugby league succeed in the Northern Territory and not be burdened with huge running costs. It would have been nice for the committee to get some assurances from government on the thinking around that, but government was unable to provide any rock-solid figures to give the committee confidence that had been considered in the decision to redevelop Richardson Park.
It has been a busy period for the PAC with an extensive investigation being conducted and hearings held. I thank all who participated. The sports that put submissions in and spoke to the PAC highlighted the fact there was not the necessary consultation and they were not aware their future was heading to Richardson Park.
It was also good to hear from the agencies, which were very up front and professional, and enlightened us on the process they followed and the advice they gave to government when deciding where to invest for rugby league. It was clear the agencies provided advice to the government, none of which was followed.
What is also abundantly clear is the need for more consultation with the community. People have concerns about how this will impact their lives and if the government can deliver this project. I am talking about the whole project, so the associated costs for roads, car parking, lighting and two fields. Can the government, with $20m, deliver a topnotch stadium to give people the experience they want at National Rugby League games in Darwin?
People want to know they are getting value for money for the future of rugby league in the Territory. At the moment people do not have faith or confidence because of the process government has followed.
Thank you to all the people who gave evidence, to the hard-working committee team in the Department of the Legislative Assembly, and thank you very much to my PAC colleagues. It was a very busy time but this is an important report.
Mr HIGGINS (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I am disappointed that we could not adjourn this debate as I would like to have read the report before I speak. In responding I will try to answer some of the questions asked, which is what I tried to do at the PAC hearing because I wanted to get some facts on the record.
Richardson Park has a full and rich history associated with rugby league in the Northern Territory, and it is important that continues.
The site was named after Darwin’s first mayor, Bill Richardson, and we have had some legendary players on that field, such as Cubillo and Edwards. I also point out, when talking about the school and use of the race track, that when Richardson Park was in its heyday it used the facilities of Ludmilla school to play games. When they had larger games they used the area around the racecourse for overflow parking.
Everyone agrees that something has to be done with Richardson Park, and everyone agrees it is currently a rundown government facility and has been in that state for far too long. It is important to note it is a government-owned facility. Marrara, Warren Park and some of the other suggestions are not government-owned, so that is the first problem government has to deal with.
In the business case prepared for consideration by Cabinet there was a clear statement of fact: the closure of Richardson Park generated a gap in sporting infrastructure. It is important to remember we have missed out on an important piece of infrastructure. The redevelopment ticks some other boxes for us and pays homage to our sporting history. It provides a first-class venue for sporting and community purposes, preserves usage of the site for sporting and community events, and is the best value for money solution to the need for a rectangular stadium playing field that complies with national standards.
I note that some people have spoken about a $100m facility. That was to be a first-class rectangular stadium with seating for 12 000 at Warren Park, Marrara. The difference between that and what has been agreed is significant. To compare, as we did before, green apples with green apples as opposed to avocados – the $100m was to set up a stadium for 12 000 which complied with national standards and would not be used much. When talking about 12 000 seats, rugby league or any other rectangular field game played every weekend – if you get 3000 people there you have a good crowd. Spending $20m for a facility at Richardson Park capable of seating 10 500 people but with only 3500 permanent seats for a much lower price is much better option for government.
When the motion to refer this to the Public Accounts Committee came into this House the member for Nelson raised the issue of the 2012 proposal from rugby league. He made out this was the be-all and end-all of what rugby league wanted in a facility at Warren Park. When I looked at the report and questioned why I had not seen it, it was obvious I was not given the proposal as part of the documentation relating to this decision because it does not provide for a national standard facility. It provided for a grandstand of 1500, lighting for local club games, a car park for 300 cars, office space, change rooms, a corporate area, media facilities and a canteen. It did not provide for a national standard facility.
The member for Nelson also threw another red herring in with the facility at Mudgee. I do not know how many facilities we need to look at, but we asked Infrastructure to look at the costs. Infrastructure said to build a nationally compliant standard facility would cost about $8000 a seat. For a 10 000 seat stadium you are talking about $80m. I do not know what other facilities exist where we could compare prices, but it must compare apples with apples or a national standard with a national standard.
One of the benefits of a national facility is that we have growing rectangular field sports. We will be able to host national games across multiple codes. We will provide Territorians with access to a modern world-class facility and an additional sporting and community events venue.
There was reference to holding concerts. I dispelled that at the Public Accounts Committee. There is no intention to hold concerts at Richardson Park as there are already other facilities. We have used TIO previously, and we have The Gardens amphitheatre. Also, in the plans released for the national tennis centre there is an indication that the main court could be used for concerts.
There are two sides to the seating argument. The member for Nelson said we will have a facility that will only be used two nights a week for up to 10 000 people. However, other members of the committee say we will be using this facility every night of the week, implying that 10 000 people will attend.
The seating is for 3500. The other seating is multiuse temporary seats which government will purchase. They can either be used at Richardson Park when we hold national games, or at the tennis centre to facilitate concerts or larger tennis matches if that is approved. The AFL has indicated it would make great use of this seating at TIO when it has larger games. The additional seats over the 3500 will be purchased by the government and stored.
Another issue raised was lights every night and touch football. I watched the PAC question touch. They were implying that touch would have to move from the race track to Richardson Park. That it is not correct. It has never been our intention to move touch to Richardson Park. It is simply whether touch would use the facility for state or national games when they need spectator facilities. The answer is clearly yes.
The same issue applies for rugby union, rugby league and all the other sports mentioned. It is not the intention of government to move all these codes to Richardson Park. If people understand sport they know the ovals at Richardson Park, TIO Stadium, Warren Park and all the others are basically used when there are level one games in the local competition or for the national competition.
The juniors still need other fields and facilities, and the same applies to touch football. They will still need six fields. However, I do not like the implication that they will only have four fields when they get to Richardson Park, and therefore will have to play longer and the lights will need to be on longer. The answer is, no, they will not because they will still be using the centre of the race track.
As to what announcements were made about Richardson Park, the facilities and the lack of consultation, I can go back to 2009 when there was an original plan made by Darwin Rugby League. In 2010 an independent review was done by KPMG. In 2012 there was the report we are talking about. Also, in 2012 a ministerial was submitted to the previous government which was not approved. In 2013 the NRL wrote to the minister seeking a grant from the government to engage consultants to carry out planning for the proposed redevelopment of Richardson Park. Again, 2013. I could go on and on when people say we have not consulted.
To say we have not communicated this – I pick up on the opposition saying I gave them credit for their media releases. I was not giving them credit for the media releases, I was simply pointing out that people who say they did not know about this need to look at what communication there is from government and the opposition. It was announced in the budget in May.
I made many public announcements about sport. We invited people from all codes to talk to us about different budget announcements. I travelled up and down the track and gave presentations in Tennant Creek, Katherine, Alice Springs and Darwin.
We made public statements on this project in April, May, September, October and the week leading up to the PAC hearings. The opposition has also released several media releases about the project. I am not praising their media releases, but the information was available. People need to read it or go online to find this information. We cannot go doorknocking in every Territorian town.
In May we released the initial concept plans to gauge interest and reaction. I heard the complaint that we have only one field. In the very first interview I gave I said it would be of a nationally compliant standard and the concept plan was a concept, and we would look at putting in a second field. I have never shied away from the fact that you need a second warm-up field to comply with national standards. I point out that the tender was for concepts. They are an accepted tool to give possible tenderers an idea of what a design could look like. The request for quotation documentation specifies that the successful tenderer would work with the proposed government advisory group.
I set up that group, which is made up of sporting people, sports medicine people, a representative from the soccer organisations, some people with building experience and others with business experience. It has people from government as well as people from sporting groups. I also wrote to all relevant sporting organisations about the project, and received submissions on the project from those organisations for consideration by government.
Another issue is the other work going on at Richardson Park. Flood mitigation work is being conducted by the Lands minister. It is very convenient to mix these issues, but I can categorically state that no work has commenced at Richardson Park. People who think some of the work currently being conducted around Richardson Park is part of the project are wrong.
Yes, there will be road works. We also need to look at the other projects being conducted at the same time. The flood mitigation and access to Nemarluk Drive is from concerns raised by the school over many years about access in and out of the school from Bagot Road.
One solution to that was to have a road come off Nemarluk Drive. That, of course, is very convenient for us when developing Richardson Park. Is it part of the flood mitigation, normal planning or Richardson Park? The government has to put that money in somewhere and it is not in the development of Richardson Park, it is in the flood mitigation area.
People speak about the Development Consent Authority and getting approvals. Part of the process of that is putting up signs and public consultation. It is not true that we have not consulted with the public because it is clearly a step we go through. Anyone can put up a proposal to develop anything, but they must go through that process. The government goes through the same process.
I raise the issue of Berrimah. At some point government has to make a decision. We might develop Berrimah tomorrow, next week we might develop Weddell, and the week after we could develop north Daly River.
It is not good enough to place moratoriums on everything that requires a hard decision. We are paid to make decisions in this House, and in this instance we have made a decision. People are paid a lot of money to make decisions. I often say to my staff, ‘You’re paid a lot of money to get a kick in the bum when you make the wrong decision’. No matter which way you look at it a decision needs to be made. My documentation goes back to 2009, and I can go back further and further.
The last fact I would like to correct is the issue of $5000 a week. If people bothered to read the last page of the 2012 report written by NRL they will see the NRL states, in black and white, $150 000 a year. My calculations, based on that report, are $3000 a week, not $5000 a week. That figure was used by the member for Johnston when he questioned the previous minister for Sport in regard to how much NRL was paying out. He stated it as a fact, and I want to clarify that on the last page of that 2012 report it clearly states $150 000.
I am disappointed I did not have time to read the report. I look forward to doing so. I was more than happy to appear before the PAC and would do it again. There is no problem appearing before any of these inquiries if you have nothing to hide, and I am confident about that.
Mr STYLES (Business): Madam Speaker, the member for Daly pointed out a classic problem with the opposition where they seem to get it wrong – $5000 a week as opposed to $3000. This is where they try to create a situation and invent things. They have a history of it, as opposed to doing the research.
Several members on the other side said how wonderful it would be to move to Marrara. That is my electorate, and I would like these members to come to my electorate on a Saturday night when a major game is on. Everybody says there is ample parking there but that is not true. The major AFL field is there as well as other fields. It is a popular place, which is good.
When I moved here in 1981 the CLP government started to build stuff at Marrara. I have watched it grow and think it is terrific – a great initiative. We have many sports in one area, but you cannot overload the facilities.
The member for Nightcliff said there are traffic plans for the area. That is true, but if you live in my electorate you will find cars everywhere when a major game is on. They are parked on McMillans Road, on the service road, up Lee Point Road into Moil, which is some of the member for Johnston’s area, if I am correct. They go right down towards the cemetery. It gets crowded.
In the middle of all that you have the emergency services; the fire station is built smack bang in the middle of that. Sadly, a lot of people do not consider that emergency services need to get in and out of that area in a hurry.
Opposition members want to spend a lot of money, and we know they are very good at that. When we gained government we inherited a massive $5.5bn bill, thanks to the former Treasurer, the member for Karama. We fixed that too. We fixed a lot of things they messed up.
Going back to the sporting fields, they want to spend $80m, $100m maybe more – we will just borrow some money. They still have not learnt that you cannot keep borrowing money and putting it on MasterCard. Eventually, you run out of credit as well as the ability to pay it back. What do we see? No concern.
Members interjecting.
Mr STYLES They scoff and laugh at what I say about running an efficient economy. Let us look at the cost. We have $20m to spend on Richardson Park for more facilities. I understand the Northern Territory AFL is happy to have extra fields; everybody wants extra playing fields. Marrara has playing fields youth can use.
What a fantastic opportunity for the youth at Ludmilla Primary School to have facilities at their back door, quality fields that are maintained to play and practice on. They would not only be for rugby, but you could mark it out for soccer or football. Different codes could use the facilities. These days, with lighting technology, you can play at night.
Many people in the northern suburbs and in my electorate – I have been doorknocking asking if they would like their kids to play sport in the evening. They love it and think it is terrific, which is why the government is trying to organise money in the budget for lighting at suburban ovals. I cannot remember who it was, but about two nights ago I was listening to people talk on a radio station about lights in suburbia. They were sporting experts and people who were worried about the health of young people. They were talking about training in the evening when it is cooler, and about playing games and competitions in the evening. This is about getting people out in the evening to play night games when it is cooler for the players, participants, supporters and spectators. It makes great sense.
I do not know where you would build a massive new rectangular field at Marrara. There are lots of options at Marrara, but there are things such as a new aquatic centre. We need to look at the money they want to pour into Parap. Is it worth spending tens of millions of dollars to add an extra few centimetres to the end of the pool so it is competition friendly?
What do we put at Marrara? Will it clash? I am concerned about that. With McMillans Road, every time there is a major function they need a massive traffic campaign. If we have two major codes playing on the same night – it is all very well to say continue building, but what happens then? There is overcrowding and we have a problem. What do you do with the $100m stadium you just built? ‘Sorry, we can’t move that’, so what do we do then? Do we start clearing bush at Rapid Creek for extra car parks?
These issues have not been raised by those opposite. They think we can move things from Richardson Park where we have an established building. It is the home of rugby league. I understand there have been some focus groups, and many people are happy about it. I accept a number of people are not happy. Those opposite are not happy about it, and neither are a number of people in the area. However, some people are.
Some people want a quality field for their kids to play sport on. We are always looking for extra fields.
If we go to Marrara we will be competing with a range of things. People want to build retention ponds there so you would lose the car parks. That is part of the Rapid Creek flood mitigation program. We would bring the available space down to a very small area. Soccer or football – I still call it soccer – has a stadium there. What if soccer wants to expand as well? Where do they move to? Maybe we should build the new rugby league facility there and put soccer at Richardson Park because we are running out of space. It was a great idea, and I watched through the 1980s and 1990s with great enthusiasm. My kids would participate in sports there. I thought it was fabulous when they built the hockey field there.
What will we do about a traffic plan? The member for Nightcliff said there are traffic plans. I do not know if she has been there on a Saturday night when a major football game is on. In fact, sometimes with a major local game, let alone when visitors are playing, one of our major thoroughfares is down to one lane of traffic. You cannot move. If you try to get across the road – you cannot park there. People are coming home …
Ms Fyles: Why are you building a tennis centre there if it is so bad?
Mr STYLES: The point I am trying to make, for the benefit of the member for Nightcliff, is when you say these things, consider what else is available.
This is about taxpayers’ money. With the debt we inherited we have to be careful how we spend taxpayers’ dollars. I am astounded at some of the decisions the other side have made. They do not think responsibly. They will disagree with me, but I do not believe they act responsibly and in the interests of the Territory taxpayers when they run us into debt. You only have to look at the graphs of the past. When Labor is in debt goes up. When we get in we get it under control, stimulate the economy and debt goes down. When you cannot control debt you keep borrowing.
I have spoken to people about Richardson Park. I have spoken to my constituents, people who come into my ministerial office and to my kids about this. I have asked, ‘What do you guys think? What are you talking about in your workplace?’ I ask my friends what people are talking about and they say, ‘Just do it’.
Several people I know have friends in Ludmilla. They told me they were concerned about a few issues. I explained a few things to them and they said, ‘I’ll tell them that’. They have not come back to me. I can only assume they have accepted it, maybe they have not.
When we are spending taxpayers’ dollars we have to invest in the future of the Northern Territory. We have to spread out dollars around to sport and recreation. In fact, we have about 30 different portfolios where we have to spend money.
We have an existing facility we need to upgrade, and $20m has been put aside for that. Conservatively, it would cost around $100m to build a new rectangular park in an area where parking is limited at major events. If you have two events at the same time you have a nightmare.
I ask taxpayers listening, where do you want us to spend that money? Economic investment creates jobs and economic activity, which means more taxes are paid, which means there is more GST, which means the community gets more money. I do not know if the opposition understands that in relation to infrastructure.
Of course, social infrastructure is schools and hospitals. Where do people want us to spend an extra $80m? Do they want to replace an existing facility or put that into hospitals and schools? Do they want to put it into commercial infrastructure such as roads, bridges and railway lines, or infrastructure that will give a return on investment to government or private operators such as the power system – the poles and wires? You can go to economic infrastructure, which I incorrectly stated, which are roads and bridges and the things that will bring investment.
This is about how much money we spend and about location. I want to talk about how much money we will spend.
I recently attended the Northern Australia Investment Forum, and have also been to China, Japan and a few other Asian countries to attract investment. One thing everybody asked me was, ‘Where is your infrastructure? You are a bit light on for infrastructure, Mr Styles.’ I said, ‘Yes we are working on that’, and talked about the $5bn federal infrastructure fund, the $1bn we are trying to leverage off the $200m from the sale of TIO, and leasing the port. You get their attention because private investors will not pay for roads, bridges and the infrastructure taxpayers and governments are responsible for. We have asked ourselves, ‘Do we spend $100m on replacing something which is already there, or do we spend $20m upgrading the existing facility?’ That leaves us $80m to spend on essential infrastructure. That is what responsible government and spending is about.
We have to do that. It is about attracting investment. Investment is about jobs, keeping our youth here, and keeping our people in work because the investors will use the facilities. If you do not run your economy correctly you will run out of money and start borrowing. You will then be limiting the supply of government services. Others will not build infrastructure for us; we have to. What can we get for $80m? We could build another Henbury School. That was $35m to $40m, and more schools will be required.
Last night I listened to former Queensland Treasurer, Keith De Lacy. He is a very interesting man and was guest speaker at the Australian Institute of Company Directors’ annual dinner. He spoke for about an hour. One thing he spoke about was responsible government. I spoke to the Attorney-General this morning, because he was there as well, and we thought Mr De Lacy was on the wrong side of politics because he was espousing all the things we espouse. I wondered what had changed in the Labor Party from when he was Treasurer of Queensland between 1989 and 1996 to now. I do not know what has changed because what he spoke about made sense. What the opposition talks about does not make sense.
He spoke about social infrastructure, about schools and hospitals, and said governments should not borrow for those things. Governments should take infrastructure spends out of their budgets, but should not have to go to the open market and borrow for those things. I did not agree with everything he said, but he talked about social and commercial infrastructure that governments produce, like power, poles and wires. He also spoke about economic infrastructure. He talked about responsible spending, and I did not disagree with him.
It is important to recognise that we have an existing facility ready to go but it needs upgrading. Everyone acknowledges that, but all the work done by the Minister for Sport and Recreation, the member for Daly, indicates it is suitable for an upgrade. Do we let that go to rack and ruin then go to another area to build a massive rectangular stadium? You do not want to build another oval. You need to build something substantial so it can be used for national games. We are trying to get into the national league, and get Territorians into teams so they can be match ready.
We have to continue building but not necessarily replacing existing buildings.
Debate suspended.
The Assembly suspended.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of Mrs Zoe Marcham, the NT Honorary French Consul, and her husband, Mr Richard Wallace; Mrs Lea Aitken and Mr Keith Aitken, the former President of Alliance Franaise Darwin; and other members of the French community; and also our honourable members from the Niue parliament. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to you.
Members: Hear, hear!
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Paris Attacks
Paris Attacks
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it is with deep regret I advise that on 13 November 2015 three teams committed seven distinct attacks in Paris, comprising four suicide bombings and six shootings. The attacks killed 129 people and injured 352, with 96 taken to hospital in a serious condition.
CONDOLENCE MOTION
Paris Attacks
Paris Attacks
Mr GILES (Chief Minister) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly expresses it condolences for the recent events in France. I move this motion to condemn the cowardly attacks on the people of France over the weekend, and to offer whatever support the Northern Territory can provide to the victims of this disgusting and violent reign of terror.
On Friday 13 November at approximately 9.30 pm Paris time a series of coordinated attacks, including shootings and suicide bombings, killed at least 132 people and injured a further 300. Nearly 100 of those people are in a critical condition. The attacks occurred at the Stade de France, Bataclan Concert Hall and restaurants around central Paris. While the French people bore the brunt of these attacks, at least 22 foreigners are among the dead, including citizens from Algeria, Belgium, Britain, Chile, Germany, Mexico, Morocco, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Tunisia and the United States.
Thankfully no Australians, particularly Territorians, were among the dead. It could easily have been so. Paris is a gathering point for travellers from all over the world, and as we have said so many times in this House, Territorians love to travel. We are probably just lucky none of our own were caught up in these attacks on Friday night.
I wrote to French Ambassador, Christophe Lecourtier, on behalf of all Territorians early yesterday and offered our deepest sympathy to the people of France. I also asked that he convey my condolences and deepest sympathies to the French President on behalf of all Territory communities. Mr Lecourtier replied with sincere thanks, and described these as very sad days, mixed with anger and horror. He also made the point that it is now a common fight more than ever before. He says that the support and sympathy of Australians is amazing and so important in such a moment.
I also want to offer my sympathy to our small French community in the Territory and pledge the government’s support to all those touched by this atrocity. I often struggle to deal with the loss of Territorians killed overseas, and it must be equally painful for our French community to be dealing with this from so far away, knowing that families and friends came so close or saw so much death.
The attacks in Paris were an attack on the world. In a statement claiming responsibility for this slaughter ISIL said:
- Let France and all nations following its path know that they will continue to be at the top of its target list for the Islamic State and that the scent of death will not leave their nostrils as long as they partake in the crusader campaign.
By that we assume they mean the campaign to rid the world of ISIL and its murderous reign. The statement also warns that this is just the beginning, and I fear they might be right.
The French President described the attacks as an act of war, and his government is striking back at key ISIL targets in Syria and suspected ISIL terror cells in Europe. We know that United States President, Barack Obama, and Russian President, Vladimir Putin, have discussed their response, and leaders attending the G20 Summit in Turkey, including Prime Minister Turnbull, have vowed to find a more effective response to the killing.
The former Chief of Army, retired Lieutenant General Peter Leahy, is not known for speaking out of turn, but he said these attacks are now a game-changer.
I fear this may be the tipping point and our friends in the Australian Defence Force will be called to make an even greater contribution to resolving this conflict. I want them to know, if this be the case, they have my full support and that of this government. There are almost 800 ADF personnel in the Middle East supporting Operation OKRA and carrying out combat operations, including air strikes against targets in Iraq and Syria.
While an Australian Special Operations Task Group is providing advice and assistance to Iraqi security forces, a combined Australian and New Zealand task group has started training elements of the Iraqi Army as part of the United States-led Building Partner Capacity mission. It would be foolish to name any of these soldiers for security reasons, but there is little doubt that nearly all of them have trained here, and some still call the Territory home.
While it is not up to the Territory government to make decisions about national security, it is most definitely our duty to support decisions made on Australia’s behalf, and support the men and women of our armed forces. I want them to know that as a government we will continue to do so.
The people who carry out these attacks are not people of God, people of religion, and not leaders. They are depraved and self-obsessed killers who are using the slaughter of innocent people in a campaign to force governments to allow the creation of the Sunni Islamic state, governed by a brutal interpretation of Sharia law which obliterates the political borders of the Middle East.
Let us be perfectly clear, this slaughter was not the work of men and women of God. This mass murder is the work of evil. It is the business of hate. Call me old-fashioned, but to me religion is about celebrating what is good in the world, supporting those less fortunate and striving to make the world a better place. Religious teachings of all faiths consider the murder of innocent people to be the work of the devil.
True Muslims are peace-loving people who find these attacks just as abhorrent as the rest of the world. Muslims around the world want us all to know that ISIL does not represent their religion, and they have started a social media campaign using the hashtag #NotInMyName. One post in that campaign really stands out for me. A simple yet poignant message from the Koran is that whoever kills an innocent person it is as if he has killed all of humanity. It is the Islamic version of the biblical reference, thou shalt not kill.
These terrorists are not acting in the name of Islam. They are acting alone and are motivated by greed. They steal jewellery, cars, machinery and livestock from the people they conquer. They take hostages and demand millions of dollars in ransom, and run wide-ranging extortion rackets targeting landowners, mobile phone providers, water suppliers and electricity companies. They have seized control of oil wells and cotton and wheat crops, and they sell their produce on the black market. They murder with impunity, killing men and women, young and old, and then have the arrogance to claim they act on behalf of Islam. ISIL is the monster.
The Northern Territory has a long and peaceful history with Muslims within our community. There are records of Muslim contact with the Northern Territory as early as 820 AD in the form of a map of the sea of Java, which includes Cape York Peninsula, the Gulf of Carpentaria and Arnhem Land. Travel expeditions by the Muslims of Macassar are well-documented from the mid-1700s, and the trade was so lucrative that the old Macassar kingdom included the coast of Australia in its realm until British colonisation stamped it out in the late 1800s.
At around the same time the British hired Afghan labourers to build Australia’s vital infrastructure, who became known as the Afghan cameleers. They opened up the heart of Australia, including vast areas of Central Australia and the Northern Territory. Those cameleers eventually gave their name to Australia’s most famous train journey The Ghan. Several of those Afghan labourers married Indigenous women and settled in Alice Springs and other parts of the Territory. The Afghan mosque in Alice Springs continues to pay homage to that chapter of our early history.
As a jurisdiction our strategic location also puts us in close proximity to Muslim populations in Southeast Asia, and Muslim immigrants from Indonesia, Pakistan, Malaysia, India, Bangladesh and Albania now call the Northern Territory home.
The Darwin mosque opened for its first Friday prayers in October 1979 and the Islamic Council of the Northern Territory was established in 2002, becoming the parent organisation for the Islamic societies of Darwin, Palmerston and Alice Springs, and one of the nine state councils of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils.
The Muslim community makes a significant and rich contribution to the multicultural fabric that makes the Northern Territory so unique. It plays an important role in community events such as the Harmony Day Soire in Darwin and the Big Day Out in Harmony in Alice Springs.
The Islamic Society of Darwin is a not-for-profit organisation that provides a range of services to the Darwin Muslim community and the Darwin community in general, while promoting awareness and clarifying misconceptions about Islam. Chairperson of the Islamic Council of the Northern Territory, Ghulam Abbas, is a community member of the Minister’s Advisory Council on Multicultural Affairs and provides important advice to government.
The Northern Territory government has supported a range of Muslim community organisations across the Territory over many years, including funding for events that promote understanding and social cohesion. There was a Harmony barbecue at the Jingili Water Gardens last year, a multi-faith session at Charles Darwin University, and a community panel discussion to proactively discuss community concerns in January this year. Mosques in Alice Springs, Darwin and Palmerston have held open days to allow the community to experience activities in a mosque, and the Territory government was pleased to provide funding to support the Islamic Society of Darwin to hold the Islamic Awareness Week in July this year.
I and my parliamentary colleagues are very conscious that global events have driven an increase in negative attitudes about Muslims and Islam in general. Fortunately, the backlash in the Northern Territory has been much more subtle than any other parts of the world.
The Northern Territory Muslim community can be assured that government will not tolerate any form of discrimination. I have made it perfectly clear that what happened in Paris is not a reflection of Muslim faith but a campaign of hate. ISIL and its supporters want the rest of the world to hate Muslims so it can divide the community and create even more hate. We cannot allow that to happen. I urge all Territorians to think carefully about what ISIL is, what it is really trying to achieve, and understand that the best way to send a clear message that we will not tolerate its barbarity is to stand united with our Muslim friends.
Governments around the globe have condemned these attacks, and quite rightly. ISIL stands alone in a sea of international pressure. The fact that Parisians left the Stade de France on Friday night surrounded by dead and injured, but still singing the national anthem, is a sign that the people of France have not been broken by these attacks. We must stand with them and the rest of the world to condemn this atrocity and stand ready to fight back.
One hundred and thirty-two people were cut down before their time and their only crime was to be in Paris on that fateful night. We should remember them as peace-loving citizens. We must work closely together as a community to stop this from ever happening again.
Madam Speaker, may they rest in peace.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr GUNNER (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the spirit of the French republic – liberty, quality, fraternity – led a beacon in the world over 200 years ago. Paris is the city of light, a light that cannot be extinguished by random violence or hate.
The events on the weekend were designed to cause terror and strike at people innocently enjoying their lives, relaxing at dinner or celebrating at a concert.
The terrible violence we saw on the weekend has provoked a human reaction that has brought the world together. An act of senseless violence has been overwhelmed by a human response. Let us celebrate the spirit of the French people. It is magnificent. As the carnage unfolded, Parisians opened their homes to offer sanctuary. Hundreds lined up the next morning to donate blood, and the human response of millions of people around the world provides more hope for the future than the actions of a violent few.
The lighting of building around the world in the tri-colours is more than a symbolic gesture. It is an active demonstration of the global connection we share to universal human values, and a wonderful visual tribute to the light that shines from France. Paris is for many people an emotional second home. Its passion, vibrancy and romance draws many who many move on physically, but a part of their heart always remains Parisian.
For me it is the city of love. It is where I proposed to my fiance. Many people have their own stories of what Paris means to them. Paris has captured the imagination of many of the world’s artists who have painted its stories on timeless canvases. That is why, I believe, when we saw the scenes many of us had an extra chord in our heart twang. It is a city that makes a claim on your heart.
As individuals grapple with their response to this tragedy, at times like this I remember the spirit with which we live, a spirit that Darwin exemplifies by the way we share our lives, loves and values. Bertrand Russell, over 50 years ago, said it better than I can. ‘Love is wise, hatred is foolish.’ In this world, which is becoming more closely interconnected, we have to learn how to tolerate each other. We have to accept that some people say things we do not like. We can only live together in that way. If we are to live together and not die together we must learn a kind of charity and tolerance which is vital to the continuation of human life on this planet.
It is a philosophy many of us live every day. It is something we celebrate and exemplify in Darwin. It is something the terrorists repudiate, and we cannot let them win. We cannot blame the innocent. Too often after a tragedy like this people lash out at the wrong targets. I welcome the comments from the Chief Minister, and join with him in saying we should reach out to people of all faiths in Darwin. To those people who celebrate Islam, we say we understand the difference between what has occurred in Paris, the actions of a violent few and the people we live with every day.
I have reached out on behalf of Labor to the president of the Islamic Society of Darwin to make our support known. Muslims are an important part of our cultural fabric. Our community is a strong one that celebrates many cultures, faiths and walks of life. We know how we respond in the Territory to tragedies at home, from floods in Katherine to cyclones in Darwin, and other tragedies near home such as the Bali bombings or the tsunami of 2004. In Darwin last night we saw a respectful vigil for people involved in the Paris attacks. I thank Miss Laura Taillebois, President of Alliance Franaise, for organising that with assistance from Ms Zoe Marcham, the honorary consul.
The Northern Territory is a generous community. One Australian was shot during the Paris attacks; Emma Parkinson, a bright, vivacious soul, and 19 years old. She was out having fun at a rock concert. A Tasmanian girl, Emma’s family have connections to the north so, on a personal note, I want to thank the people of Darwin who have reached out to the Parkinson family. Emma’s aunt, Sam Gunner, is speaking on behalf of the family. Sam calls Darwin home. It is where she met my brother, and I am proud to call her my sister-in-law. She has been incredibly strong as the face of the family, and their experiences have provided a remarkable insight into the pressure families come under at times of tragedy, times when they are trying to balance a demand for the public’s need for information with how to deal with a very personal crisis. Sam and her family are very thankful for the support they have received from their Top End home. For the record I will read the statement Sam released on behalf of the family.
- The family can confirm that Emma Parkinson was injured in the attacks that occurred in Paris. Emma was in attendance at the Bataclan theatre. We are told Emma sustained a number of gunshot wounds to her hip. Emma was taken to the local hospital for treatment where her mum was able to speak to her briefly on her mobile. As can be expected, Emma was scared and overwhelmed and desperately wanted to see her mum.
Emma underwent surgery, as we know. Thanks to the Australian Ambassador in France, Stephen Brady, they were able to speak to Emma directly following her surgery.
- We cannot thank Stephen Brady enough for being our lifeline on the ground in Paris staying by Emma’s side and staying in constant contact with family. Our priority from this point is getting Emma’s mum by her side and that will now occur thanks to the assistance and support of Qantas, who have bent over backwards to accommodate and support our family.
- I would also like to thank the staff at the hospital who have taken such good care of Emma through what must be incredibly trying times for all those involved.
My family are very grateful for the kind messages of support we have been inundated with. Our thoughts and condolences are with the family and friends of the victims who were killed during these tragic events and our thoughts are with the people of France and their capital. I know that our healing will start from the moment that Emma and her mum are united. I hope the people of France can begin their healing before too long also.
I believe Sam worded it beautifully at the end.
As an Assembly we are gathered today in condolence with the intention of wishing the people of France well in their healing.
Madam Speaker, the people of the Northern Territory stand with France, and I thank the Chief Minister for bringing forward this motion.
Mr STYLES (Business): Madam Speaker, as Minister for Multicultural Affairs I express my deep sorrow and sadness at the recent indiscriminate killing of innocent people in Paris. With the condolence motion before the House we have an opportunity to say to the people of France, as well as other citizens of the world, that we are united in our stand against acts of terrorism. The recent coordinated terrorist attacks in Paris, which killed 129 people and injured more than 300, were an effort by extremist forces to undermine the values of the society that France and Australia have and that we have worked hard to preserve.
Earlier this year France lost 17 citizens when they were brutally murdered by extremists. We feel for all the innocent victims in France whose lives have either been cut short or immeasurably affected by Muslim extremists. The Desai family from Darwin were almost potential victims in the Paris terrorist attacks last Friday night, with Bharat and Pryia Desai deciding to move to another caf rather than have a meal at the caf that received a volley of bullets. I was with them only last week in the Great Hall celebrating Diwali, a celebration of light over darkness and good over evil. I am sure that celebration comes to the mind when that family looks at what happened in Paris. With their daughter Pritika, the Desai family quickly departed France and are now in another European country.
It should be noted that Mr Bharat Desai is also the President of the Indian Cultural Society in the Northern Territory. The voluntary work he performs for this organisation is another example of how the multicultural nature of our community is assisted by the diversity of cultures and faiths we have.
Naturally there would be people in Paris fearful of leaving their homes, and visitors too would be fearful of visiting cities such as Paris that have been targeted, which is exactly the outcome these murderous extremists want.
The Chief Minister said these people are not part of religions that worship God, just murderous cowards who go out of their way to create fear. We are united in offering our support to the French community in the Northern Territory and our condolences are with them in this time of darkness. We are here to support them.
Yesterday members of our Darwin community held a vigil at Civic Park to remember those persons in Paris who so sadly lost their lives, and to show their strong support for the citizens of France. Many people from various cultures and religions were there. Politicians from all sides of parliament were there. A number of speakers expressed their support for the French people here who have been affected so badly by what has happened in France. After a minute’s silence there were a few tears and some hugging. I congratulate the President of Alliance Franaise, Ms Laura Taillebois, for her fantastic work after finding out only yesterday they could have this vigil at Civic Park, and to pull in so many people – there was a huge crowd – to support our French citizens and all other people who have been affected by this tragedy.
Many people of the Muslim faith from different countries with peaceful intentions have moved to countries such as France and Australia looking for a life free of violence, and a life where there are opportunities for their families to live and grow in a democratic society. They are not the people who support these murderous cowards.
France and Australia, as with many other countries in the world, provide opportunities for a better life. When extremists go out of their way to perpetuate abhorrent acts of murder we need to be strong and vigilant to protect our society, to involve all members and not be discriminatory. The Northern Territory has shown in the past that it is a very welcoming society to people from many different countries, cultures and religions. When there are incidents overseas, no matter how isolated they are from Australia, they are not tolerated by the values that we hold dear in our community.
As Minister for Multicultural Affairs I support the comments made in the letter in today’s NT News by community member of the Minister’s Advisory Council for Multicultural Affairs, Mr Ghulam Abbas, Chairperson of the Islamic Council of the NT. I want to read a couple of the comments from that letter:
- There is no justification for killing innocent people, especially in the name of religion. As a peak body of Muslims in the Northern Territory, we urge the community to respond to these horrific incidents with solidarity, unity and strength. Such acts do not represent the values, culture and faith of the Muslim community.
Mr Abbas wrote:
- Our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims of all of those involved in the terrorist attacks.
In the Northern Territory the Muslim community makes a very substantial contribution to our diverse multicultural society. They are not supporters of the action taken by these murderous cowards in Paris. The Northern Territory government has been a strong supporter over many years of different Muslim community organisations, in fact, many different religions and faiths. All year round we support all those organisations, along with their celebrations and events. Events have been funded to encourage harmony, understanding and social cohesion. Additionally, the Northern Territory government has provided funds to provide for and enhance community facilities so we can all live in this fantastic place we call home.
We will not let extremists separate us from our community. We will not tolerate any form of hate against different religious faiths. Now is the time for us all to stand together and show to others that we are a united community. We also want the people of France, and those in other countries affected by terrorist extremists, to know those innocent people who have lost their lives, and others who have been injured – the values and tolerant lifestyle we support will continue to be strongly promoted. We will continue to work together with our Northern Territory community to ensure we support and respect the diversity of our community members.
On the weekend I heard news on the radio about a man named Davide Martello. On hearing of the attacks he was so moved that he drove 400 km from Germany to Paris, towing his piano on the back of a trailer. He set up in front of the Bataclan theatre and played John Lennon’s Imagine. After they reported this on the radio they played the song. I was very moved by this guy who thought it would be a good thing to do out of respect for those killed or injured, and that in the interests of unifying the community he would do that.
It is imperative that we stand strong together to support one another in these times of trouble and send a clear message to these people that we will not be moved. The free world will band together and find out who did this and hold them to account.
Madam Speaker, may those innocent victims who lost their lives in France on the weekend rest in peace. My condolences.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, today we join in solidarity with our French brothers and sisters in Darwin, some of whom are here today, and with all French people.
Our prayers should go out to all those who have lost loved ones and those who have been wounded in these terrible events. We should also remember those who were killed in the recent bombing in Beirut, and those who were on the Russian airliner.
Even though the perpetrators and promoters of this evil must be brought to justice, we must strive for and promote peace if we are to find solutions to the many conflicts that affect us all. We will see that in our own back yard, as the NT will soon be receiving our first refugees from Syria, people who know full well the horror of war. They are coming to a city where we are all proud that people from all nations live in harmony.
Australia must be vigilant and remember our Defence personnel who are serving in the Middle East trying to stop the evil that is reflected in the tragedy of Paris.
I visited Paris last year for a short period on my way around parts of Europe. My short-term memories are what a beautiful city, a lovely place where people were so friendly.
What happened in Paris was horrible. We, as part of the civilised nations of the world, must work together to rid ourselves of these evil forces, and at the same time show that we are in solidarity with the people of France, the people of liberty.
I support the words of the Chief Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister for Multicultural Affairs. I also say rest in peace for all those people who have died.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I also add my thoughts and prayers for those people who died in France. Like the Leader of the Opposition, I have a romantic connection with France. In fact, I was married there at rue Jean Rey, which is the address of the Australian Embassy. At the base of the Eiffel Tower – these things happen in France, it is a passionate place – my first wife and I had our wedding photos taken.
I first went to Paris when I was 17 years of age. It was, for me, one of the great periods of enlightenment. Perhaps the land of Voltaire was so vivid that it was able to reach into the dull quarters of my mind and start to wedge some light into those darkened spaces.
I saw the Louvre and walked past masterpiece after masterpiece hanging in the corridors because there was not enough room in the major galleries because of all the other masterpieces. I stood before La Giaconda, the Mona Lisa, and was inspired. This is the city of Claude Monet and Paul Gauguin. This is the city that elevated and challenged the human spirit and had the courage, through its own revolution, to look at the institutions of old Europe and build a new society, as the Leader of the Opposition quite correctly pointed out, on those three plank principles of the republic: liberty, equality and fraternity. Those principles are writ large all over Paris. They are there as a reminder for each Parisian and each person who visits Paris.
This city is a place for the free mind where your spirit can soar, where you can visit the greatest churches in Notre Dame and Sacr-Coeur, the Eiffel Tower, the bridge builder’s magnificent minaret, for lack of a better word, pointing like a finger of humanity to heaven. It was supposed to be taken down shortly after it was built but the Parisians could not help but fall in love with it.
It is a city of love, which is why I convinced my first wife not to have a proper wedding but use the money to fly to Paris and get married there. It is not a decision I regret. The city touched me in very many ways.
I watched with dismay what happened early this year with the Charlie Hebdo incident, and now this dreadful incident as well. Paris is not just a city in the west; it is a symbol of human enlightenment. If you visit Thomas Jefferson’s residence at Monticello, Virginia, the French influence is most pronounced. It is the French ability to reach out, touch and change the world by creating better philosophies and ways of self-governance.
The American system is actually based on Montesquieu’s political philosophies, and they are writ large to the point where they are simply plagiarised into the American Declaration of Independence, such is the impact that France, particularly Paris, has had on the world. It is small wonder it is a target for terrorism because it stands for everything terrorists despise: love, passion and discovery, everything that a terrorist hates. No matter who you are, if you see the world through an extreme or absolute bent, Paris is the obvious place you would most hate because it challenges you to confront yourself in a way you do not have the courage to, so you attack it and try to hurt it.
Paris has been attacked before. Nazi ideology could only rest there for a few years before it was repelled. The Nazi commander of Paris was ordered by Adolf Hitler to destroy the city and leave nothing behind, but so influenced was he by Paris that he could not bring himself to obey Hitler’s orders. That is the symbol of Paris; it can influence an ideology as profound as Nazism.
These people are walking around Paris trying to kill its citizens. The Parisian authorities, of course, want people to not congregate in groups, but it is the nature of Paris that they want to recover their enlightenment as quickly as possible if somebody tries to snuff it out. Quite frankly, I cannot imagine a police officer anywhere in Paris moving against a group who say, ‘We are Paris, I am Paris. I am and we are resistant to ideologies that would destroy our enlightened world.’
It is for that reason we must stand shoulder to shoulder with the French and Paris. It is for that reason that we must defend ourselves as brothers in arms against the folly which is extremism, particularly the way extremism is expressed through ISIL. That is why I went to yesterday’s memorial service and why I speak today. The enlightenment is one of those French things I turn to as a beacon.
For the purposes of today: Je suis Paris; Vive la tricouleur; Vive la France.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for bringing this motion before the House to acknowledge the victims of the abhorrent attacks in Paris last Friday, 13 November, Black Friday. I join the Chief Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and all members of this House in paying tribute to the 139 lives lost and the hundreds injured in the senseless, cowardly and murderous attacks at the hands of the followers of ISIS.
I acknowledge and thank Ms Laura Taillebois, President of Alliance Franaise of Darwin, for organising yesterday evening’s vigil and tribute to those killed or injured in the attacks. She was well supported by Ms Zoe Marcham, the Honorary French Consul, who I met yesterday evening. It was a small but powerful gathering on the steps of Civic Park. The French flag was placed front and centre, and dozens of candles lit to commemorate those lost or hurt. Flowers were laid, speeches from the heart were delivered and a minute’s silence was observed. I then sang with those gathered, quite badly I confess, possessing no French language skills, the stirring words of the French national anthem La Marsiellaise, but was much roused by the strong and resolute French voices around me singing in beautiful harmony and with pride their national anthem at this sad time.
Indeed, La Marseillaise was a revolutionary song, an anthem to freedom when it was written in 1792, a patriotic call to mobilise all French citizens and an exhortation to fight against tyranny and foreign invasion. More than 200 years later the words and sentiments of the French national anthem remain as strong and as true as ever, not just for the people of France but for us as well to stand up to and fight tyranny. The tyranny the French fight now, a fight we are all engaged in whether we like it or not, is that of the evil and destructive forces of terrorism based on, as President Obama said, a twisted ideology.
Waking last Saturday morning to the horror of what had unfolded in Paris on Friday night shocked me, angered me, saddened me and bewildered me, as it has people around the world and in my small home town of Nhulunbuy. At the end of a working week when people were doing the most normal of things, enjoying a drink out with friends, enjoying a meal in a favourite and popular restaurant, watching a major football game between France and Germany or attending a rock concert in Paris’s popular Bataclan concert hall, no one could have anticipated the coordinated attacks by suicide bombers and gunmen intent on and designed to unleash carnage, pain and a level of fear which is unimaginable and unprecedented.
Media has now been saturated with stories of the horror of the attacks and the fear of those who narrowly escaped and those who have been lost. Of course, there are extra stories of incredible acts of kindness and generosity in supporting those immediately after the attacks. We hear stories not only of Parisians but also citizens of our global village, as detailed by the Chief Minister, including Australians.
I had the great privilege to travel to England, Belgium and France in the mid-year school break in June and July this year with around two dozen students from Nhulunbuy High School, including my teenage son and 10 adults. We toured the battlefields of France and Belgium to learn firsthand what these countries had endured during World War I and World War II. Last Friday’s attacks in Paris, according to many, were on a scale only last experienced in World War II.
During our travels we stayed in the ancient and beautiful city of Bruges in Belgium, and at the end of our trip we stayed for four wonderful nights in Paris. We were blessed to have had that experience and opportunity to dine in Paris’s cafes, to visit Paris’s many icons, like the Eiffel Tower, the Louvre and the Moulin Rouge, and to have spent a Sunday morning riding bicycles on a three-hour guided tour of one of Europe’s most beautiful cities, a place we were all smitten with, that we fell in love with and have vowed to return to with loved ones. Of course, we were all struck by the enormous hospitality of the Parisians we met.
For Paris and other cities to be on high alert for further attacks in the days and weeks to come is too awful to contemplate, and unforgiveable. These attacks have struck fear into the hearts of many, but the perpetrators of these evil attacks underestimate the strength, unity, resilience and humanity of the French and all of us who bear witness to these atrocities and vow that good will overcome evil. We will remember those who are lost, may they rest in peace, and we send our thoughts and prayers to all in Paris and beyond who have been impacted and have suffered. We stand with you in solidarity and we share your grief.
I thank the Chief Minister for bringing this motion on behalf of all Territorians.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, indeed we stand united with France. That relates to nearly 100 years ago when we both experienced the bloody atrocities of World War I and the Battle of the Somme, which we will commemorate next year. My grandfather’s brother lies buried in France and shares French soil, being a soldier who fought in those battles.
I was warned very early during my first visit to France to make sure I identified as an Australian because the French people will immediately show you their hospitality, and they did. The first and only French word I needed was Beaujolais, because that was how I ordered red wine in the many cafs of Paris and across the country that I chose to visit. I had many conversations and met many people, and they were truly hospitable. The advice I got from Australia was the best advice given for my travels in France.
Most recently I picked up a young French couple broken down on the Carpentaria Highway about 80 km west of Borroloola. They nervously flagged me down not knowing what to expect and, lucky for them, they chose a member of parliament – the local member – who had a very reliable vehicle to support them. I took great delight in showing them, about 300 m up the road, a rogue bull off in the bush that was obviously taking an interest in them broken down on the side of the road. I explained the nature of north Australian cattle, much to their fear and loathing.
As I escorted them and was able to introduce them to some classic Australian culture in the frontier town of Borroloola, including some of the great residents, they opened up and we shared stories. We organised the retrieval and repair of their vehicle, and I learnt they were both young accountants who lived and worked in Paris.
Upon hearing the atrocities that have recently occurred I felt deeply for those young people who continue their travels in Australia. I hope their families and friends are safe. However, far beyond the rattling of sabres, accusations and appointment of blame, it became a reality of the people for me. It is the people who will truly change what we are enduring in our troubled world today.
I will pick up on John Lennon to conclude because I think it is upon all of us to give peace a chance.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for bringing the condolence motion before the House, acknowledging the proud flag of France flying outside our parliament and the vigil that occurred in Darwin last night.
My thoughts are first and foremost with the families who have lost loved ones in Paris, but also with the people of Paris who have had to endure repeated attacks on their liberty, the nation of France, and the many French people who live in our great nations across the world. France was an incredible coloniser in its strong search for new land and new places to strike liberty across the world.
The French community in Darwin may be small, but Alliance Franaise is very strong and has had a high and distinguished profile in the Northern Territory for many years. My thoughts are with the many members of Alliance Franaise and the honorary consul. I am sure you will support each other and send the messages of peace and love back to your relatives and friends in France.
With great darkness we have seen the light often shines brighter, and through social media we can see that light of peace, which many people spoke about today, is shining bright. With peace we have to endure periods of turmoil and conflict, but it is my hope that this means people yearn for peace.
I also recognise that these horrific attacks were desperate people trying to strike out and create fear. We know the people of France – and we have seen the response right around the world – are resilient and they, hopefully, will not respond in kind. I would hate to see an escalation of conflict. I am a fervent believer in peace, and hope for a peaceful response from other nations to stamp out, ultimately in peaceful ways, this insidious rise of terrorism we have seen emanating from the Middle East.
I recognise and thank both major parties for their contributions in recognising the good work of the Islamic Society of the Northern Territory’s Ghulam Abbas and the entire executive and members of that society, very peace-loving people. They are great contributors to our community. Across the Territory, Muslim members of our society have done so well over many decades in contributing to our great Territory. It is a hard time for people of the Islamic faith because they will hear words of hate and retribution. I hope they take some comfort in the bipartisan acknowledgment in the House today of just how worthy they are as members of our society.
The resilience of France and the French people has been shown throughout the centuries. It will be strong and they will rise, but for the people who are suffering a great personal loss our hearts feel for them and we pray for them. For those suffering injuries, may they heal well and strong, and be comforted by their friends, family and the community.
May we again pledge to be a harmonious, peaceful society in Australia and the Northern Territory. We are very lucky to live in this great nation and do not take that lightly. As Australians we travel. I have been to France and to Paris many times. We enjoy reaching out. As you heard from the Opposition Leader, a young Australian was injured.
May we continue to travel. May we continue to embrace people travelling to our fair land. May we always strive for the light in the darkness and for peace in times of turmoil. Rest in peace those people who sadly lost their lives. Vive la France.
Mr CHANDLER (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I add my condemnation of the attacks on the people of France over the weekend, and offer my sympathy to the people killed in France, including those 22 foreigners from Algeria, Belgium, Britain, Chile, Germany, Mexico, Morocco, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Tunisia and the United States.
That is a good representation of Paris as a city which draws people from all over the world. At this time of calm across the world when acts of terrorism like this occur, I often try to reconcile what motivates people to undertake acts of terrorism and what drives them. Trying to explain to your children why an adult would make a decision to take somebody else’s life and why seemingly responsible people do these things to others – call me naive, but I believe there is more good in this world than evil. However, it does not matter where you live, evil exists.
Looking at the atrocities that have happened only hours from here in Bali, what happened in New York on 9/11, and what has happened around the world for decades – in the last 15 or 20 years we have seen an escalation in terrorism.
How can you explain to a child what is occurring in our world today when, as the member for Karama said, the people of Australia, particularly Darwin, love to travel. You can learn about yourself and grow as a person when you experience other parts of the world.
You start to realise why terrorists go to places like Paris, Bali or New York, where tourists from all around the world come and go. They commit their crimes for great effect. Places like Australia, the United States, Russia and China, with a powerful air force, army and navy, know their might is defeated every time because of someone who has the basic technology to strap a bomb to themselves, walk into a crowded place and blow themselves up. For those near the bomber – children, mums, dads, young people or seniors – it is tragic.
Most in this House would say those who commit these acts are cowards and deserve condemnation not only from this parliament, but from every person in our community.
Much like Australians, it appears the French and others around the world come together in hard times. As Aussies when there is tragedy, whether it is a bushfire, house fire or a car accident, your mates rally around you. Now the world is rallying, and it makes me proud not just to be an Australian, but to be part of the majority of people who are good not evil.
To those people who conducted these acts, I condemn you. For the people and their families involved, my sympathies go out to you. I thank the Chief Minister for bringing this forward today.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, honourable members. I, too, pass on my condolences and thoughts to the people of France, those who have lost family and loved ones and, of course, to the French community in Darwin and across the Northern Territory. I know all our thoughts and sympathies go out to you, and we will pass these sentiments to the French Ambassador in Canberra to pass on to the people of France.
Thank you, honourable members.
Motion agreed to.
PETITION
Petition No 54 – Save Darwin River Ridge
Petition No 54 – Save Darwin River Ridge
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, I present a petition from 180 petitioners praying that the mining activity at Darwin River Ridge is stopped and the area rezoned as an environmental management area. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders. Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read.
- To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory, this petition of concerned community members brings to the attention of the Legislative Assembly that the Darwin River Ridge is of great environmental significance, that any form of mining activity there would endanger vulnerable native plant and animal species, and we the undersigned humbly petition you to stop all mining activities immediately and rezone the whole ridge area as a priority environmental management area.
PETITION
Petition No 55 – Freds Pass Road Upgrade Infrastructure
Petition No 55 – Freds Pass Road Upgrade Infrastructure
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, I present a petition from 177 petitioners praying that the Freds Pass Road is upgraded to provide a safe environment. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders. Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read.
- To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory, we the undersigned respectfully showeth that we are strongly supportive of the urgent need to upgrade and improve road infrastructure on Freds Pass Road directly outside the Humpty Doo Primary School.
Freds Pass Road traffic is increasingly exponentially, including more industrial traffic in form of double and sometimes triple road trains and this high level of traffic, plus the poor condition of the road, is presenting a risky and hazardous situation for the school community.
The Humpty Doo Primary and Preschool has over 420 students, and coupled with the staff and families they are seriously concerned for the safety and welfare of children in particular, but all the school and general community.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Northern Territory government, in association with the Litchfield Council, provide the necessary funds and commitment to upgrade the road infrastructure within a six-month time frame such that there is a safe environment for everyone who lives, works and goes to school in the area.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
RESPONSES TO PETITIONS
No 49, 50, 52 and 53
No 49, 50, 52 and 53
The CLERK: Mr Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform honourable members that responses to petitions numbers 49, 50, 52 and 53 have been received and circulated to honourable members. The text of the responses will be placed on the Legislative Assembly’s website. A copy of the responses will be provided to the member who tabled the petition for distribution to petitioners.
- Petition No 49
Clean Up and Close McArthur River Mine
Date presented: 16 September 2015
Presented by: Mr Higgins
Referred to: Minister for Mines and Energy
Date response due: 17 March 2016
Date response received: 26 October 2015
Date response presented: 17 November 2015
- Response:
I note the concerns of the stakeholders and I can assure you that my Department of Mines and Energy (DME) has been working to address these concerns in cooperation with other government agencies and the operator, McArthur River Mining Pty Ltd (MRM).
The Northern Territory (NT) government takes its role as a regulator very seriously and is committed to ensuring environmental values and human health are protected, whilst fostering a sustainable mining sector across the Territory. The NT government has recently required a significant increase in the security held for the mine site and will continue to follow the regulatory processes to ensure that the security held will match future changes in risk appropriately.
DME has undertaken detailed assessment and given conditional approval to specific aspects of the mine site to allow its continued operation until the completion of the environmental impact assessment process.
The operator undertakes a comprehensive set of environmental monitoring programs across the mine site and its loading facility at Bing Bong. The data produced by these programs, along with detailed designs and documentation provided by the operator, are comprehensively reviewed by DME scientists and engineers, as well as contracted professionals who are experts in their field. All of the operator's actions and regulation by DME are overseen by the Independent Monitor on an annual basis. The next assessment report for the 2014 operational period is due to be publically released in early December 2015.
I would like to thank the petition organisers and the members of the public who have taken the time to sign it. The issues are complex and will require continued hard work by all parties to solve. However, I am confident of a positive outcome that will address the concerns of stakeholders.
- Petition No 50
Conserve the ‘green belt’ of Farrar
Date presented: 15 September 2015
Presented by: Mr Chandler
Referred to: Minister for Lands and Planning
Date response due: 16 March 2016
Date response received: 16 October 2015
Date response presented: 17 November 2015
- Response:
The area referred to in the petition is currently Zone FD (Future development). Future development of this land is to be in accordance with the Palmerston Eastern Suburbs Planning Principles and Area Plan 1 of 3. The planning principles specifically state that future development is to preserve and integrate areas of environmental significance.
The current area plan, revised on 18 September 2015, indicates a drainage corridor and areas of open space that are intended to serve a drainage function, incorporate natural habitat and support passive recreation.
Future subdivision and development of the area will require consent from the Palmerston division of the Development Consent Authority and exhibition under the Planning Act. This will provide further opportunities for the public to make submissions regarding the specific proposals.
Petition No 52
Secondary wastewater treatment system at Livingstone beef processing abattoir
Date presented: 16 September 2015
Presented by: Ms Purick
Referred to: Minister for the Environment
Date response due: 16 March 2016
Date response received: 22 October 2015
Date response presented: 17 November 2015
Response:
The Livingstone Beef Processing Abattoir, which is operated by Northern Australian Beef Limited (NABL) but commonly known as the ‘AACo abattoir’, was developed under an exceptional development permit granted under section 40 of the Planning Act.
- The NT EPA is responsible for regulating the abattoir under the Waste Management and Pollution Control Act. In October 2012 the Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority (NT EPA) issued NABL with an environmental protection licence (EPL 131) under that Act. EPL 131 authorises the treatment and disposal of listed waste (being animal effluent and residues) at the abattoir subject to a number of conditions. It is a condition of EPL 131 that NABL maintains and implements a Consultation and Communication Plan. In accordance with the Consultation and Communication Plan, NABL hosts a Community Reference Group (CRG) consisting of members of the community and relevant stakeholders. The CRG meets on a regular basis.
The NT EPA monitors NABL’s compliance with EPL 131 and responds to complaints made by the local community about the abattoir. The NT EPA has received and investigated complaints relating to odours, concerns about surface and groundwaters, and noise emanating from abattoir.
The NT EPA is in ongoing discussions with NABL regarding concerns with the abattoir’s compliance with EPL 131 and concerns raised by local residents.
In March 2015 NABL submitted a two-part action plan to the NT EPA offering a pathway to achieving sustainable treatment and disposal of wastewater aimed at reducing offensive odours from the facility.
The first part of the action plan involves the expansion and relocation of areas used for irrigation of wastewater and the installation of an aeration pond. The second part of the action plan involves the installation of biological wastewater treatment plant to augment the existing treatment system and will include the construction of a Covered Anaerobic Lagoon (CAL) and an activated sludge Biological Nitrogen Removal (BNR) plant.
Construction of the aeration pond, the CAL and the BNR plant requires approval under the Planning Act (issued by the Development Consent Authority) and the Waste Management and Pollution Control Act (issued by the NT EPA).
The Development Consent Authority has issued the approval required under the Planning Act. The NT EPA is currently assessing an application under the Waste Management and Pollution Control Act.
Relocation of the irrigation has already occurred. Construction of the aeration pond is likely to take approximately three months from the date NABL received approval from the NT EPA. Finalisation of the second part of the action plan is expected to take approximately 15-18 months from the date of approval.
In April 2015 the NT EPA issued NABL with a direction to reduce odour and to carry out a comprehensive environmental odour audit, including the development of an operational odour management plan by 31 October 2015.
The NT EPA will assess the effectiveness of the odour management plan actions in reducing the impact of odour on neighbouring residents by the end of December 2015. The NT EPA will assess the effectiveness of the action plan ponds in reducing odours and improving irrigation water quality once the plan has been implemented.
The NT EPA has received very few noise complaints. To address noise concerns from residents, NABL has undertaken a comprehensive noise investigation to determine the levels of noise emanating from the site. This will enable NABL to develop strategies to minimise noise in areas of concern. The noise investigation report will be made available to the local community via the CRG. The NT EPA has not received any formal complaints about light pollution.
It is appropriate that NABL continue to develop and deliver relevant information to the community around the expected time frames for installing the components of the action plan. The NT EPA has provided recommendations to NABL for improving its Consultation and Communication Plan and the delivery of information to the community.
The NT EPA is an independent authority and its decisions are not directed by the government. The NT EPA advises that it would not be possible to complete installation and commissioning works for part two of the action plan by 31 December 2015 as requested by the petitioners.
Petition No 53
Better planning for the future of Darwin
Date presented: 16 September 2015
Presented by: Ms Fyles
Referred to: Minister for Lands and Planning
Date response due: 16 March 2016
Date response received: 22 October 2015
Date response presented: 17 November 2015
Response:
- The Northern Territory Planning Commission is currently preparing a draft area plan for the inner suburbs of Darwin. The land adjoining the Botanical Gardens is included within the study area for this draft area plan.
The Planning Commission will investigate the community infrastructure needs for the Darwin inner suburbs to inform the development of the area plan. This method will also be used for developing area plans and sub-regional plans in other locations in the Northern Territory with growth potential.
The Planning Commission will release a draft area plan for public consultation in October 2015. At that stage the Planning Commission will provide the results of its investigations into community infrastructure needs for the Darwin inner suburbs.
It is anticipated that the Planning Commission will present the finalised area plan for the Darwin inner suburbs to the Minister for Lands and Planning in early 2016.
MOTION
Censure of Attorney-General
and Minister for Justice
Censure of Attorney-General
and Minister for Justice
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I move that this House censures the Attorney-General, Minister for Justice and Minister for Corrections for his gross incompetence in handling the Corrections and justice system of the Northern Territory.
This incompetence has led to the Territory public being placed at risk from escaping prisoners and created a sense of loss of personal confidence by Territorians in their safety and security. Further, his incompetence has resulted in ongoing disruption and disorder in the juvenile justice system.
This House calls on the minister to resign his portfolios.
The minister has a number of responsibilities he needs to fulfil. His role is to ensure the system of justice in the Northern Territory is administered impartially, fairly and for all people to be treated equally under the law.
The minister needs to ensure that for those people convicted of offences punishment is just, and for those in prison to be treated humanely in our correctional system. Victims of crime need to be properly supported. Correctional Services workers need to be properly trained and supported. The public should be safe from those serving their sentence in the Northern Territory correctional system, and portfolio agencies need to be sufficiently funded to fulfil their duties.
It is our belief that the minister has not fulfilled his duties, and we seek to censure him in the strongest possible terms. The wheels have really fallen off the wagon for the Attorney-General in the last three months. In all aspects of his Justice and Corrections portfolios the minister is failing Territorians miserably. He spruiks his Pillars of Justice policy but the reality is that those pillars are crumbling.
We will start with the Chief Minister publicly releasing the review of judicial appointments in early August. This review was commissioned by the Chief Minister in August 2014, finalised in December 2014 and then released under public pressure in August 2015, some nine months later. The Attorney-General disagrees that it was a scathing report of political interference in the judicial system by the esteemed panel which conducted the review, but there are no other words for it. It is simply scandalous that such an abuse of judicial appointment processes came to be. It is apparent that the actions of the Attorney-General were at worst arrogant and at best naive in his desire to be personally involved in both the selection and appointment of judicial officers. Every public servant knows that you are not allowed to be the final approver of your own recruitment selection process, but it seems that the Attorney-General did not care about this abuse of process.
More concerning is that Cabinet was either clueless or complicit in approving the Attorney-General’s actions. Again we are faced with the prospect of a completely arrogant Cabinet intent on appointing mates to plum roles, or just incredibly naive.
I feel compelled to quote from the report to articulate the very real concerns the panel had before recommending that the process of judicial appointments return to what it was before the change of government in 2012. That was for a panel at arm’s length from government making a recommendation to the Attorney-General who puts forward the recommendation to Cabinet, and any change to that recommendation is made public.
Findings from the Review of the Processes for the Appointment of Judicial Officers in the Northern Territory report are as follows, and I will be quoting at length:
- Within weeks of assuming office, the new Attorney-General was presented with impending vacancies on the Supreme Court, in the magistrates court, in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and in the Office of the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner.
The Attorney-General determined to convene a single panel to deal with the Supreme Court and magistrate vacancies. The panel was to be comprised by the Attorney-General himself, the honourable Austin Asche AC QC, a former Administrator and Chief Justice of the Northern Territory, the Solicitor-General and the President of the Law Society.
…
The panel consulted with the Chief Justice in the ordinary course for the purposes of its deliberations. The panel determined that there were a number of candidates who were suitable for appointment. The Attorney-General did not seek any determination from the panel as to a preferred candidate or candidates. The Attorney-General subsequently submitted a candidate to Cabinet for endorsement.
The magistrate’s position was advertised within the Territory. Following discussions with his colleagues, the Attorney-General determined to remove himself from participation in the selection process by reason of his affiliation with one of the applicants for the position. The Solicitor-General also removed himself from the process.
The panel was convened by Mr Asche and the President of the Law Society. In December 2012, the panel reported to the Attorney-General that there were two candidates with particular suitability for appointment to the provision, and ranked those two candidates in order of relative merit. One of the candidates recommended by the panel was subsequently appointed to the position.
The Chief Magistrate resigned her position in July 2013 in order to take up appointment as a Judge of the Family Court of Australia in Sydney. The Chief Magistrate’s position was advertised. The Attorney-General determined to convene the same panel to consider applications for the position; that is, the Attorney-General, Mr Asche, the Solicitor-General and the President of the Law Society. The panel convened and identified a number of suitable candidates. The Attorney-General consulted directly with the Chief Justice and the President of the Bar Association. The Attorney-General subsequently made a selection, which was endorsed by Cabinet.
- The candidate appointed to the Chief Magistrates position was a serving Territory magistrate. The appointment left a consequential vacancy. The Attorney-General subsequently determined to appoint the other candidate who had been recommended by the panel during the course of the process conducted in December 2012. No further consultations were conducted for that purpose. The selection was subsequently endorsed by Cabinet and made by the Administrator.
No further permanent appointments of either Judges or magistrates have been made since that time.
I thank the eminent panel for the recommendations that restore openness and transparency to the process of judicial appointments. Unfortunately the government dragged its heals every step of the way in dealing with this report, which was not made public for nine months. It was only in response to a written question that the Chief Minister agreed to implement the panel’s review recommendations in October.
On 14 August this year the Coroner handed down two sets of recommendations that have not received the respect they should receive from this government. They relate to the death in custody of Mr Langdon in a Darwin police cell and the death in care of Ms Brown at the Alice Springs alcohol mandatory treatment facility. The Coroner is one of the most respected statutory officers in the Northern Territory. The minister’s rebuke of the Coroner was nothing more than stunning. It was not only disrespectful to the Coroner, but disrespectful to the people concerned.
An article in the Sunday Territorian of 16 August quotes the minister as saying:
- While (Mr Cavanagh) may criticise AMT and paperless arrests in respect to the Langdon and Brown matters he said Mr Langdon should have died a free man, in truth, Mr Langdon would have died a free man in the gutter, as would Ms Brown, he said.
Ultimately, the Coroner found that these laws disproportionately impact upon Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. They are unfair and entrench Indigenous disadvantage. Moreover, they are completely against the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody which, more than 20 years ago, recommended arrest and detainment as a last resort not a first resort, as is being applied in the Northern Territory under this minister. In the Coroner’s very eloquent words:
- A civilised society does not subject its citizens to that mortification unless there are no other reasonable options.
While the High Court may have dismissed NAAJA’s appeal that these laws are unconstitutional, it does not change the fact that these laws do not treat people equally before the law.
I will reserve my statements on alcohol mandatory treatment as this censure is about the minister’s performance in his Justice portfolios. However, Territory Labor has been scrutinising this program and it is another confirmed abject failure from this government, with legislation yet to be enacted that was passed on urgency in November last year. Participant numbers are down as a result, the program has been scrapped in Tennant Creek, and the government is no longer building a facility in Katherine.
In relation to the government’s response to the Coroner’s recommendations, I have been helpfully reminded by the Attorney-General’s department of the process for an agency to formally respond to the Coroner’s recommendations under the Coroners Act. Section 46A(1) of the Coroners Act provides that:
If the Attorney-General receives a report or recommendation from a coroner under section 27 or 35 that contains comment relating to an Agency … the Attorney-General must, without delay, give a copy of the report or recommendation to the Chief Executive Officer of the Agency …
Further, section 46B of the Coroners Act requires the Chief Executive Officer must, within three months of receiving the recommendation, provide the Attorney-General with a written response, including a statement of the action that the agency is taking, has taken or will take with respect to the recommendation.’
To add final insult to injury, the Attorney-General has failed to provide a copy of the Coroner’s recommendations to relevant agencies without delay as per the legislative requirements. This is the most basic of his administrative responsibilities and he has failed in this regard.
Mr Langdon’s recommendations were not forwarded to the Department of Health and NT Police by the Attorney-General until 16 September, more than a month after the recommendations were publicly available.
In Ms Brown’s case the findings were not forwarded by the Attorney-General until 7 October 2015, almost two months after recommendations were made publicly available. As a consequence, Territorians have been delayed the opportunity for improvements in the provision of services to Territorians. Moreover, it reflects the cavalier attitude this minister and this government have towards those who do not agree with them. It is not acceptable for justice to be miscarried in this way.
The minister is also responsible for appropriately resourcing agencies. In the last three months Legal Aid has had to publicly plead for an additional $1m in funding to fulfil its statutory requirements. The NT government has stepped in, that is to be commended. However, this funding is not recurrent and Legal Aid will most likely be faced with the same problem of increasing cases they are obliged to assist next year.
The matter of workloads and resourcing has been echoed by the Chief Justice in his annual report. Chief Justice Riley put forward the case for another Supreme Court judge due to increasing workloads of existing members – an increase of some 35% in the criminal cases they are hearing. I am yet to hear this minister’s views on this proposal, but as this government continues down the path of all roads leading to gaol, this issue will keep presenting itself.
I turn to Correctional Services and the minister’s failings in this area. As the member for Nhulunbuy, I can say last week was a very unnerving one for our community. You have to remember that the Datjala Work Camp was not a government service this community requested, nor was the community consulted when the work camp replaced our only residential drug and alcohol rehab centre in the region.
East Arnhem Land still does not have a residential drug and alcohol service to support people to withdraw and rehabilitate from their addictions close to home and community. In fact, since they were booted out of their facility in June last year, they are still operating from temporary facilities in a training room on the campus of CDU. As Health minister, what is the minister doing to provide appropriate clinical facilities, yet alone replace a much-needed and valued residential rehab centre?
The Datjala Work Camp was established in that centre last year with no consultation with the community or even some of the people who worked there prior to the decision being made. We were told there would only be low and open security prisoners placed at the work camp. We were assured by the minister and the government that there would be no sex offenders. To find out, at approximately 11 am on Tuesday of last week via Facebook, that an axe murderer and rapist had escaped the work camp the night before was shocking for us to say the least. Communication with my community was very poor in the early stages as the news unfolded, and communication with me as the local member was abysmal.
Not everybody is on Facebook. Not everybody in East Arnhem Land understands English. I was inundated with requests for information from concerned residents and parents, and had very little information to comfort them. That is why I picked up the phone to the Attorney-General, who had very few answers for me, if any, when he eventually returned my call.
The communities of Nhulunbuy, Yirrkala and Ski Beach were betrayed last week. The businesses of Nhulunbuy and beyond were also betrayed. A large number of our businesses, schools and childcare centres received services from Datjala Work Camp last year.
According to the department’s annual report, more than 14 000 hours of services were provided by prisoners to local community groups, and we acknowledge that. You can imagine the shock that went through the community when, following the escape of Horrell, a further three prisoners were removed from the work camp as they did not meet the classification requirements because they were also sex offenders.
Nhulunbuy and surrounding areas are communities where people do not always lock their house or car doors, where children walk and ride their bikes to and from school, and play freely in parks and at our local swimming pool. Who can forget relatives of victims of Mr Horrell’s crime coming out immediately on television and radio, struck with fear that was still fresh 20 years after his horrendous crimes, a fear that no one should have to go through for an offender given a life sentence.
Having such a serious offender escape from a government-run facility has destroyed the community’s trust in Nhulunbuy, and the minister heard that firsthand last week. The fact there have been 36 escapes in 18 months from adult and juvenile correctional settings has destroyed the government’s credibility on law and order many times over.
The trust in the minister’s Sentenced to a Job program, with its good intentions, has been utterly destroyed because of this policy failure. In response to a written question from the member for Nightcliff last week, the minister responded:
- Sex offenders, high profile prisoners, prisoners not cleared by correctional centre intelligence to work offsite or are medically unfit are not considered for STAJ.
We now know this could not be further from the truth. There has been a clear breach of internal procedures in this case, but this incident has uncovered a number of concerns that the minister must answer.
Territory Labor has been told prisoners were returned to high-security correctional settings from Nhulunbuy, Tennant Creek and Darwin-based programs, and all sex offenders from sector 11 precinct at Holtze last week.
At the community meeting last week I was advised that more Gove-based prisoners had been returned to Darwin. The minister needs to confirm how many across all settings were returned to high security prison. The minister needs to tell us how long he has known that sex offenders were placed in his Sentenced to a Job program as well as the Datjala Work Camp, when he assured community members there would be no sex offenders.
There are claims that prisoners on remand have been placed at work camps. Prison officers are concerned. If a judge has found an individual to be a threat to community safety why are they being given low-security clearances to be placed at a community-based work camp?
I am also advised that at each quarterly meeting of the Prison Officers Association with Correctional Services executives the issue of classification systems has been tabled. At the top of the list are concerns that civilian panels have replaced prison officers in making recommendations to change a prisoner’s classification, security classifications are being downgraded too quickly, and that reoffending prisoners re-enter the correctional system on the same security classification as previously even if they have committed a more serious offence.
This is a change from the previous system, where all prisoners would enter at high security classifications and then be assessed in prison for further changes to their security level. Further, according to the Prison Officers Association, the current classification system does not capture previous sexual offences. If a prisoner is serving time for a non-sexual offence, they can be placed in a work camp without regard for any previous sexual offence convictions.
Prison officers believe that anyone on a sex offence register should not be placed in community work camps. I share that view, as do the people of Nhulunbuy. The minister needs to provide answers to these serious concerns raised about the classification system in the Northern Territory Correctional Services system, not duck and weave and pass the buck.
Under this government, the Correctional Services system has been completely overwhelmed. The annual report revealed that the department overspent its budget allocation by $34m as a result of operational funding for the new prison, overtime and rostering costs at Alice Springs, and two relocations of the Don Dale juvenile justice system.
Under-resourcing of the Correctional Services department has led to the ultimate of failures in community safety, prisoner escapes. Thirty-six escapes in 18 months from both adult and juvenile correctional settings is unacceptable to the Northern Territory public.
This department is clearly not resourced to adequately provide the services expected of it. Operational costs for high-security services are much higher than low-security settings. According to written questions answered last week, the number of participants in Sentenced to a Job has increased from 13 to 313 in four years. It strikes me that this department is trying to retro-fit prisoners to meet this minister’s expectations, meet KPI targets and sort out its budgetary situation.
Sentenced to a Job is the minister’s idea. It is his passion, and the department has worked hard to please him. Remember just two months ago when the Attorney-General talked lovingly about the Pillars of Justice and his Sentenced to a Job program, stating:
… the recidivism rate for prisoners who were or are involved in this program is under 20%.
He simply misled the House yet again. Written questions answered by the minister last month revealed that after 12 months, 29% of participants had returned to prison and after two years 40% had returned to prison. Failures in the Sentenced to a Job scheme are not the only shortcomings for this minister. The imprisonment rate in the Northern Territory increased to 903.5 prisoners per 100 000 from 847 per 100 000 in 2013-14. This is almost five times the national average. The proportion of Indigenous people in prison is 11 times the national average. This is the absolute proof that the minister’s Correctional Services policy settings are not working. If the government and the minister were genuinely interested in having a world-class justice system, these statistics would fall. Instead, we have shameful numbers of people in prison, particularly for our Indigenous community members.
This view is supported by the department’s own annual report. The department had budgeted for 75% of prisoners to participate in employment programs, but only 48% of the 1600 prisoners did. The department had budgeted for 30% of prisoners to participate in education, but only 10% did.
I have attempted to illustrate why we are censuring this minister today. He is head of a justice system that is not treating all people equally. He is head of a justice system that has had too many community safety breaches in the correctional system. He is the head of a justice system that has let down victims of crime. He is the head of a justice system that is under-resourced to fulfil its statutory obligations.
The member for Nightcliff will speak in more detail about the juvenile justice system, but the failures are magnified. In the juvenile justice system allegations of inhumane conditions of confinement, ill-equipped staff, lack of training for staff and draconian practices against young people need to be answered by the minister responsible.
At some point the minister has to do the honourable thing and accept responsibility for his multiple failures and his many shortcomings in his portfolios. It is the Westminster way. Sentenced to a Job was his initiative. The department was only trying to fulfil the minister’s wishes. There has been a spectacular breach of community safety and trust as a result of the minister’s initiative.
Madam Speaker, I seek the support of this House to censure the minister for his abject failure in the administration of the justice portfolios.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, of all the censure motions I have witnessed – I remember when we were in government pre-2001, when John Bailey and Neil Bell would execute a censure motion and the Labor Party would stick around to support the member, not meander out. It would be true rage. I remember Syd Stirling would froth at the mouth and go bright red as he raged against the government. With this I sense an opposition going through the motions.
Let us deal with some of the issues they raise. The first one was a long dissertation on the appointments of magistrates and judges, but there was nothing wrong with the processes followed. It simply confirmed everything I had said to the House. The report was written, made public and acted on. Despite the assertions of the members opposite, it simply vindicated everything I had said about judicial appointments. I will make one point clear: when we advertised for magistrates we advertised this document – I will table it in a second – which was in relation to advertising for positions. It reads:
- Expressions of interest will be retained for two years for consideration should any further vacancies arise during that period.
The second component was my relationship with the Coroner of the Northern Territory, which I must say continues to be a warm one. The Coroner made some comments in relation to a matter he reported on, which was widely reported and relied upon by many who chose to attack the government. Here is the bottom line, many of those attacks included attacks like: the Attorney-General knows nothing about the separation of powers; this is a dreadful piece of legislation; it targets Aboriginal people. Some of those comments have been repeated in this House today. I take it from those comments that the Labor Party will be repealing paperless arrests and going back to the old system of burying police officers under a mountain of paperwork every time they seek to make an arrest.
I have said on more than one occasion that the power of arrest was not changed by the paperless arrest regime. There has been no change to being arrested for an offence under the Summary Offences Act, or any change to the considerations a police officer has to make prior to executing an arrest. In fact, nothing changed under the legislation except the amount of paperwork a police officer had to do when returning to the police station.
Many protagonists stepped into this. Amnesty International and other organisations weighed into the debate, not least of which was NAALAS. These bodies said the powers disproportionately affected Aboriginal people. That is true, but on nearly every negative indicator in the Northern Territory since self-government, no matter which government has been in power, Aboriginal people have been overrepresented in those negative indicators, including deaths in custody, deaths in parks, arrests and imprisonment.
If the number of Aboriginal people in custody is a failure of this government it is a failure of the former Labor government equally so. That is the truth of the matter. I lay a large slice of the blame at a passive welfare system that continues to deprive people of their dignity and purpose in life, and we see it again and again. What the member opposite conveniently forgets is another negative indicator which affects Aboriginal people is that they are grossly over-represented as victims in this jurisdiction. Do they not deserve protection of the state in the same way as any other person by virtue of the fact the perpetrator may be Aboriginal? In fact, if you examine that more closely you will quickly come to the realisation that Aboriginality is a very poor measuring stick, and one we adopt in this jurisdiction because it is adopted everywhere else.
Many of the people making the arrests may be Aboriginal people because we employ Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory Police Force. They are over-represented in victimhood as well as being in custody. When a law-abiding Aboriginal person takes their child to a local park or garden they have every right to expect, as does every other citizen of the Northern Territory, that the park and garden will be there for their benefit and good enjoyment, devoid of people who continually commit summary offences – those who defecate, expectorate, urinate or fornicate in public places making them unpleasant for normal families to go to, whether those families are Aboriginal or not.
The convenient oversight everybody makes in this argument is that Aboriginal victims are over-represented. For every wife beater we put in gaol many are, unfortunately, Aboriginal, and guess what the racial background of the victim is? We have to, as a state, move to protect the innocent, irrespective of their racial background. We as a society have a duty, including the courts, to place on trial those people who commit offences, irrespective of their racial background.
I defy any member of this House to open the legislative amendments to the Police Administration Act that enable paperless arrests to occur and tell me where it says that legislation is targeted specifically at a racial group. It is not.
That is not to say they are not over-represented. Of course they are over-represented, and that is sad. It is a sad reality, and we could speak in this House about those issues at great length. However, the paperless arrest enables a police officer to effect a lawful and warranted arrest, and bring that person into a place of custody where they are treated precisely the same as any other prisoner, whether that prisoner is there for protective custody or murder, because the watch house process remain the same.
In the case of the deceased in the Darwin watch house, it is well established by the Coroner that that person would have, in all likelihood, died that evening anyway. That person had been transported from Central Australia to Royal Darwin Hospital then transported there again to receive medical attention for the condition that ultimately led to his demise. That person chose, rather than receive the medical assistance offered, to go into a park and drink. As a result of that choice he committed an offence and a police officer lawfully determined – there is no suggestion in the Coroner’s report that police acted unlawfully – that person needed to be taken into custody in accordance with the powers of arrest existing in this jurisdiction ever since they existed, I presume in South Australia, when we were still part of its administration.
That person was placed in custody and, tragically, died. That person would have probably died in the park.
Whilst the Coroner spoke about that person’s rights and liberties, he did not attend to the other issues that face our community as a whole. I would rather shut down every watch house in every gaol for want of work because everybody is too busy being happy, well-adjusted and living full and productive lives, but that is not how it is.
The Coroner’s report implied there should be some deference to a person because of their Aboriginality in the application of these laws. I do not concur with the Coroner, but this is the difficulty the Coroner gives me. I am extremely mindful, and always have been, of the fact that I, as Attorney-General, am the voice of defence for the courts and have, on a number of occasions, publically defended the courts despite my personal misgivings because it was my duty to do so.
The quid pro quo in that arrangement is the courts have to be careful how far they stray into another domain. There is a natural tension between the courts, the executive and the parliament, and that needs to be respected. However, when a court places a criticism on government policy as strident as the one the Coroner chose, the government has no option but to defend, albeit respectfully, which is what I hope I manage to convey, that we demure from the court’s opinion.
Arising from the Coroner’s comments was a great deal of noise, and we ended up in the High Court of Australia in relation to the paperless arrest legislation. I remember having a conversation with my Solicitor-General discussing the defence from the position I have repeatedly taken, that this is not a punitive piece of legislation but essentially administrative in its function.
The Solicitor-General, whilst acknowledging the argument, felt the stronger argument was that there was no fundamental breach of the separation of powers in the Northern Territory. I waited with bated breath, as did the Solicitor-General, for the results of the High Court’s determination.
The High Court said, in support of me and the position I had taken, the legislation was not punitive. It was not an attempt to punish, therefore the single threshold of the police acting as the judiciary was not crossed. I was confident at all stages that threshold would not be crossed.
If you think about it, it takes just as long to determine bail for a person arrested as a person who will spend in custody as a result of arrest under the paperless arrest system. There is no difference, no longer time you would spend in custody. Whilst the Coroner may have felt the court would never send somebody to gaol for the offence the deceased committed, the truth is a police officer arresting that person, doing reams of paperwork then making a bail determination, would have, in every likelihood, held that person for a period equal to or longer than the person being held under the paperless arrest system.
To add confidence for the public, judicial oversight is available because if you read the notice you are given when arrested under the system it will give you direction and recourse to a court of law for determination of your guilt or innocence.
If you were arrested for a street offence – for arguments sake, objectionable words – and taken in under the old system, lots of paperwork would be done, then you would be bailed to a court to determine your guilt or innocence. No fundamental change has occurred. People have allowed their judgment to be clouded by thinking this unfairly targets Aboriginal people. That has been wrong from the get-go and the High Court agreed with my position on this.
Nevertheless, the Solicitor-General was equally vindicated in his position because the court turned its mind to the separation of powers and upheld the philosophical position that courts have held for a long time in relation to the operation of powers at state level. Indeed, not only did it confirm, as the court of original jurisdiction in this instance, that it was correct, it also strengthened the position of the Northern Territory in its state-like quality in this federation we call Australia.
One of the natural, unexpected and pleasant consequences for the Northern Territory as a body politic as a result of this action – a frankly unnecessary action nevertheless – is that the legitimacy of this parliament to pass laws for the good order of the people of the Northern Territory has been enhanced by this action, and for that I am grateful.
The two arguments the Solicitor-General and I shared prior to the case going ahead were both supported. Frankly, the plaintiff’s application would have failed had only one been supported, let alone two. The matter was dealt with. The High Court, in its full embodiment as it currently is, has made its determination quite clear and unambiguous.
Therefore, in reference to the Coroner’s opinion in this matter, members opposite should turn their attention to the matter that has been dealt with by the Full Bench of the High Court. I have further things to say in relation to this; however, matters are still being referred to a single justice to dispose of by directions, so the matter is still alive before the court. When those matters are disposed of I will add a couple of things in relation to some of the judgments we see, particularly from NAALAS.
I have been and remain critical of NAALAS in one other important way. Recently there was a conference in relation to youth justice issues where a juvenile was given centre stage and made certain allegations. I will not say too much because the matter is still under investigation. For NAALAS to use a person under the age of 18 to make what appears to be a political point seems like some form of entrapment and has all the hallmarks of exploitation.
In defence of NAALAS, I spoke to Priscilla Collins expressing my concern in relation to this matter. She denied any intention to do so. She was genuinely surprised when the young man made the disclosures he did. However, I question the wisdom of putting a young person of that nature into a public domain simply in pursuit of a point.
In relation to Legal Aid funding, when I became Attorney-General, expensive arrangements were in place from the former Attorney-General. We did not continue those arrangements because we had to tighten our belt because of the reckless spending of the government before us.
I place on the record and acknowledge Suzan Cox, head of the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission, for her professionalism, openness and approachability when dealing with matters surrounding Northern Territory Legal Aid. When she told me we had a problem I listened, and I am pleased to say the Treasurer listened. I do not want to see Dietrich applications being successful in this jurisdiction any more than the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory does, or the legal aid organisation itself. Dietrich applications have the effect of bringing the criminal justice system to a halt and, of course, everybody in our community deserves legal representation, particularly when they are charged with an indictable offence.
I also wish to touch on the member’s comments about alcohol mandatory treatment. Surely the decision not to go ahead with an alcohol mandatory treatment facility in Katherine, which would have cost $5m, because of insufficient clientele is good news and should be celebrated. Whilst it is problematic for the people involved, I am presented with evidence that the cost of individual treatment in Tennant Creek is prohibitively expensive by virtue of low numbers going to AMT. Surely the success of this government’s policies needs to be celebrated. The crime rate in Tennant Creek has fallen by half in the last 12 months. That is something we should celebrate.
The withdrawal of government services for want of work is not a bad news story for the community. Some individuals may be negatively impacted, but if the community has to shut down a facility for want of work, particularly AMT, that has to be good news.
In Katherine we have chosen to transport those people who qualify for AMT to Darwin because it is cheaper to do so. In Tennant Creek it will be to Alice Springs because it is substantially cheaper to do so. Therefore, any residual money can be used for other things, like volatile substance abuse in the Barkly, something I am sure the member for Barkly would wholesomely embrace. He knows volatile substance abuse continues to be a problem in Ali Curung and Elliott, and would be keen to see the government respond.
We can throw money on beds which would be empty or often empty, on volatile substance treatment programs, or we can keep those beds empty and the AMT program open. Spending money that way would be undeniable common sense to anybody.
I also note the member opposite made some comments about the civilianisation of the classification process of the Northern Territory government. The civilianisation of the classification process was a Labor policy done under Labor. Before I took office, the NT Prison Officers Association complained to me that there were too many civilians involved in the classification process in the gaol system. For the member for Nhulunbuy to cast that criticism at this government is to cast criticism over the former minister sitting to her immediate left, because that former minister changed the classification system. He is also the minister who authorised the release of Mr Horrell onto work gangs, in late 2011, as well as the minister who authorised Mr Horrell to go to the Garma work site at Nhulunbuy in August 2012. To attack me for these policies is to attack the former minister.
I agree he should not have been there and have made that abundantly clear every step of the way. I used that phrase until I thought it was entrenched, and it was acknowledged it was government policy.
The member for Nhulunbuy quoted me from 2008 or 2009 speaking about responsibility of government. Government’s responsibility is to set policy. That policy has been clear, utterly unambiguous and could not have been misunderstood in any way whatsoever yet was not followed. When I discovered it was not followed I made sure that remedial steps were taken. I could not have been clearer than that.
I share the member’s frustration and the people of Nhulunbuy’s frustration. As the member for Nhulunbuy quite rightly pointed out, on the website relating to Datjala Work Camp it says, ‘No sex offenders’. That was a breach of trust, and I understand that the people of Nhulunbuy were upset, and rightly so. I completely agree. They had every right to be upset, as I was, but those circumstances have occurred and action has been taken.
A number of things need to be tightened up in the corrections system, and I wait with bated breath for Commissioner Payne to give me some recommendations going forward. Nevertheless, I have attended to my job with diligence and care every step of the way. Yes, I have occasional lumpy bits like we all do.
Sadly, my personality gets in the way of me doing my job as clearly as I would like to when I use that well-worn quote, ‘For the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory’. I still get in the way; I am human. It is an ideal that I strive for but all too often gets lost in the world of politics. I have attended to my duties with all the resources available to me. I have done so with passion, desire and a true want to make sure the Territory becomes a better place. When politics is over I genuinely believe, whether it is the next election, five elections’ time or whenever the CLP is out of office, the Territory will be a much better place than it was when we found it in August 2012.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the motion from the member for Nhulunbuy.
Since the last sittings I have spoken on numerous occasions about the serious misgivings and concerns in relation to the minister’s administration of the Correctional Services and juvenile justice systems in the Northern Territory. There have been 36 escapes in 18 months. This has really tested our community’s faith in the government’s ability to keep us safe. The escape in Nhulunbuy last week was the tipping point for the government.
So we are perfectly clear, last week we saw the escape of a convicted axe murderer and rapist from a work camp and the Sentenced to a Job program when he should never have been classified to be there in the first place. Enough is enough. This is the 36th escape coming off the back of escapes that have made us a national laughing stock and disgrace.
In October three young people assaulted and injured a guard, took his keys and escaped from the Alice Springs Youth Detention Centre. Another individual climbed into the cavity of the Darwin court before falling through the ceiling. In September a prisoner escaped from a work camp in Alice Springs and another escaped while driving a bus.
The department’s annual report makes it clear that the government’s priority is locking people up. The annual report highlights that this correctional system cannot manage its budget, cannot keep prisoners in prison, cannot keep the community safe, cannot meet its key performance targets, is struggling to support its staff with significant overtime and a casual workforce, and is not investing in equipping and training its staff.
The member for Nhulunbuy articulated the case to censure the minister in relation to his oversight of the Justice and Correctional Services portfolios. I want to focus on the juvenile detention system in the Northern Territory.
The alarm bells started ringing in August last year when the department utilised chemical gas on six youths at the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre. As a result of that incident, there have been two reviews into the juvenile detention system in the Northern Territory, one by Mr Michael Vita and the other by the Children’s Commissioner.
The Vita report was handed down in January 2015, and despite the government spin was damning of the juvenile detention systems. The findings included: a lack of appropriate training to keep in step with larger and more challenging detainee populations; a lack of assessment training; an uncoordinated case management approach without consultation with other government and non-government stakeholders; a lack of philosophy to drive the purpose of youth detention; non-existent, outdated and inadequate detention centre procedures and standard operating procedures at Don Dale, Holtze and Alice Springs Youth Detention Centres; an ineffective classification system which lacks objectivity; a lack of consistency and direction in the management of high-risk detainees requiring behaviour management planning; a behaviour management strategy that lacks understanding of adolescent behaviour, behaviour initiated by a history of trauma with symptoms of foetal alcohol syndrome, and behaviour associated with ADHD and other mental health issues; an incentive scheme that is not structured or applied fairly or consistently; a lack of appropriate personal protection equipment and training for staff in emergency situations; an unhealthy over-reliance on inexperienced, casual and temporary staff on a shift-by-shift basis supervising young detainees with difficult and extremely challenging behavioural problems; a lack of understanding and coordination of how risk assessment, case management, classification, pro-social modelling and the incentive scheme should work together to provide an environment that is conducive to stability, harmony, safety and security; and, finally, lack of a multidisciplinary team approach.
I wish I could say these words are mine, but they are not. They are the findings of the government’s review into youth detention systems. The government says it is implementing the recommendations of the inquiry, but since that report was tabled and the government accepted its recommendations we have seen further serious incidents. Two youths escaped, in separate incidents, during a transfer from Don Dale to court. We have also seen two youths escape then drive their car back into Don Dale doing burnouts in the courtyard, which received national media attention. A teenager was left unattended during a routine lock down and escaped through the roof and over the razor wire. Last month three teenagers escaped from Alice Springs Youth Detention Centre, injuring a worker in the process.
This latest incident in Alice Springs occurred despite more than $200 000 in works to install a 4 m high anti-climb mesh fence and an electric fence on, and over a new mesh fence occurring earlier this year. The minister’s handling of youth justice is letting down youth detainees and staff, putting our community at significant and unacceptable risk.
The Children’s Commissioner was so disturbed by the events of August 2014, when youths were chemically gassed to resolve a disturbance, that an own investigation report was prompted. The Children’s Commissioner’s report was a 61-page censure of the government’s handling of youth justice in the Northern Territory.
The key findings of the Children’s Commissioner were that youths were kept in isolation for extensive periods of time, contributing to the disturbance; communication with young people was insufficient and they had become agitated at ongoing detention; staff were not adequately trained to manage critical incidents, even though a Children’s Commissioner’s investigation in December 2012 specifically recommended improved training and critical incident handling be implemented by the department; Corrections failed to lock a cell door and provided the opportunity for the young person to escape; there was a lack of communication between personnel which led to the poor decision-making; the use of chemical gas is violent and breached the Youth Justice Act; inaccurate internal reporting resulted in incorrect information being provided to external sources; lawful authority was not provided by the magistrate to transfer the six detainees; there were no policies or procedures related to the use of spit hoods; and there was a lack of appropriate training, development and commitment to negotiation and mediation to resolve confrontation.
The findings were horrifying including:
- The conditions in BMU in August 2014 were well below acceptable standards. There was no access to natural light, drinking water, or programs to address rehabilitation or perceived behavioural issues.
The Children’s Commissioner, in her media release of 17 September, was compelled to state:
- We need to make sure that young people in youth detention are treated in accordance with the Youth Justice Act and our International obligations under the United Nation’s Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The findings are complementary, but the Children’s Commissioner’s recommendations go further than the 16 recommendations of the Vita report. The Children’s Commissioner recommends: the complete overhaul of initial and refresher training recommended by Vita be attached to personnel files and mandatory regular refresher training should be ongoing; that Correctional Services recommends psychometric testing as part of their recruitment process; a complete review of every position in a youth justice correctional centre; that the review of operational procedures adheres to the Youth Justice Act and regulations of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child for all aspects of a detention; and that Youth Justice develops a policy and procedure on the use of spit hoods.
The minister ignored the Children’s Commissioner’s investigation into the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre in August 2014. The government sat on the report for at least a month, and the unsatisfactory response provided six days after it was deemed in parliament is unacceptable, and the minister is responsible. Instead of front-footing this report and acknowledging that there is a problem in youth justice and dealing with it as a responsible minister would, the minister stuck his head in the sand hoping that problems would go away.
Within days of this report a youth justice forum was held where a brave former detainee spoke out about youth detention staff encouraging youths to eat bird faeces in order to receive special treats. The Correctional Services Commissioner dismissed investigation of the complaint without evidence, but it was subsequently confirmed that the police were investigating.
Last week the public was horrified at the allegations of mistreatment within the youth justice system. In March this year a youth was strapped to a restraint chair, similar to those used in Guantanamo Bay, by his ankles, shins, shoulders and waist, and his arms were strapped down and a fabric hood placed over his head to protect staff from being spat on, and he remained there for close to two hours.
These actions are almost unthinkable in a youth justice system in Australia. I note the minister is yet to comment on this incident. I find it highly unlikely that he did not know about the latest incident or that it did not influence the supposed resignation of the Correctional Services Commissioner.
If the minister looked at the Vita review and the Children’s Commissioner’s recommendations he would find that there is a road map forward for youth detention, but he is so stubborn, has his head stuck in the sand and will not listen.
I am not sure the government has fully understood the message to date. This government is arrogant and does not listen. The minister’s annual report shows that the government’s priorities are all wrong.
Youth numbers under community supervision are at the lowest in three years, falling from 207 to 186. Only 14 families in Alice Springs are actively being case-managed under Family Responsibility Agreements, down from 47 the year before. This program was hailed by the Vita review as it helps families and diverts youth from entering the youth justice system. A figure of $1m was cut from youth diversion and rehabilitation grants last financial year in addition to the almost $1m cut from youth grants in the minister’s child protection budget of 2012.
Victims of crime need to be supported. Correctional Services workers need to be properly trained and supported, and the public should feel safe from those serving their sentence in the Northern Territory correctional system. Portfolio agencies should be sufficiently funded to fulfil their duties.
The opposition believes that the minister has not fulfilled his duties, and we seek to censure him in the strongest possible terms. In all aspects of his Justice and Corrections portfolios the minister is failing Territorians. One department had a $34m overspend in its budget, an under-resourced department, which has led to our community safety being put at risk with 36 escapes from correctional facilities in 18 months. We had five escapes in 2012, as a comparable figure. Sentenced to a Job is the minister’s idea. He has driven it with an increase from 13 to 313 in four years. As my colleague, the member for Nhulunbuy questioned, is the department trying to meet the minister’s expectations whilst struggling to meet KPIs and budget constraints?
Under this minister’s watch the imprisonment rate in the Northern Territory has increased to 903 prisoners per 100 000 from 847 in 2013-14. This is five times the national average, and the proportion of Indigenous people in prison is 11 times the national average. This statistic shows a failing policy from a failing minister.
My colleague spoke in detail about paperless arrests, but I want to again highlight how disrespectful our minister is to the Coroner. An article in the Sunday Territorian of 16 August 2015 states:
- While (Mr Cavanagh) may criticise AMT and paperless arrests in respect to the Langdon and Brown matters he said Mr Langdon should have died a free man, in truth, Mr Langdon would have died a free man in the gutter, as would Ms Brown, he said.
These are appalling comments coming from a minister of the Crown. The Attorney-General failed to provide a copy of the Coroner’s recommendations to relevant agencies without delay, as per legislative requirements. This is the most basic of administrative responsibilities and he has failed. However, Adam Giles cannot dismiss him as a minister because he needs his vote to prop up his failing government. The unelected Chief Minister is powerless to do anything. Meanwhile, Territorians are put at risk. The communities of Nhulunbuy, Yirrkala and Ski Beach were betrayed last week, as the local member detailed.
The trust in the minister’s Sentenced to a Job program, with its good intentions, has been utterly destroyed because of the complete policy failure of the minister. In a written question I asked the minister about classification of prisoners, and he responded:
- Sex offenders, high profile prisoners, prisoners not cleared by the correctional centre intelligence to work offsite or are medically unfit are not considered for STAJ.
We now know that is completely untrue and inaccurate. The minister needs to confirm how many participants across all settings will return to high-security prison. We have serious questions about the downgrading of prisoner classifications in Correctional Services alone. The minister’s portfolios have reached a crisis point.
The minister needs to answer many questions. The minister committed to implementing the recommendations of the Vita review, but so far there has been little improvement in the system. All we have seen this year is more escapes and serious allegations of abuse within the justice system. What is being done to better equip and train staff to deal with challenging youths in detention? Where is the youth justice framework the minister announced in May that has been endorsed by the government? Why has the minister not responded to the Children’s Commissioner about her recommendations? Why has the relocation of youths from Alice Springs suddenly occurred, and when will they be returned to family and support systems? Is it acceptable for there to be three relocations a year for youths in detention? Why is it acceptable to divert youth grants and diversion and rehabilitation funding towards operational activities? How will we turn these lives around if we cannot invest in programs that work?
The only program hailed by the Vita review was the Labor-initiated Family Responsibility Agreement. This program is being scrapped. Surely this approach needs to be rethought.
The minister’s behaviour is unacceptable, not only in his portfolio of Correctional Services, but we have seen a complete incompetence and lack of oversight and action. This minister mocked a hearing-impaired parliamentarian by pretending to sign behind him in the House. He made incredibly insensitive comments about senior Territorians and threatened female parliamentarians in the Chamber with harsh words and actions. He made disrespectful comments in response to the coronial findings regarding a death in custody and a death in care. Now, one week later, he has dismissed the real impact of domestic violence in our community by alluding to violent offenders as, ‘people who touch up their partners’.
In any other government a minister who made any of those comments would be sacked. However, Adam Giles needs the Attorney-General’s vote to prop up his failing government. Every portfolio this minister holds is in crisis. As Health minister he orchestrated a stunt to fool the community and the Commonwealth that construction had started at Palmerston hospital – the hole that was covered in and the stairs to nowhere. The minister needs to take responsibility and action to stop the juvenile justice system lurching from crisis to crisis. The honourable thing to do is resign.
The CLP government has completely lost control because they are too busy fighting amongst themselves to get on with the job. Territorians demand better from this government. They have dropped the ball on our justice and correctional systems. All the evidence to date points to the fact that the CLP government is too busy looking after itself and fighting to worry about keeping Territorians safe.
Madam Speaker, I commend the motion to the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I do not necessarily agree with either side of the debate.
I would like to say a few words about Ken Middlebrook. I learnt more about prisons from Ken Middlebrook than anyone else. I have travelled to prisons in Western Australia, New South Wales and Victoria, and have taken some trips overseas. I know the commissioner was not always popular. Perhaps he did and said things that might have upset people in Corrections, but that is the life of a commissioner. Maybe I did not agree with some of his statements, but I believe he was a genuine Territorian who had lived here for about 16 years and wanted to change things.
We have the worst incarceration figures of just about anywhere in the world – numbers of people in gaol per head of population. If you did not include it in the population of Australia, which hides it a bit – if we looked at the figures on our own we would be one of the worst in the world.
Mr Middlebrook believed in going out on a limb. I am sad that when he went out on that limb he did not have the support he should have and has been sacked because of it. He has obviously made mistakes, but he has also tried to turn recidivism around and reduce the number of people in our prisons. To do that he worked with both governments on a range of programs to try to change things around. Regardless of whether they failed or not, sometimes you have to take risks if you want to turn things around.
If governments want to exclude certain people from rehabilitation programs they have to show us which one. The minister said no sex offenders and no murderers. However, not all sex offenders are the same and not all crimes are the same. That is why we have a justice system which weights according to the seriousness of the crime. You hear great statements. ‘He is an axe murderer.’ You say that because it is shock, horror. Sometimes in debates we lose sight of what we are trying to do? How do we rehabilitate people? Murderers cannot start rehabilitation until the 19th year if they are in for 20 years.
We need rehabilitation programs. If you leave people in prison until the last minute there is a pretty good chance they will be back in a few months’ time.
Mr Middlebrook understood that. No, he did not get it right all the time, but he tried his hardest. He also came in for some criticism from the Children’s Commissioner. Was the youth detention centre at Berrimah affected by things that might have been out of his control? For instance, the mandatory alcohol rehabilitation centre was moved into the old prison. Was that a better facility for youth than fixing up the medium-security area of the old prison? I do not know. I have concerns about the way we look after youth in the Northern Territory. For many years I have gone crook about Wildman River being closed down. It still amazes me why we did that.
Some good things have happened since then. We now have Loves Creek boot camp. The previous government had a different one which was not successful. Will, the NT Australian of the Year, runs BushMob. We should look at a similar version for the Top End. We can be stuck on prisons, but we need alternatives to allow kids to clear the air. Will and I agree kids need space, which is the good thing about Loves Creek, but where is the space in the Top End? You could send them south.
A lot of work needs to be done, and Ken Middlebrook was going down that path. He pushed work camps, and the previous Labor minister knows about that. He took me to work camps near Kalgoorlie, Western Australia, and I visited one at Wyndham. I have always been a great supporter of work camps, but they have their problems.
Tennant Creek Work Camp has had some problems, and I believe bracelets are being introduced to stop people leaving. You need to be careful when you mention 36 escapes. What does that mean? Does it mean the bloke went down the street to get a coffee? Okay, he escaped, but it depends on what you are talking about. The bloke left and he could not be found again – some of the escapees returned. When we use statistics we need to be careful we do not exaggerate, or we put a scheme down because it sounds good.
Drug treatment programs were being introduced. There was accreditation training for youth justice officers. Look at all the industries in the new Holtze prison, many driven by Ken Middlebrook. When I visited Muswellbrook in northern New South Wales I saw industries in action, and you can see why Ken Middlebrook believed our prisoners needed to work. We now have a bakery, a laundry, a garden – I gather the garden is going well. Who pushed the garden? Ken Middlebrook.
It is disappointing that we removed a good Correctional Services person who made some errors. When things got too hot and the media exposed a mistake his good side was forgotten and he was the sacrificial offering for the government. That makes me sad ...
Mr Elferink: That is not true.
Mr WOOD: That is what I believe happened.
Yes, he was not always the most popular person because he brought new ideas to the NT prison system. Some of those ideas are from other places he had worked. He could have been treated better. He has worked here for a long time, but I bet he did not get a gold watch. Some of what the Labor Party said sounds like it has come straight from the union, which sometimes did not get on with Mr Middlebrook. The fact of life is if you are the boss you will be criticised by people.
You must weigh the good a person has done not by ignoring the faults or criticisms but by looking at their overall intention. Ken’s intention was good. It was to reduce the number of Aboriginal people in prison, because 80% of prisoners are Aboriginal. What is a good way to do that? Get them out there.
Why do I have four boundary umpires from Holtze prison? They are all Aboriginals from Yuendumu and other places out bush, and it is fantastic. If one of them does not go home one night do we destroy the whole program? No, even if the paper says an umpire disappeared for the night and it becomes 39 escapes.
You have to take some risks and take some blows from the media at times. The murderer who escaped from Nhulunbuy was, as the minister rightly said, on a work program at Larrimah. He had been working in and out of prison for the last three years. The one time he stuffs up is the one time it ends up on the front page of the paper. He is back in prison; all sex offenders are back in prison; all murderers are back in prison, and Ken Middlebrook gets the sack. That is a biased approach to it.
We need to continue this program. We need to be careful not to classify all murderers and all sex offenders as if there is no history, no degree of culpability and no grading of the seriousness of their crime, because that is what a judge does.
He does not call everybody the same and there are various degrees for criminals and crimes. Do we stop people with domestic violence orders going out because they did something terrible to their spouse? If a person was involved in a violent armed robbery but did not murder anyone should they be allowed out as well?
The government has to take risks some times and take some flak from the media. The media looks for sensationalism; its job is to sell papers. The government has to say, ‘We’re trying to save the community lots of money by having fewer people in prison, and fewer come back to prison by having a better society. We are overcoming some serious issues, whether they are related to drugs or domestic violence. We need to take up that challenge. It is a serious challenge and we will, at times, fail.’
I hope that Ken Middlebrook’s legacy is not put to one side because of criticism from some people. Some of that criticism might be fair, but overall he tried to do the right thing by turning people’s lives around. What better thing can you do for someone than try to make them good citizens and set up programs that will give them a goal in life, which is what Sentenced to a Job is? Batchelor Institute has worked with Corrections for many years, now has 25 campuses throughout the Northern Territory and has given people skills.
Who put the railing along the bicycle path at Howard Springs? I am sure the minister could tell me other great projects that have been completed by prisoners. They were driven by Ken Middlebrook and the minister. I believe the government could not stand the heat and allow Ken Middlebrook to continue in his job. He is a very experienced man.
You could have had a review. We need to keep valuable people in the Northern Territory, and unfortunately we will lose him. I am not happy with what the government did. I am not entirely happy with where the government is going at the moment, but I have always supported the government’s Sentenced to a Job policy.
I do not agree with a blanket ban on everybody because they are this or that, because you can have different grades of ‘that’. It does not mean someone who did something 15 years ago and has done their time in prison cannot be rehabilitated. That statement does not stand up when you read books about rehabilitation.
Some people will always be difficult to rehabilitate and you cannot let them out. However, to put everyone in the same basket is wrong. If you believe that no one can be rehabilitated you would never let them out. If you do not attempt to rehabilitate them and let them out they will be back. The proof is there when you look at rates of recidivism.
The legacy of Ken Middlebrook, regardless of his faults, is a good one. It needs to be recognised and I do so tonight in this parliament.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I, like the member for Nelson, do not agree with this censure motion. I have a completely different take on the problems within the Corrections portfolio and the problems faced by the minister responsible for Corrections.
After listening to the debate the most startling observation I can share with Territorians is the fact that the Minister for Correctional Services is the most overworked, overloaded minister in this government. If you look at the portfolio distribution amongst the various ministers, the Minister for Correctional Services, the member for Port Darwin, has what can only be described as an unrealistic and unworkable workload. I do not believe anyone can lay responsibility for problems he encounters directly at his feet. It is the leadership of this government that is in true and serious trouble.
This time last year, in December 2014, the Chief Minister undertook a major reshuffle, the most unnecessary reshuffle in the history of Australian politics. Everyone was shaken around and given different portfolios. During that time I was Minister for Correctional Services for about four or five weeks. I had the great pleasure of working alongside Ken Middlebrook. I thought he was a class act who had been around for a long time. He had been a senior and middle manager in corrections facilities in New South Wales and probably other states. I remember him telling me stories about his experiences in the New South Wales corrections service. We have a big gaol in Grafton, and Ken was very familiar with the Grafton gaol.
Ken was a very competent senior bureaucrat who I had immense regard for. That was not because of the short time I worked alongside of him as the Minister for Correctional Services, but before and certainly after that brief time. I had enormous respect for him.
The failed leadership coup in February this year meant there was a reshuffle back to the way things were before the December reshuffle. I was removed from Cabinet, as people will remember. Before the major reshuffle in December I was Health minister and the minister for alcohol mandatory treatment. After the failed leadership coup, the member for Port Darwin was loaded up with an unworkable collection of senior portfolios. He must have responsibility for at least one third, or more, of the entire government budget. It is hideous, ridiculous and unfair for any Chief Minister to load up one minister with that amount of work.
I have always been of the view that the member for Port Darwin has been unfairly treated. It begs the question: why has the Chief Minister loaded up the member for Port Darwin in this way? It could possibly be because of the instability within government at that time, which has obviously continued to date. Probably no one is of the mind to question the Chief Minister because of his attitude towards his colleagues. He likes to be in control and likes to make decisions no matter how hideous and ridiculous they are.
My response to this censure motion is in some way to defend the member for Port Darwin, the Minister for Correctional Services, because of the unworkable caseload he has. He has undertaken it, and over the last six months we have seen a man who has made many mistakes because of the unrealistic pressure he is under. He has implemented an extremely ambitious reform agenda within Correctional Services. It has been a busy changeable period in the history of Correctional Services in the Northern Territory. When you make many changes, many reforms, hand in hand with that are risks. If you take your eye off the ball for a second you will make mistakes.
Hand in hand with the minister, the member for Port Darwin, has been Commissioner Ken Middlebrook, a highly competent and capable bureaucrat. He too has made mistakes in this busy time of change. On top of that is the instability of the CLP government. It has been a difficult time for this government, and as individuals and people within the CLP government I know these ministers have been under immense pressure. It is not just because of the usual demands of being ministers within a government, but because of the layers of complex dynamics within the CLP government and the instability within the leadership of the government.
This censure motion is not fair. It is not fair to point the finger at the member for Port Darwin solely for the mistakes that have been made, or at the former Commissioner for Correctional Services, Ken Middlebrook. I would be more inclined to ask the Chief Minister what he intends to do about this unworkable workload he has allocated the member for Port Darwin.
The member for Port Darwin probably feels somewhat embarrassed that I am raising this as an issue in parliament. I believe he is an immensely competent human being. He is bright and capable, but no one human being is capable of looking after the portfolios of Health, child protection, Corrections, Attorney-General and Justice, Disability Services and Mental Health Services. It is ridiculous, and if anyone should be held accountable for the problems within Correctional Services it is not the member for Port Darwin or Ken Middblebrook, it is the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Deputy Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I want to hark back in history to make a quick point. On 13 September 2009 I had been in the job as the local member for Katherine for one year. I was celebrating the anniversary of the 20th year after hand back of Nitmiluk Gorge to the Jawoyn people. It was supposed to be a celebration. I remember it very well because I had just completed a charity walk from Pine Creek to Katherine. This was the third day, my feet were covered in blisters and were bandaged up. I remember listening to a number of speeches, one by the member for Lingiari, the Minister for Indigenous Affairs at the time, Warren Snowdon.
His speech was one of the worst I have ever heard, delivered at what was supposed to be a celebration of the hand back. It was divisive, inappropriate, and played the politics of black versus white. It was designed to pick the scabs off racism and the undertone of racism that was in some quarters in Katherine 20 or more years ago.
I was so incensed by the contribution by the member for Lingiari I wrote to the Prime Minister demanding she remove him from the portfolio of Indigenous Affairs. He was clearly playing the politics of divisiveness and the racism card at the time. I did not get a response from the Prime Minister of the day, Julia Gillard, but I called for his resignation nonetheless.
I remember listening to him on radio in response to me calling for his resignation and the reporter asked him, ‘Do you intend to resign over this?’, and he said, ‘You must be joking’. I thought it was a pretty fair response, but those words stuck in my mind. For a young politician, hearing those few words killed the issue. Good on you, Warren Snowdon.
The last line of this motion says:
- This House calls on the minister to resign his portfolios.
You must be joking!
The Minister for Correctional Services carries a huge number of portfolio responsibilities and would be the hardest-working minister on this side of the House. He is certainly the hardest working minister this parliament has produced, I imagine, for a number of years. He spends his time – I see the signs in his office all the time – for the good of the people of the Northern Territory. He spends an inordinate amount of time dedicated to the work he has been assigned. That work is evident across all his portfolio areas. I am not like the Labor politicians; I do not keep dirt files. I keep praise files and things I can talk to my colleagues about on the amazing things achieved since we have been in government. I will run through some of them then tell the Assembly there is no way in the world I would support this ridiculous call for the member for Port Darwin to resign his portfolios.
The minister has campaigned to further fund, target and reduce domestic and family violence, securing $18.2m in funding across a three-year period. The Northern Territory, as a result, has one of the most effective policies in Australia, with offence rates falling dramatically. His tough stance on crime has seen the introduction of tougher sentencing for those who attack workers, commit violent crimes, and who are convicted of a sexual assault offence, with mandatory sentences and permanent detention legislation being introduced. The introduction of Sentenced to a Job and the collaboration with Batchelor Institute to provide vocational skills for prisoners has helped provide a sense of purpose and assisted with the reintegration of prisoners back into society.
The legal system in the Northern Territory has been boosted and is easier to access with additional funding allocated to the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission. There has also been a cut in red tape and a significant reduction in fees when commencing legal action in the NTCAT.
For the first time the Northern Territory has a comprehensive plan to improve mental health services and outcomes for those struggling with mental health issues. An additional $3m in funding goes towards mental health services.
There is still work to be done, and there is no doubt minister Elferink is the right person to get on with the job. I support him wholeheartedly and all the things he has done and will do to make the lives of Territorians better for the next 10 months leading up to the election in 2016.
Let us run through a list of the achievements of the member for Port Darwin under his various portfolio responsibilities. He has introduced indefinite detention for sex offenders who pose a high risk to the community. He has introduced mandatory sentencing for assaults on frontline workers which carries a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment where the victim suffers harm, and the offence is also subject to new mandatory minimum sentencing of at least three months or 12 months if they are a serial offender.
He has introduced mandatory sentencing for violent offenders. He has introduced one punch legislation, the first in any Australian jurisdiction. Led by the member for Port Darwin as the Attorney General, this closed the gap in legislation enabling a person to be tried for murder instead of manslaughter.
He has introduced the toughest legislation in the country for property forfeiture, targeting drug traffickers and sellers. He has introduced the Pillars of Justice, a criminal justice reforms package from before arrest to beyond parole.
He has introduced the NT Administrative and Civil Tribunal, or NTCAT, reducing red tape by having a one-stop shop appeals tribunal instead of more than 30 boards, commissions, tribunals or bodies. This will provide an independent, single, central, easy to use system that is under way now and being refined as it goes forward.
He has introduced the Safety is Everyone’s Right domestic violence reduction strategy, which is a comprehensive cross-agency strategy to address, reduce and prevent the unacceptably high level of domestic violence.
As at 30 June 2015, 257 high-risk victims have been referred to family safety meetings, and 1142 government and non-government staff across the Northern Territory have undertaken Family Safety Framework training. This is all under the stewardship of the Attorney-General.
We have introduced and intend to pass legislation for a sex offender public website, which will again be the first in any Australian jurisdiction. A new Supreme Court is being built in Alice Springs.
Methamphetamines have been moved from a Schedule 2 drug to a Schedule 1 drug, attracting tougher penalties for those who use, sell or produce the dangerous drug.
The release of crime statistics has moved from yearly under the former Labor government to monthly under this government, allowing for greater transparency.
The member for Port Darwin has also introduced advance personal planning, which allows people to make decisions about their future needs before they lose the capacity to make their own decisions. He has introduced hit and run legislation to close a loophole so that a driver is required to stop at the scene of a serious collision causing harm or death.
He has also introduced bail legislation for domestic violence. That was an amendment to the Bail Act to ensure that more repeat domestic violence offenders are kept behind bars and not granted bail.
Moving to something a little different, he has introduced changes to the Unit Title Schemes Act which prevent the exploitation of a unit titles scheme by the minority of owners for financial gain where the majority of owners want to cancel the unit title to redevelop or sell.
The list goes on, and I will not stop until I get to the end of it. The member for Port Darwin, as the Correctional Services minister, introduced a youth boot camp with $2m ongoing funding from 2013-14. Operation Flinders is currently running the Loves Creek boot camp just outside Alice Springs, working with wayward youth to correct their path in life.
He has introduced – we all know about this as it is one of the flagship programs of the corrections system – Sentenced to a Job, which provides real jobs to prisoners to learn new skills and help them reintegrate into society.
He has introduced electronic monitoring, technology to locate and track an offender’s movements to keep crime down. He has introduced total smoking bans in prisons, and a work not play policy for young detainees, who are expected to engage in training and work programs to increase their employment opportunities on release.
He had oversight of the Taj Mahal of prisons, the new Darwin prison, and the cost saving measures associated with that since we came to government. That is notwithstanding we had to pick up the enormous debt legacy created by the decision of the former government to build a correctional facility that only had one thing in mind, which was putting more prisoners in it. That is why they built the huge Taj Mahal of a prison. They could fill it with prisoners let down by a justice and corrections system run by a failing Labor government.
He had oversight of bolstering correctional service industries to turn over $3.4m last financial year; the introduction of the Indigenous language resources which assist Indigenous prisoners to gain a better understanding of the requirements of their orders and so reduces reoffending; growth of the partnership between BIITE and Correctional Services to improve the education and vocational skills of prisoners prior to their release; the Vita review into youth justice and the subsequent implementation of the recommendation; the closing of the old, rundown and outgrown Don Dale facility and the opening of a refurbished and fit for purpose new youth detention facility; the opening of work camps within communities; and the implementation of a new Correctional Services Act which allows the department to operate in an every-changing society.
If I move to Children and Families, he had oversight of the provision of $2m to the Somerville Community Centre at Palmerston and the establishment of a family support centre in Tennant Creek; the Children’s Commissioner being granted increased independence and investigatory powers for a more accountable and transparent child protection system; the Children’s Charter of Rights, a charter of rights for children in out-of-home care; intensive support services for vulnerable at-risk young people with Anglicare; the establishment of intensive youth support services in Katherine, Darwin and Alice Springs; the introduction of permit care orders to provide a child with a more permanent, stable out-of-home care option; the Adoption of Children Act currently being reviewed to ensure it is contemporary legislation; the child legal representation legislative reforms to the Care and Protection of Children Act, providing improved legal representation of children in court to ensure a child’s voice is better heard; the growing our own workforce development strategy to develop a professional workforce of up to 75 Aboriginal community workers and administrative officers. These participants are currently undertaking DCF’s vocational graduate certificate. He also has oversight of the out-of-home care reform project, the family intervention framework.
Under Health, Mental Health Services and Disability Services, the alcohol mandatory treatment program aims to get chronic alcoholics into treatment and work towards their health and reconnection with their families.
The Palmerston Regional Hospital is on track despite what the Labor Party would have you believe.
There is legislation around smoking in cars, breast screening services, a new mental health portfolio with an increased focus on increasing mental health service capacity, and profiling the Territory, the new disability portfolio.
For the first time people are able to use an MRI machine in Alice Springs. There is $55m worth of building activities at Royal Darwin Hospital, and the minister has launched the Northern Territory Suicide Prevention Strategic Action Plan as well. He has launched the first Northern Territory Mental Health Services Strategic Plan, with $3m of additional funding to boost mental health services in a range of areas.
We are introducing initiatives that have never been contemplated before by any Northern Territory government, and these are just a few.
I do not know if the member for Port Darwin is blushing after having heard me mention some of his achievements over the past three years in his various portfolios.
When I think about the work this government has done over the past three years – sometimes I get tired just thinking about it. The number of initiatives we have introduced and the number of positive steps we have taken to make sure the Northern Territory is a better place to live, work and play are amazing. I look at the achievements of our ministers, the Chief Minister, our backbenchers and everybody on this side of the House and wonder how we had the time to do it all. We have been driven.
The member for Port Darwin is certainly at the top of the pile when it comes to people who are driven. He is working hard in his portfolio areas, is ever supportive of his colleagues and is doing a stellar job.
I thank the member for Araluen for her comments, talking up the capacity of the member for Port Darwin in his portfolio areas. She is quite right. He has an enormous ministerial portfolio workload and yes, I often wonder how he manages it all. Nonetheless, he manages it in a way that brings credit not only to the Northern Territory government but also to himself.
To call on the minister to resign from his portfolios – you must be joking.
Mrs PRICE (Local Government and Community Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, I oppose this disgusting motion designed to waste time. We began the morning with a motion complaining about peripheral issues to address ice in the Northern Territory. We then spoke about Richardson Park instead of what was on the Notice Paper – the bill to address ice coming into the Northern Territory. Now we have this motion criticising a minister who is trying to pass legislation to stop ice entering the Northern Territory. It is disturbing to see Labor and the Independents hold the people of the Northern Territory in such contempt that they think it is more important to play politics than get things done, like stopping ice. Why do they not want to speak about ice? Why do they not want to get things done? Labor and the Independents seem to be doing everything possible to delay or block the passage of legislation to stop ice.
I have full confidence in minister Elferink. He is a tireless worker and is committed to improving the lives of Territorians. I have worked closely with minister Elferink in developing a nation-leading domestic violence strategy. The Northern Territory was the first jurisdiction to sign up to the second action plan under the national plan to reduce domestic violence. I am proud the Northern Territory, as the first jurisdiction, has brought that to the table.
Minister Elferink has been instrumental in helping me ensure the Northern Territory meets its obligations in the second action plan through the Northern Territory government’s Safety is Everyone’s Right domestic violence strategy. The Northern Territory government’s Domestic and Family Violence Reduction Strategy 2014-17, Safety is Everyone’s Right, is a comprehensive approach to tackle domestic and family violence in the Northern Territory. At the core of the strategy is an integrated response by government and non-government agencies to reduce the negative impacts of service fragmentation on vulnerable victims.
Since its introduction one year ago, domestic violence assault offences have decreased 9% across the Northern Territory, with 9% fewer assaults in Darwin, 24% fewer in Palmerston, 20% fewer in Katherine and 49% fewer in Tennant Creek. A key component of Safety is Everyone’s Right is the implementation of the Family Safety Framework, which focuses on protecting high risk victims from further harm and homicide by coordinating a response across government and non-government agencies. The Family Safety Framework has now been established in Alice Springs, Darwin, Katherine and Tennant Creek and meetings are held fortnightly in each of these locations. As at 30 June 2015, 257 high-risk victims have been referred to Family Safety meetings and 1142 government and non-government staff across the Northern Territory have undertaken Family Safety Framework training.
Minister Elferink and I have been working hard to combat domestic violence in the Northern Territory. I know Mr Elferink’s style is not always the most popular, but there is no doubt he is committed to delivering for Territorians. I see this dedication through working with him and rolling out his domestic violence strategy, and I am confident he has the same drive and passion in every one of his portfolios.
This government does big things; it makes big reforms, and it is disappointing to see Labor and the Independents criticising us. The Chief Minister, the Deputy Chief Minister, the Treasurer, minister Elferink, minister Styles, minister Chandler, minister Higgins and I are all doing a great job. We are putting in place big reforms and changes after the previous Labor government did nothing but spend and put us in debt.
This government is a good team and is delivering for the Territory, and minister Elferink is a big part of our team. Thank you.
The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 9 Noes 13
- Ms Fyles Mr Barrett
Mr Gunner Mr Chandler
Mrs Lambley Mr Conlan
Ms Lawrie Mr Elferink
Mr McCarthy Mrs Finocchiaro
Ms Manison Mr Giles
Ms Moss Mr Higgins
Mr Vowles Mr Kurrupuwu
- Mrs Price
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
Motion not agreed to.
MOTION
Note Paper – Report on Funding of Rugby League Facilities in Darwin
Note Paper – Report on Funding of Rugby League Facilities in Darwin
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr STYLES (Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, the members opposite might like to have a good look at what they are proposing, and instead of commenting on things the government is doing, talk to people in the affected electorates. We have spoken to people who live near Richardson Park. Much of what is coming before parliament from the opposition is scaremongering and what they made up.
They say this is terrible, but when you look at the facts – this side is about evidence-based decisions. We gather the evidence, we look at it, and then we do what the evidence suggests.
I support the Minister for Sport and Recreation in relation to Richardson Park.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Mr Deputy Speaker, in closing this debate I would like to make a few comments about the role of the Public Accounts Committee.
To put it into context, the first Public Accounts Committee was established by the House of Commons in 1861 to review reports of the use to which public funds were put. To this day, most parliaments in the Westminster tradition have a committee to examine the public accounts and the efficiency, effectiveness and economy of government agencies on behalf of the people.
In the same year that the first Public Accounts Committee was established, John Stuart Mill wrote that it was a task of the legislature to:
- … watch and control the government: to throw the light of publicity on its acts …
Those words were cited by the High Court of Australia in explaining the doctrine of responsible government under our constitution, by which the legislature has the duty to, ‘Question and criticise government on behalf of the people, and the power to compel the production of information’.
The Northern Territory has had a Public Accounts Committee since the 4th Assembly. Regardless of the balance of power in the Assembly, that committee has continued the tradition of questioning how governments are managing their finances and delivering efficient and effective programs. This remains a key means of public accountability under our system of government.
The Public Accounts Committee in the Northern Territory is a vital means of questioning and holding the government accountable for the flow of money in and out of the government coffers – revenue and expenditure.
I am concerned that the treatment of the committee in the last few weeks has reflected either poor management or lack of regard for the committee’s role. The committee wrote to the Chief Minister and Treasurer two weeks before the public hearings and asked them to appear to explain decisions on the matters referred by the Assembly. Both the Chief Minister and the Treasurer declined the invitation to appear. I find this disappointing, and it shows a lack of accountability.
On 16 September 2015 the Assembly asked the government to appoint two members to the committee. Committee members delayed pursuing this inquiry to provide every opportunity for government members to participate. To date, the government positions have remained vacant.
I find that disturbing and I question whether or not the government is deliberately holding the Public Accounts Committee of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly in contempt.
I have heard the various contributors to this debate today, and I have also heard the dismissive comments off the microphone system: the scoffing, laughing and joking; the rather rude and disrespectful way in which this Public Accounts Committee report has been received today in this parliament.
It has been a rushed process, but we rushed it to ensure it remained relevant. To allow this process to extend for another month ran the risk of it not being relevant at all. As chair of this committee I feel I have operated objectively. I live in Alice Springs and have never played rugby league or been involved in it. My husband was actively involved in NT NRL many years ago, but I do not have any vested interest in the outcomes, findings or recommendations of this process. To me it was a job I was allocated to.
Most in this Chamber will remember the Public Accounts Committee was reconfigured a few months ago after the change to the balance of power within this Chamber. The government lost its majority and a motion was put to this parliament to change it to more accurately reflect that balance of power.
I was the second choice to become chair of the committee. The first option was given to the member for Nelson but he declined and I was asked, as the second Independent on the committee, to take up the position of chair. I did not seek the position, but I am more than happy to fill the position because it interests me and I believe it performs a very important role.
The objective of this inquiry was to look at the decision and due diligence that was or was not exercised in regard to the allocation of $20m to Richardson Park. Several government members have been rather defensive. I do not understand that. The government decided not to allocate two members to the Public Accounts Committee. They made a decision not to be represented in this process, which I find confounding and disrespectful. For government members to criticise the process we undertook, under the instruction of this parliament, to investigate the allocation of funding to Richardson Park is unfair and unreasonable.
If the government wanted to ensure a greater level of accountability and objectivity in this process, they should have allocated two members. We still do not have government participation on the Public Accounts Committee. I ask the Chief Minister to explain to the Chamber why he and his government did not choose to participate in this Public Accounts Committee inquiry. Territorians have a right to know and understand exactly why they chose not to participate. Why did they choose to snub what is an important parliamentary mechanism within the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly?
My role is not to debate with anyone the pros and cons of this report. We have listened to the various contributors to the public hearing and read the submissions put to us. Amongst the four of us, two members of the opposition and two Independent members, including me and the member for Nelson, we came to a range of observations and recommendations. The result is fair and reasonable.
I thank the staff of the Legislative Assembly for working very hard to deliver this report in what became a very tight time frame. I would like to thank the members of the Public Accounts Committee, the members for Nightcliff, Wanguri and Nelson, for making themselves available and participating so energetically and respectfully in this process.
Finally I would like to say that this has been an illuminating process and the recommendations of this report should shed some light for all stakeholders involved in Richardson Park, including residents, as to how the decision was made.
I ask that the government treats this report respectfully. It is a reason to reflect on how governments generally make decisions, what is a good decision, what is a decision that reflects due diligence and what is a decision that is open and transparent, and meets the expectations of all those involved.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
MISUSE OF DRUGS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 136)
(Serial 136)
Continued from 16 September 2015.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this bill before the House. Now that it is to be debated through the standard and proper process, having failed the case for urgency in the last sittings, we can have a reasonable, and more importantly, informed debate.
The bill having sat on the Notice Paper for the minimum 30 days means all members of this House and stakeholders have had adequate time to scrutinise the bill, to ask questions of interested stakeholders, and to come back to the minister’s office and ask further questions, as I was able to yesterday.
Nobody doubts that combating drug trafficking in the Northern Territory is an important issue. Methamphetamine, or ice as it is commonly known, is a scourge in our communities and across the country. It devastates families and lives, and measures need to be in place to try to intercept trafficking, but those measures need to be well considered, based on evidence and be consulted on. Of course we are not just talking about ice; we are talking about other drugs that find their way here as well.
The minister was not prepared to do that in the last sittings. The Leader of Government Business has a big hand in setting the sittings schedule and ordering business before the House, as well as having responsibility for this bill. The fact that he was not adequately prepared to introduce the bill in order to see its passage in September is clearly his issue. It is his problem that there were not 30 days between sittings. The fact that we have had a longer than usual break between sitting weeks in September until November, eight weeks in fact, is his issue and not that of the members on this side of the House.
The series of full-page taxpayer-funded ads which were published immediately after the urgency motion for this bill failed are symptomatic of a government which has lost control and had a hissy fit because it did not get its way. There was no respect for the democratic processes of this Chamber contained within standing orders, which does not allow for a majority of the House to vote no to urgency. There was no respect for taxpayer funds to promote purely politically-driven messages, and no clue about and no regard to the blatant breach of the Public Information Act which prohibits such ads.
Documents obtained under Freedom of Information legislation now reveal that a senior political operative in the Chief Minister’s office directed a senior public servant to create and run costly full-page advertisements of a political and misleading nature ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! Anticipation of debate. This matter is on the Notice Paper and is not the subject of this debate.
Ms WALKER: It has been widely talked about in the media. We put out a media release, it has been discussed and we have radio interviews.
The misleading nature in the local press at the expense of the taxpayer …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please be careful about the way you phrase your debate this evening.
Ms WALKER: Certainly, thank you. The advertisements in question, which have cost the taxpayer over $8000, incorrectly claimed …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 68:
- No Member shall anticipate the discussion of any subject which appears on the Notice Paper: provided that in determining whether a discussion is or is not in order on the ground of anticipation, regard shall be had by the Speaker to the probability of the matter anticipated being brought before the Assembly within a reasonable time.
This matter is now on the Notice Paper. It was introduced by the member for Goyder this morning and stands adjourned at this stage. This is a straight up and down anticipation of debate.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, due to the fact the newspaper article is coming up for debate shortly, please continue your comments relating to the matter at hand and steer clear of what will be debated at the next point. Standing Order 68 relates to anticipation of debate:
- No Member shall anticipate the discussion of any subject which appears on the Notice Paper: provided that in determining whether a discussion is or is not in order on the ground of anticipation, regard shall be had by the Speaker to the probability of the matter anticipated being brought before the Assembly within a reasonable time.
There is a high probability of that being discussed so stick to the motion, please.
Ms WALKER: I am not talking to the motion. I am talking to the bill, and there is a very important discussion to be had about the issue of urgency with this bill. In the last sittings it became a political issue for government members because they would not accept the majority of this House voting in the democratic way that we do to show we object. The government, in its wisdom …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you talking to me about your argument or are you continuing?
Ms WALKER: No, I am resuming my contribution.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: If you talk about the newspaper ad that is anticipating debate.
Ms WALKER: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, can we not even talk about the fact this government …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: When it comes up you can talk about it to your heart’s content. It is coming up on the Notice Paper shortly.
Ms WALKER: When is shortly? Can you advise?
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Within a reasonable time.
Ms WALKER: What is a reasonable time? Government shut down debate this morning and is shutting it down again.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Deputy Clerk and I will discuss it again and then I will make a decision and that will be it. There is a probability that debate will come on in GBD tomorrow night so you can make whatever remarks you want at that time. You are entitled to do that, but please just talk about this bill at this point.
Ms WALKER: I will do my best given that government does its best to gag debate at every opportunity. It is in denial about the right of this House and elected members who voted no to urgency. We did not block laws, we voted no to the motion of urgency.
Clearly the agenda of the government, of the minister sitting opposite me, is to drive a political agenda, a scaremongering agenda, and they do not care at whose expense they do it. They do it at taxpayers’ expense, and they do it shamelessly. Let us make no mistake, the government is interested in treating taxpayers’ funds as their own slush fund to run political agendas, misleading or otherwise.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 68 and Standing Order 129, both of which deal with anticipation of debate. The letter circulated by the Speaker earlier today touches on the matters the member is now touching on directly and specifically. I respectfully ask that the member be drawn back to the matter under debate, which is the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Understood member for Port Darwin. I think she is expressing the opinion that the government is gagging her.
Mr ELFERINK: I am mindful of the rules of this House.
Ms WALKER: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, my last motion asked for the minister to be sacked, but obviously the man sitting next to him would not be able to get by without him. There is a complete lack of leadership, and there is dysfunction, on that side of the House.
What became clear following the failed urgency motion to push this legislation through parliament was that the minister had not consulted with key stakeholders about providing new powers to search and seize in a bid to clamp down on drug traffickers on our roads.
He was so intent that he was right and everybody else was wrong that we saw a complete abuse of Territory taxpayer funds used in advertisements that have been referred to the Privileges Committee. I look forward to the opportunity tomorrow night to talk further about how a politically driven and incorrect scare campaign put out by the government has progressed.
We did not support the urgency motion because the minister had not consulted with stakeholders about providing these new powers, and there is nothing new about that. There is nothing new about the fact that the CLP government, for three years, has not consulted.
They do not know what consultation means. They drive an agenda which says, ‘We know what’s best for you. We do not listen to people, but we know what’s best for you and we will push it through no matter what anybody else thinks.’
This government is so arrogant and so out of touch. It does not consult, does not feel any need to listen to experts and, as it has discovered in more recent sittings, life as a minority government means it does not have carte blanche to do whatever it wants or whatever it thinks is best for Territorians.
If it were not for the fact that the member for Arnhem has now shown her true colours and is providing support to the government – we are back to a situation where, for all intents and purposes, it is a majority CLP government. They will continue their bad behaviour and bad way of doing business in the Northern Territory. So be it. When it comes to legislation, as we know from the Attorney-General, nobody knows more in the Northern Territory than him, yet we have to recognise, as members of this House, as legislators, we have a responsibility to get it right.
How many times have I heard the minister opposite me utter those words? When I was being briefed in the minister’s office a month ago on bills related to these sittings, I was advised that with the failure of the urgency motion to progress through the House, the minister’s second reading speech and explanatory statement were sent out to 32 identified stakeholders. These came with an invitation for a briefing, and that submissions were welcomed, with a closing date of Friday 23 October. That decision was made after the failure of the urgency motion.
Obviously, with another plot going on in the Chief Minister’s office to get false and misleading advertising into the public …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, please stick to the bill. If you keep doing this I will keep pulling you up.
Ms WALKER: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I apologise. It is such a serious and infuriating issue and I am sick and tired of being gagged in debate.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: You will have your opportunity to speak on it tomorrow night.
Ms WALKER: Would you not think, after the urgency motion failed, the minister’s office issuing instructions for the associated documents to go out to 32 stakeholders seeking feedback that it was a back to front process in communication? Would it not be better to attend a briefing or submit views before a bill is introduced on urgency? No, that is not the way this government operates.
There is also the audacity and arrogance of the minister to have behaved so badly towards me and others during that urgency debate and thumping his fist on his desk ...
Mr Elferink: Not true.
Ms WALKER: Yelling. We have seen it on the video, John. For goodness sake! You are in complete denial.
He tried to have the final word when he did not get his way by taking certain actions in the media and using taxpayer funds to promote mistruths. The ends this government will go to get its own way beggar belief. To go back to the member for Arnhem to secure her vote shows they are absolutely ruthless. They do not care about the history between members on their side and the member for Arnhem, or the words exchanged between the parties. At the end of the day, they are so desperate to grasp power that the member for Arnhem has returned to their ranks.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! We are engaging in digression. Speaking about the member for Arnhem’s relationship with the government has nothing to do with the bill before the House. I would presume having had all this time to prepare a response she has something better than a mere meander around the room and not talking about the issue under debate.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: A fair bit of leeway is given in the House but please try to stay near the bill.
Continue your comments please, member for Nhulunbuy.
Ms WALKER: I will do that but some history goes with this bill. There is also an important story here about why government is in the position it is now, about how it can pass legislation and how it achieved that. I believe I am entitled to make that observation. There is always, as you know, certain latitude in debate.
Let us say that the minister, during that urgency debate, behaved abominably. Vision from this Chamber was captured and relayed on media around the country. That is how the government works. They have to bully their way through the agenda and get laws through. We know at those sittings they were a minority government and unable to do that.
I understand the intent of this bill according to the Explanatory Statement is to:
- … allow a police officer, at the rank of Commander or above, to authorise an area he or she reasonably suspects is being, or is likely to be, used for the transport of dangerous drugs or a precursor, as a drug detection area. The Bill contains a number of restrictions on the use of this discretion.
The authorisation empowers a police officer to utilise search and seizure powers, without warrant and on a random basis, within the drug detection area. The search powers include use of a drug detection dog, use of an electronic drug detection device and physical searches by the police officer. The powers relate to both vehicles, persons within the vehicle and persons who police reasonably believe had recently left the vehicle.
We will not be opposing this bill, but we have a number of reservations and questions about it. I hope the minister can elaborate on some of the provisions within the bill.
I will get to the amendment put forward by the member for Karama. We share the member’s concerns about the reversal of onus of proof in amended section 40. Nevertheless, we recognise the need to look at measures for dealing with drug trafficking, and not only on our road corridors, and to try to combat the organised criminal activity networks that peddle these destructive drugs, including ice, and create such tragic levels of harm which reach beyond the users and impact on families and communities.
The Liquor Act of 1995 has certain powers to pull over vehicles and randomly search for alcohol. To a point, the minister’s proposed legislation is similar but on a larger and more organised scale and with greater powers. I am not sure just how organised, given that I have not seen the guidelines referred to in the second reading speech and the Explanatory Statement. I asked about the guidelines the minister referred to. They are in clause 19V(2), which states:
- An authorisation must comply with any guidelines issued by the Commissioner of Police for this Part.
I had an opportunity to ask again yesterday when in the minister’s office for further briefings, and I was not the only one asking about the guidelines. The response was they would not be released publically because they are operational matters for police. I guess we have to accept that, but it was not clear in the lead-up to the last sittings what was happening with the guidelines and who would be seeing them again. That hardly instils confidence in us as legislators when bills come before the House on urgency.
Part IIAB details drug detection areas, which is where guidelines are referred to. I wish to make some observations arising from conversations with stakeholders in the last few weeks, including the Law Society of the Northern Territory, the Automobile Association of the Northern Territory, and the NT Road Transport Association. In the lead-up to the urgency motion for the bill, opposition members sought the views of NAAJA and the Criminal Lawyers Association of the Northern Territory. I have since received the Criminal Lawyers Association of the Northern Territory’s submission, which no doubt was generated by the minister’s office post the failure of the urgency motion. Again, it is a back to front way to consult with stakeholders.
If the target is main roads into the Northern Territory because police want to target interstate trafficking from other jurisdictions, although I know this is not exclusively the intent because air transport is another serious avenue for trafficking, why not have periodic random checkpoints and drug detection areas on our main roads through the Queensland, WA and SA borders? This legislation would also allow that on the minor roads. I am concerned about how these drug detection areas will operate. I have discussed this with the NT Road Transport Association and AANT.
Knowing how busy our road corridors can be, especially in the Dry Season, I am concerned about the measures in place to ensure a 3 km stretch of road provides adequate and safe provisions well ahead of the 3 km zone. The inconvenience will be a source of irritation to travellers and commercial operators of larger vehicles like road trains, or Greyhound buses that may be carrying up to 60 or so passengers, all of whom have destinations to reach and time frames to meet. Given we do not have access to the guidelines to see how it will operate it is difficult to know how it will be managed.
In proposed section 19X, the effect of authorisations, clauses 19X(1)(a) and (b) provide the authorisation for a police officer within the drug detection area to search without a warrant and without reasonable suspicion. I wonder about clause 19X(2) which states:
- The Commissioner of Police must establish written procedures:
(a) to be followed by police officers when exercising the powers conferred by this Part to ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, that any undue delay or inconvenience to a person who is subject to those powers is avoided …
I appreciate police are adept at doing their job, and having operated random breath testing stations for years they know how to safely manage traffic in such circumstances. However, RBTs are more likely to be in built-up urban areas not on open stretches of road, which could include open stretches where there is an unlimited speed limit. It is imperative on our major highways that traffic and heavy vehicles be properly managed in the designated drug detection areas. Surely the only way to do this is to use designated parking bays. Such bays do not necessarily exist on our roads, including the Central Arnhem Road.
How will police manage the safety of vehicles, drivers and passengers when they are pulled over on dirt roads like the Central Arnhem Road, the Roper Highway, perhaps the Tanami Highway, where visibility can be reduced to just about zero when heavy vehicles pass, and at the same time safely manage the drug detection area? These are very practical, logical concerns people might have, and we need to have some evidence and advice on how that will be managed.
I am concerned about clause 19Y, Special powers to stop, detain, search and seize in relation to vehicles and people. Clause 19Y(1)(c) states:
- inspect or search the vehicle …
- use the reasonable force necessary to open any part of the vehicle or any cupboard, drawer, chest, trunk, box, package or other receptacle found in the vehicle …
Clause 19Y(1)(d) states:
enter the vehicle, using the reasonable force necessary …
You could be travelling up the Stuart Highway in your caravan, which has lockable cupboards for which the driver has misplaced the key, and are pulled into a drug detection zone. Maybe you are in a work vehicle and your car’s toolbox is at risk of getting trashed when police officers open locks to look for drugs, but there is no recompense for damage. Is it the case that under this bill they have the right to use reasonable force to break into compartments? No drugs were found but damage has been done and the individual has no avenue for recompense, or perhaps they do? Could the minister explain that further, especially knowing that police can do so without reasonable suspicion? It seems a bit rough.
The opposition also has concerns, which have also been raised by stakeholders, about the amendment to section 40(c), which sees a reversal of the onus of proof. If my vehicle was found to have drugs stashed in it, and I am genuinely unaware of the presence of the drugs, I am not afforded the usual innocent until proven guilty. The onus of proof is reversed, and I must prove that I was unaware and genuinely did not know that a passenger in my vehicle was transporting drugs.
The member for Barkly, during the condolence motion on the Paris attacks, mentioned picking up some French tourists whose vehicle had broken down. He gave them a lift and provided them with assistance because he is a good person, and most people would probably do that. Where does that leave him if those backpackers were carrying something in their luggage? Where does it leave the owner and driver of the vehicle?
I am not sure those rights are adequately considered in this bill. In their submission the Criminal Lawyers Association of the Northern Territory proposed an amendment which would see that reversed and a person is innocent until proven guilty. In my briefing with the Law Society of the Northern Territory they expressed the same view.
Another example would be a commercial passenger vehicle and its driver, be it a taxi with up to four passengers or a Greyhound bus with up to 60 people. Where are they left when passengers are carrying and transporting drugs into the Northern Territory? A commercial vehicle operates with strangers and is simply providing a service. What is the outcome of that scenario?
What about someone who is checking a neighbour’s mail while they are on holiday? People could have gone on holidays down south, be caring for someone in hospital, or whatever reason. As a good neighbour you are collecting their mail only to find it contains drugs. You are pulled into a drug detection zone and you say, ‘I was just collecting the mail’, but there is no presumption of innocence. It is quite the opposite, so where does it leave that person?
Another curious element of this legislation goes to the heart of the government’s incapacity to adequately consult, which is that this proposed legislation was not raised through the ‘Ice’ Select Committee. It inquired into the prevalence, impacts and government responses to illicit use of the drug colloquially know as ice, in the Northern Territory.
It seems odd that the ice committee received no advice or submission about this proposed legislation as a potential tool for responding to ice trafficking into the Northern Territory. The member for Casuarina, as the opposition’s representative on that committee, was surprised, as I am sure you were, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker as I understand you are on the committee, that you heard nothing of this proposal as a potential tool through the channels of the ice committee until you saw a media release.
Let us not forget the opposition’s motion on 25 March 2015 to immediately establish an interagency task force of Police, Health and Children and Families to report in six weeks on actions that could be taken to tackle the ice epidemic.
That was not supported by this government, and it was only when former Prime Minister Abbott announced a national task force that the CLP government thought it needed to do something, so it established the ice committee. There was no urgency back then. It was not a problem, but what a turnaround we have at now.
I raise the issue of priorities for the minister in his bid to get this legislation through. There are other issues within your portfolio, namely the courts, which are trying to prosecute alleged drug dealers but are frustrated. While very keen to get the bill through last sittings on urgency, less than a fortnight after your failed urgency motion the Northern Territory News, on 28 September, had a front page story headed, ‘Drug cases on ice’:
- Alleged drug dealers are walking the streets on bail while DPP lawyers shift blame for trial delays to the Police Forensics Branch.
It is the responsibility of the government and the minister to ensure our agencies, in this instance, the Department of Justice and the Police, are adequately resourced to do their jobs properly. Clearly, waiting up to 12 weeks – referring to the newspaper article – because of a lack of available personnel and functioning equipment is unacceptable. That was clearly the view of Magistrate Morris in the case that was reported. To have alleged drug dealers bailed and walking the streets seems to show a case of skewed priorities.
I remind the minister that his Pillars of Justice touts Swift Justice. There is nothing swift about a 12-week delay in hearing cases. It is not good enough.
I appreciate there needs to be monitoring of transport routes in a way that is covered fairly through legislation, but what work is being done to monitor other routes? So much of what comes into the Northern Territory to remote communities is transported by air.
On the day of the failed urgency motion the Leader of the Opposition and I were briefed by the Commissioner of Police about the volume of drugs trafficked through air corridors.
I cannot recall the last time I boarded an Airnorth plane to Nhulunbuy to be greeted by police officers and a handler with a detection dog. We would line up with our bags alongside us. We did not object, and I was pleased they did that screening. It was a relatively regular occurrence and, on more than one occasion, a drug detection dog found something. The dog becomes excited, and the person and their luggage are walked aside and they are dealt with. What has happened to that? I have not seen it on the Airnorth plane for quite a few years.
I recognise that in places like Galiwinku police conduct an operation from time to time. They meet every charter plane that comes in, inspect it, and may use the drug detection dog. They are successful. If there are drugs to be found they will find them. As a result, police tell me if you can stop drugs for a few weeks, places like Galiwinku, which can have its problems, will be peaceful and quiet. Nobody is arguing that we need measures to detect drugs. It is about recognising the need for a number of different channels, not just on our roads, but monitoring air corridors as well.
Let us not forget the urgent need to invest in preventative measures, education, and adequate treatment facilities for users to try to combat the devastating impact of drugs and ice on our families and communities. We do not see significant investment into those channels. We cannot just deal with the pointy end. You need to balance that with spending money and investing in preventative measures, but also important health services and treatment for people who have addiction issues.
We are not opposing this bill but note we have a number of questions for the minister to address. I would like to thank the minister’s office for providing briefings with officers from the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice, who are always very helpful during the briefings and always organise them promptly.
I look forward to hearing contributions from other members.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the debate started off with the advertisement in paper, but the Acting Deputy Speaker said we cannot debate the issue. I will read something from Hansard before the ad existed. In the urgency debate on 16 September 2015 I said:
- If I do not support your bill, you will say to the community, to the Northern Territory News, that Gerry Wood is soft on crime. ‘Gerry Wood wants kids to die from ice. Gerry Wood does not have the guts to support the bill that will save lives and put drug pushers in gaol.’
Further down I said:
- I have to look at the legislation and see if it is good. If that means I do not look good in the newspaper the next day because if the Attorney-General says I do not care about kids getting ice, I will have to wear it.
I am glad we gave the bill time because it gave us a chance to ask people about it, as I did. In general, the people I asked supported it. I asked a lawyer friend to go through it because these laws will end up in court in the sense that someone will probably debate whether a person is guilty or not guilty based on the legislation we pass. We need to make sure this is good legislation. I support the legislation but have concerns about clause 8, which amends section 40(c), which I will come to.
This is straightforward and gives the police more powers. It is a relatively small piece of legislation but has some serious implications on people’s rights to travel on a road freely, and also the right for your vehicle not to be searched. In this case you will be asked to stop travelling in your car and you will, without warrant, be required to be searched or the vehicle you are in searched.
They are fairly serious changes to the normal liberties we have when driving down the highway. Yes, on occasion there will be a breathalyser, but we are not searched and our car is not pulled apart. This is obviously serious, and there is a serious reason for this to happen. We want to stop – if you believe the advertisements – ice. There are other drugs that we want to stop as well, and precursors. There is a range of drugs we would like to stop coming into the Territory, or if they are in the Territory, stop them from being distributed in the Territory. If we believe we need to lose some of our liberties for the benefit of the whole community then parliament needs to pass laws to allow that to happen. Those laws, and the limitations of those powers, have to be clearly identified and this bill does that. Clause 19V(1) says:
- If a senior police officer reasonably suspects that an area as being, or is likely to be, used for the transport of dangerous drugs or precursors in contravention of this Act, the senior police officer may give an authorisation in relation to the area.
This is subject to various conditions, and must also be in writing, so if it ever comes back to the court we need to show that authorisation was correct. It limits the area on the road that can be set up as a drug detection area. The authorisation gives police powers they normally would not have. They can then use the drug detection area without a warrant and without reasonable suspicion, which is normally what you would expect a police officer to do. They have powers they normally would not have which allow them to search you or your vehicle, direct a driver to stop, and they can enter the vehicle using reasonable force. They can detain a person and seize any item or thing the officer reasonably believes is connected with any offence.
There is a change in the powers a police officer has, and those powers impinge on people’s liberty. If this bill passes tonight it needs to advertise the change to the act. I can see the grey nomads heading up the highway and, all of a sudden, people are wandering through their caravan. ‘What the heck is going on here?’ Out go the saucepans, the fridge is moved, ‘Sorry about the back panels, we will take those out for a minute’. I am not sure if the police are required to put them all back together, but it could be a shock to someone travelling in the Dry Season if police decide to put a drug detection area on the Stuart Highway hoping to catch people transporting drugs into the Territory. They may have no idea what is going on. I do not know how you advertise it, but people need to be made aware this could happen.
I agree with what the government is trying to do and support the government being tough on drugs.
Clause 8 amends section 40(c) by inserting clause 8(2) which says:
- taken to be proof that the drug or precursor was then in the person’s possession unless the person proves
The minister is a lawyer and upholds the British system of law. We have been talking about the poor people of Paris today. We seem to have legislation that is – pardon me if I am wrong, but that is the way the French do things. You have to prove you were not the person who caused the unlawful incident.
I might be wrong, but we are turning our system of justice around the other way. I can understand, to some extent, what you are getting at. I was sent, at 9.51 am today, an e-mail which said to look up section 5 of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act. I searched but I could not find section 5 of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act, which deals with evidence. Section 7 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act talks about the supply of prohibited drugs, and says a person who supplies or knowingly takes part in the supply of a prohibited drug is guilty of an offence.
They use the word ‘knowingly’. ‘Knowingly’ is very important. The part the department was talking about was deemed possession of a prohibited drug. Section 7 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act says:
- For the purposes of the Act and the regulations, a prohibited drug … or prohibited plant in the order or disposition of a person, or that is in the order or disposition of the person jointly with another person by agreement between the persons, shall be deemed to be in the possession of the person.
I am not sure if that is the same as what we are dealing with in our legislation. It might be an example of something close to it, but it does not seem to be the same. I have concerns about that. I could have said, ‘Big deal’, but I had a note from the Criminal Lawyers Association which said, ‘CLANT strongly opposes clause 8 of the bill’.
It goes on to say:
- CLANT is concerned that the proposed provision usurps a fundamental pillar of the common law – the presumption of innocence. The amendment would reverse the burden of proof. In doing so, it raises a real risk that some accused persons who were in fact innocently unaware of the presence of drugs found on their premises or in their car will be convicted of extremely serious crimes. This would be grossly unjust.
Section 40(c) was carefully considered (but not criticised) by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Grosvenor v The Queen [2014] NTCCA 5 at [29] to [37]. It is well understood and applied by the courts. CLANT considers that s40(c) in its current form strikes a reasonable balance between the applicable competing policy interests, and should not be amended.
My learned friend, who is a long time lawyer, also expressed concern and opposition to that change.
I do not know if the amendment will be successful. It puts us in a difficult position, because I support the bill but I do not believe this clause should be left in the legislation.
I understand at times it must be frustrating for police. Obviously this is not the only case where police have evidence. It could be stolen goods or something. ‘Why is that stereo sitting in the front of your car?’ ‘I didn’t know it was there, officer. It fell out of the sky and landed on the seat.’ The other way round is you prove you did not pinch it and show your receipts.
I do not know if that is a fair example, but I know we want to stop ice. If you apply a principle should you apply it evenly? If you want to apply it in special cases, should this be the only special case? Are we being selective? Do the police have other concerns where they believe people are getting off because they can say they did not know anything about it?
The lawyers who have commented on this section of the bill believe it should not be amended, and if this amendment is successful it will allow the status quo to continue. I need to highlight for the Attorney-General that, regardless of the urgency debate, this bill needed to be looked at. It is a serious bill about the freedom of people to travel and not be searched. Normally you only search people’s cars with a warrant.
The member for Nhulunbuy mentioned going to the ice committee. We do not use our committees as we should. Even though the ice committee was travelling and had nearly completed its work, this would have been an ideal thing to take off – a bipartisan ice committee. The issues we are talking about today, especially the onus of proof, are something the committee could have discussed.
The issue of compensation raised by the member for Nhulunbuy is valid. If your vehicle is left on the side of the road, is compensation available? It might be for minor things, but if someone is innocent they might say, ‘What’s happened here?’
As a parliament we could have used the ice committee to assist with this legislation. Urgency would not have come into it, because the ice committee could have looked at this in a reasonable time and returned to parliament with considered answers. That is the way parliament should be. There has been a lot of heat today, which I can still feel, but hopefully in the future we can talk about things as a parliament rather than one side or the other.
This issue is important to all of us. It is very close to the member for Brennan’s heart, and it is not only that. Who was on the youth suicide committee? Who looked at marijuana abuse in Aboriginal communities and the high suicide rates?
We are all concerned about drug abuse, but we cannot just concentrate, as members of parliament, on legislation. We need programs; we need to assist people and we need outcomes to give people a positive outlook on life so they do not resort to drugs. There is a bigger issue as well which we will not deal with today.
I support the bill. I appreciate it has come back in good time. We will see where the debate goes in relation to the amendment.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Deputy Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the passage through the House of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill 2015. It is nice to be finally debating the bill after the Labor Party and the Independents decided this bill did not require urgency seven or eight weeks ago. I hope, as a result of the tardiness of those opposite, that more of this horrible drug has not made it into the Northern Territory and affected the lives of Territorians. It would be macabre to chase the statistics to see if there is any correlation between the tardiness of those opposite and any more people becoming addicted to this horrible drug.
Finally, after many weeks of waiting, this bill is before the House. Across the nation we are witnessing the serious impacts that drugs have on our communities. It does not matter which postcode you live in, drugs are a serious problem felt in every corner of this great country, and, more locally, every suburb in the Northern Territory. It is a problem we cannot afford to ignore.
In September I was gobsmacked to hear the reasons the members for Nelson and Nightcliff refused to support the urgency motion. I was surprised to hear some of the things the member for Nhulunbuy said tonight to support blocking the urgency motion in September.
Quite clearly, this was recommended by the ice committee. The police wanted this power seven or eight weeks ago, and it is pleasing that this legislation will pass tonight. The Labor Party has stated it will not oppose the bill, and the member for Nelson suggested he will support it.
I refer those opposite to the Northern Territory Police Force submission to the national inquiry into crystal methamphetamine. Several key recommendations were made which are supported by the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill 2015, and include:
- That all legislative amendments proposed by NTPF to assist in the disruption and dismantling of drug supply, supply routes, distribution networks and referred to throughout this submission are supported and enacted as a matter of priority to support operational priorities.
Of course that falls on the deaf ears of those opposite.
The second recommendation is:
- That an holistic approach is adopted to address the social and community impacts of ice use, incorporating integration and multi-faceted approaches which bring together the various Government and Non-Government Agencies who have an inevitable role to play in the provision of Demand Reduction, Harm Reduction and Supply Reduction services.
The fourth recommendation says:
- That the committee note that the NTPF, the Australian Federal Police (AFP) the Australian Crime Commission (ACC) and the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (ACBPS) joint agency Task Force Nemesis, will use its combined resources to identify, disrupt and dismantle criminal networks who import drugs, firearms and crimes enabling commodities into Australia and the NT.
Let me put it simply for those opposite. The Northern Territory Police Force has requested it be given the appropriate tools in order to disrupt and dismantle drug supplies, supply routes and distribution networks. These men and women are on the front line of this issue every day. Every day this House fails to pass the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill is another day this parliament is negligent, but we are here nonetheless.
Time is of the essence, so it is imperative that we do everything we can to get dangerous and illegal drugs off the streets. Clearly the opposition still does not see the urgency in this, given the amount of time spent today debating matters which are not as high a priority as passage of this bill.
It is time to take the politics out of play and do the right thing. Police want the powers to assist in stopping and dismantling known drug supply routes across the NT, and we are committed to giving those powers to them. This is a vital step if we are to successfully tackle the drug problem in the Territory.
We know that 80% of methamphetamine in the Territory is imported, so we need to stop the infiltration of our borders and get to drug dealers before they get their supply into our communities, our homes and our lives. Our police can only achieve this if we enhance their power to have the necessary tools at their disposal. It is heartening to hear that the opposition will not oppose this bill and it should pass tonight.
I would like to read an excerpt to the House from the Salvation Army submission to the national inquiry into crystal methamphetamine. It is a particularly poignant part of its submission:
- Within Australian communities the impact of people using ice has resulted in an increase in; ambulance call outs, attendances at hospital accident and emergency facilities, additional call outs for police and a consequential flow on of more people (ice users) engaging with the Criminal Justice System. The result of this is additional financial cost to the community and safety risks for ambulance, hospital and police personnel.
…
There is also an increased likelihood of dependence developing, as crystal methamphetamine is purer than the powdered form of amphetamine, more readily absorbed into the body and gives a more powerful intoxicating effect.
- The dramatic shift in drug use patterns to crystal methamphetamine and the subsequent impact on individuals, families and communities is a major concern, it signals the need for a coordinated response from government organisations, non-government organisations, individuals, families, schools and local communities.
There is no doubt we need and must have a coordinated approach to tackling this growing problem. All members need to support the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill 2015. Supporting this bill will ensure Northern Territory Police are equipped with the powers to dismantle drug traffickers.
During my time as a police officer some of the worst cases I dealt with were with drug addicts. Drugs alter people’s behaviour, mind and physical strength. These people are a danger to themselves and society. Some of the things I saw as a police officer, caused as a result of heavily intoxicating drugs, I would not repeat in this House or in the company of other police officers because they are too horrible to describe. I hope I never have to see those things again in my life, but I also hope everything that can be done is being done by government to give police and other agencies the support and powers they need to tackle this problem and prevent these things from happening.
I also ask why our ambulance officers, police officers, doctors and nurses should have to put their lives at risk when they attempt to help an irate and irrational drug addict. It is our responsibility, as members of this House, to do everything in our power to stop drug use and keep Territorians safe. It is our job to show drug dealers they are not welcome in the Northern Territory. People not breaking the law have nothing to worry about. However, if you are doing the wrong thing you deserve to be caught. I call on this parliament to do the right thing tonight and make sure all members support the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill 2015 and see its passage through the House.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the police and Justice officers for the briefings on this legislation during the break between sittings. I did not support the urgency motion at the previous sittings because I wanted to understand what the member for Nelson described as a significant change in the liberties with which people travel around the Territory. I was pleased to have the opportunity to go through the legislation in the briefing. I also had the opportunity to hear the views of external stakeholders.
I have proposed a committee stage amendment, which was distributed to members electronically and placed on their desks. Before I go to the amendment I want to go more broadly to the issue of ice, then the legislation.
It is really sad when governments want to make politics out of a community tragedy. As Leader of the Opposition, earlier this year I called for a task force to be established across government agencies for an urgent body of work to be undertaken and to report back within six weeks on what could be done to tackle the scourge of ice in our community. I did not do that earlier, when I thought of the dire need for it, because we were in the midst of a by-election and it was a hot political time. I did not want my call for urgent work to tackle the scourge of ice seen through a political lens, because that was not my intent.
Members of my community are raising their grandchildren. Their children are in gaol because they were ice users. I have dear friends who do not know where their adult sons or daughters are because they are ice users. I know of the pain those families are suffering, and I acknowledge that the member for Brennan has spoken publicly about his family’s pain.
In this debate I come from a genuine, deep care for the families who are suffering because their family member, who they love dearly, is in the grip of chronic ice addiction. I also care about the person who is in the grip of chronic ice addiction.
I also care for the frontline workers who have to deal with the horror and violence that comes with ice addiction – ambulance officers, police officers, health workers and frontline staff at the hospital. Every day, throughout the system workers’ wellbeing is at risk because they are doing their job, which includes interaction with people who are exhibiting extremely violent behaviour as a result of chronic ice addiction.
In March this year I brought a motion to the House based on experience. There are different ways governments can address an emerging and increasing issue, and this is increasing at an alarming rate.
At the briefing I received on this legislation, data from police showed in the past 18 months there has been a 480% increase in meth seizures. I do not know the rate of increased use. If that is a 480% increase in seizures, it is not rocket science to work out we have a chronic user problem that is exponentially exploding across our community.
With the experience of a decade-plus in government at senior levels, I suggest there are two paths you can take. You can go down the parliamentary committee path, and all power to that path; you often get very good outcomes. If you see it as an urgent issue, if you want work done in a timely manner where you are engaging with experts across government agencies who deal with this issue, an interagency task force is faster. You have the experts at the coalface around the table nutting out the tools they need to deal with the scourge.
I want to thank members of the parliamentary committee; that is worthy work. I proposed an interagency task force because in six weeks you could get experts around the table coming up with tools.
That was in March, and one of those tools, you could assume given the passage of time, is the police coming forward with the search and seize legislation we have before us. That could have been done and dusted by mid-year if you had followed the time line of six weeks’ reporting, then some intro, debate and passage in parliament.
The political football of not supporting urgency and having our names writ large and condemned was appalling. I do not believe there is anyone in this Chamber who does not have an intent to use whatever tools can be deployed against the scourge of ice in a truly bipartisan manner. We need a comprehensive action plan. Earlier this year I tabled in parliament the Victorian Ice Action Plan. It comes with clear actions and funding attached to it, and is right across the range of areas you need to tackle.
Yes, there are tools for police, the health sector, the alcohol and other drugs sector, and rehab sectors. There are also tools for awareness and education. What message have we not sent to our kids? What programs have we not had in our middle schools? If you wait until senior school you have waited far too long.
It is almost a year since I tabled the Victorian action plan. We do not have an action plan in the Territory; we have debates and discussions. We had a committee, and an appalling political football game around this legislation. Please get on with it and bring forward a comprehensive action plan to tackle the scourge of ice. Please fund it. Do not make it a meaningless paper-based list of tools without resources attached. My God, you are happy to spend $20m-plus on a sporting facility. Can you save some lives by funding and resourcing a comprehensive action plan to tackle the scourge of ice?
Can you save the cost currently tearing through police and hospital resources, our prisons and our society from the impact on the community by funding the action required to tackle it? I support this legislation whether or not the committee stage amendments are adopted by the government.
I always hope for debate in this Chamber where I can say, ‘Can you see what you are trying to do? I agree with these aspects of it but this element is a bridge too far.’ It is best not to agree with that, put forward the arguments why and hope for consideration.
Judging from the actions of the government, that will not occur. Yesterday, prior to sittings, I sent an e-mail to the Attorney-General, his chief of staff and the government Whip to advise them I would propose a committee stage amendment in relation to clause 8 of the bill, which is an amendment to section 40(c). I received no response, yet this morning other Independent members of parliament received an e-mail from the Attorney-General’s chief of staff pointing out why the committee stage amendment was not required. If you are genuine, why did that e-mail not go to me as well?
In my e-mail to the Attorney-General was the offer of a discussion. The person putting forward the committee stage amendment is kept out of the loop of why they think the committee stage amendment is not required. That is not a mature way to behave in government. It is shameful.
This legislation has significant changes to liberties which impact on Territorians and tourists. I am satisfied with the detail provided in the briefing around the checks and balances built into the identification of authorised areas, the localities of authorised areas and the time in which an authorised area exists. I am satisfied with the reporting back and the seniority layers of people signing off on those decisions. It is good it comes back to parliament so it can be informed. Research has been done on the South Australian model to see where the deficiencies are, the reliance on sniffer dogs and electronic devices not being a strong enough tool and why you have gone with the search and seize powers in this legislation. That is good; it is smart. Good luck, I hope it is effective.
In my briefing they were talking about the Victoria, Barkly and Stuart Highways. I find it curious that the distance starts from the Darwin GPO, because I thought there would be a big ice problem in metropolitan Darwin. You will not give yourself the power to go to where manufacturing occurs in an urban environment. A lot of information I have read says one of the big problems with ice is the ease of manufacturing. Unlike some other horrendous drugs, trafficking, which this legislation goes to, is not as significant with ice because of the ease of manufacturing. I agree with what the member for Nelson said about picking up the precursors in seizes and searches, because manufacturing is a real problem.
Some aspects of the legislation are robust and have been well thought through. I query the distance from the GPO. Why would you start from the rural area out? I am not in government and do not have the opportunity to test those questions with agencies. I do not have intelligence about where they think seizures or manufacturing are occurring. I hope the government has made an informed decision.
In regard to the search and seize powers, I am pleased that the Police Administration Act requires identification of gender issues. For example, there are not only search and seize powers of the vehicle, but also to be physically searched as well. The normal gender requirements are applied so only a woman can be physically searched by a female police officer and a man by a male police officer. I am satisfied with that. I thank the officers who took us through that at the briefing because I was concerned about physical searches.
I identified in the briefing, as a former Minister for Transport, that it will take a fair time to properly, comprehensively and thoroughly search a road train, for example. A thorough search of a road train could take an hour. The officers in the briefing did not say no to that.
I pick up on the contribution by the member for Nhulunbuy in regard to locality issues. For example, truck parking bays will start to define a practical workability aspect of this legislation when you have big trucks parked on the side. I am flagging that, with all the best intent in the world, there are some practical and workable issues in delivering on the intent of search and seize on larger vehicles such as road trains.
Because of the nature and significance of the change, the member for Goyder and I attended the briefing and the member for Goyder asked, ‘How will you let people know? When you pull over a tourist who could be in a Hertz hire car, you have no warrant and are doing something that, with the exception of South Australia, cannot occur anywhere else in Australia. It is a no warrant search and seize situation.’ The member for Goyder and I requested at the briefing that the government, through the Police Commissioner, issue guidelines which require a fact sheet. It could be one page in simple language that explains the powers and intent of this legislation, so when granny driving down the road is pulled over she does not freak out.
In other jurisdictions there are fact sheets for certain police powers. An example provided was that some police in the Melbourne CBD use fact sheets. There is a formal request for fact sheets to be included in the Police Commissioner’s guidelines regarding this legislation. The second request is that it be translated into Indigenous languages. The police said they translate about 35 Indigenous languages. With the road network you are targeting there will be people who do not understand English, so if you are genuine about taking fear, misunderstanding and agitation out of the roadside search, a fact sheet translated into Indigenous languages is essential. It is not a big ask. The police would be capable of providing that information.
This would go a long way to the broader community embracing, accepting and understanding why this is occurring. It is a simple and worthwhile thing. It is up to the government, but I would like some feedback from the Attorney-General in relation to that request. We made the request at the briefing deliberately to give the government time to consider it. Surely you have been advised of the request, and I invite your feedback, Attorney-General, on that. It is very clear, a simple fact sheet on the search and seize for police to hand over translated into Indigenous languages ...
Mr Elferink: The answer is yes.
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection by the Attorney-General. Thank you, Attorney-General, it will go a long way to assisting the workability of the roadside activity.
The concerns I have around section 40(c) are genuine. I grew up with a fundamental and strong belief in justice, and one belief is innocent until proven guilty. Former Supreme Court Judge, Dick Ward, was like my grandfather, and taught me many things while attached to the dialysis machine that kept him alive in the latter stages of his life. Once you are imbued with a deep and abiding sense of justice it takes a bit to shift you off one of the pillars of justice.
I have given long and deep consideration to the reversal of the onus of proof. I thank officers at the briefing because they stepped through it in detail. There was a fair amount of questioning around it. I am not a lawyer and cannot have a protracted legal debate at the committee stage with you, Attorney-General, nor do I intend to waste anyone’s time doing that. I place on the record that removing knowledge and removing that bar of probability down to the far lower bar of deemed possession is not the right thing to do. In the briefing police gave an example I will not go to because it may not have concluded, but I will go to a broad brush of it. Drugs were found, not physically on a person, but found ...
Mr Elferink: The term was, ‘In their immediate control’.
Ms LAWRIE: Thank you, Attorney-General. Drugs were found in their immediate control. The person, of course, denied the drugs were theirs. Through DNA testing of the packaging and police evidence of bank accounts, phone conversations etcetera, the relevant link to the individual and the drugs could be proven in regard to the probability test.
The example we were given at the briefing was why you did not need to reverse the onus. With the work police are capable of doing and the other powers they have, they can meet that test of probability. I accept that police can meet the test of probability with the various powers and forensics they have these days. Forensic tests have come so far so I am comfortable with police being able to deliver, on probability, if the drugs were being trafficked by that person.
Herein lies the rub for me and why I have brought the committee stage amendment. I am concerned. There can be different scenarios, and we have heard some from the member for Nhulunbuy, but I will put forward some simple ones.
A car of five people travelling along the Stuart Highway is pulled over and searched, and a quantity of drugs is found. The driver did not know the drugs were there. Someone had stashed them. A reversal of the onus of proof has them as the target. They have to prove against deemed possession.
I am concerned that innocent people will be done for trafficking because of reversal of the onus of proof. I am not about protecting people who traffic drugs – gaol them. I am concerned about capturing innocent people for deemed possession.
Given our cohort of Territorians, and given the frequency of people sharing a car on the highways on which these searches will occur, it increases the probability of an innocent person being captured in this reversal of onus.
The legislation stands on its own; it is good legislation and a worthy tool without the reversal of the onus of proof. The police will have powers no other police force in the nation would be given, on passage of this legislation, to search and seize. It stands as an effective tool without the prosecutorial reversal of onus of proof.
Deemed possession, given that these vehicles will carry multiple passengers, is a bridge too far. Why not give it twelve months to run? If you accept the committee stage amendment, which I will not hold my breath on because you did not respond to my e-mail yet e-mailed everyone else – it is a simple amendment to omit. The law as it exists would stand; the status quo would remain. You could give it twelve months to operate. You could get feedback from the police and the Crown Prosecutor. Has it been an impediment or not?
If prosecutions felt one or two cases slipped through the net because they could not get the DNA, or they did not have access to the money trail in bank accounts or whatever – I am not a police officer – drop that pillar of justice of innocent until proven guilty. It is a challenge. I know you do not like to do things on the hop, which is why I sent it yesterday. I wanted to send it earlier but was waiting to hear from other members of this House who had been given a heads up on it. This morning the member for Arnhem advised me that she would support the committee stage amendment, but I am an experienced politician. I guess she will not be supporting it so I will not waste anyone’s time by calling divisions. We will go to committee stage and then, Attorney-General, it is up to you.
You can accept it as an amendment, let it run, see how it works, see how prosecutions go, and let the police do their job of gathering evidence, which they do well. If you do not like it remove a pillar of justice and go with ‘in possession’, which you currently have.
In summary, we should be doing everything we can now to tackle the broader scourge of ice in our community, not just this legislation. For the best part of a year you have had a copy of the Victorian Ice Action Plan. You had a parliamentary committee, and I am still waiting. The families are still waiting. You have this legislation, but we are still waiting for everything else they need. Who do they call? Who does a family call when they suspect the person they love is dabbling in ice? Where are the practices, guidelines and procedures for all those frontline workers, police and health workers? Where is that? Where are the AOD resources? Where is the education program and curriculum for our middle schools? Maybe I am wrong and it should be primary schools. Please do not wait until senior school. Where is all that? Can we have that sooner rather than later? You have $20m for rugby league. Can we fund this and not rugby league?
Mr BARRETT (Blain): Mr Deputy Speaker, I listened to the Independent member for Karama’s discussion. I am passionate about stamping this out. It affects my community in Palmerston. I am keen to see things happen and get done in the same way as the member for Karama. I agree with much of what the member for Karama said tonight.
For a long time I have been speaking about getting things done to combat ice. Everybody is aware of the interagency task force. That is something the Attorney-General started. A range of recommendations were made that could happen soon, things departments thought they could do quickly.
I was aware of those things. The ice committee, which was subsequently set up to look at a more holistic and strategic approach across the spectrum, discussed them. There are many things departments could look at and, as legislators, we probably need to take a step back and look at it from a strategic point of view.
I am not allowed to talk about the report I will table in a few days, but many of the things mentioned tonight are in it, and I believe you will be pleased with the outcome. The report has been accepted by the committee, and we know the member for Casuarina advocates for youth and working with mental health – this is a health issue. We looked at the Victorian information in regard to its strategy, and that strategy became the basis for the way we approached ours.
What is important is that we looked at it from a strategic point of view. This needs to be hit from three different fronts as the NDIS suggests: demand reduction; supply reduction; and harm minimisation. It is easy for people opposite to say talk about other things, and so they should in regard to harm reduction and demand reduction, but one key tenet everyone has been looking at is how to reduce supply. We know, and police are keen to tell us, that one of the main ways ice is getting into the Northern Territory is on our major roads. Places on the routes are experiencing ice issues. Indigenous communities off the beaten track do not know what ice is. Sometimes they have heard of it but are not sure what it is, and are pretty sure no one in their community is taking it.
This is valid legislation, and I am surprised it was stopped on urgency. The same group of people decided changing the way the PAC was structured to not represent parliament would be passed on urgency when, for a day, the opposition and the Independents had the numbers. Another matter on urgency was to stop all planning, which almost inadvertently stopped Palmerston hospital going forward. On the two matters where urgency was used, neither were intelligently thought through or well done.
This, on the other hand, is good important legislation. What drugs could have been stopped in the time frame you had the numbers and wanted to flex your muscles with what we could and could not get through parliament?
I am gutted that this did not pass on urgency because people on the other side of the Chamber used it as a political football, which they deny adamantly. We could calculate how many people have taken ice and how many families are further down the road of having to bring their family back to recovery in the time frame this has taken because people on the other side could not pass it on urgency, yet the same night changed the composition of the PAC. The two do not marry, and one is urgent and one not.
Ice has been talked about a lot in this Chamber. It has been worked through in detail, and I do not see any glaring issues with what happened. I am shocked nobody has put forward amendments to this legislation. That highlights the urgency may have been a poorly thought through stunt.
Regarding ice, I am happy to see anything happen in balance. This is not the only strategy. Many holistic strategies are being developed across different agencies. This was a linchpin. I do not want to pre-empt anything, but what if the police knew something was coming in, wanted this legislation in place because they knew a shipment was coming in, and blocking this legislation let a large amount of drugs in? Letting intelligence out is not something we can talk about in this place, but it was poor form for those opposite to let changes to the PAC through on urgency and knock this back. It shows a high level of hypocrisy from people on the other side of the Chamber when we know some things are important and others are secondary. It is disappointing.
The chief executives of various government departments have looked at some strategies as well as things that can be put in place immediately, and some positive things have come out of that. The committee’s recommendations happened quickly and efficiently, and were well consulted on, well thought through and well represented by all sides of politics, and will address many holistic issues people are raising. This strategy will not stop ice dead in its tracks, but it is important in regard to the supply minimisation pillar and the NDIS strategy.
One important thing we found was we do not have a holistic strategy for drugs. A key part of what we are looking at doing together, at least from our side of the Chamber, is finding something that will take us forward and be of high enough quality that it could be along the lines of, ‘insert drug name here’. We then have something where, whatever the next drug is that comes along and threatens our community, we have a strategy set up and things in place. There are recommendations on funding and the right skill sets in place to deal with whatever drug might come along.
I support the bill and the work the Attorney-General has done. I am supportive of the efforts police have taken to identify what could decrease the amount of ice in the Northern Territory. This is an important piece of the jigsaw puzzle. I refute this was unknown and came from nowhere. These things have been talked about in many places, and we were well aware of it during the committee process.
I thank the Attorney-General and am disappointed with the opposition for knocking this back on urgency when they brought forward things which had nowhere near the same importance for the community.
Mr CHANDLER (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, when we tried to get this legislation through on urgency, one point I tried to make was this was not legislation dreamt up by me, the Attorney-General, or any minister on this side. This legislation was put forward by police to deal with an operational issue they felt could empower them to do more to prevent not just ice, but speed, heroin, firearms and clandestine lab kits, etcetera, from being brought into the Northern Territory.
I listened with interest to the member for Karama, and it was one of the most interesting debates I have heard from her. Tonight she took off her political hat and spoke as a mum and as somebody from the community. When you speak like that the difference it can make and what can be achieved is interesting. Thank you, member for Karama.
The issue of illicit drug use and supply in our community is one of the significant concerns in the Northern Territory, and police are tackling this issue head on. I believe even our best statistics, whether from the Health department, corrections or police, may not give a true indication of how far and wide drugs such as ice have spread into the community. There is much anecdotal evidence of workers using specific drugs – and I do not like to use the word ‘successfully’ – hitting it hard on a Friday night, cleaning themselves up over the weekend and hitting the workforce again on Monday, working damn hard all week and then hitting it hard again on Friday night. They are still using illicit drugs, and in cases where they are not managed well they are stuck in a spiral which gets out of control.
The Northern Territory Police Force has, for some time, been reporting an increase in methamphetamine seizures, arrests, acts of violence and drug-related deaths. Use of this drug is not restricted to any particular group; it affects all levels of society. The Northern Territory Police Force has seized more than 1.5 kg of methamphetamine this year.
The Australian Crime Commission’s Illicit Drug Data Report highlights the number of seizures in 2013-14 was more than two-and-a-half times the number of seizures in 2009-10. To give you some numbers, in 2009-10 there were 167 seizures; in 2010-11, 211 seizures; in 2011-12, 328 seizures; in 2012-13, 350 seizures; and in 2013-14, 447 seizures. In a four-year period we have gone from 167 seizures to 447, a remarkable increase in methamphetamine seizures.
Analysis of emerging criminal offending associated with illicit drug use has identified trends, including escalating violence. The member for Karama spoke about that this evening, and I am also worried about how people on the front line are affected by ice addicts and others.
Interestingly, when you talk to frontline police officers or ambulance officers, dealing with somebody who has had a few too many drinks is easier than dealing with someone on ice. Dealing with someone high on marijuana is easier than dealing with somebody on ice. In fact, when you talk to frontline police officers they tell you most drug users, even heroin users, are much easier to deal with than somebody high on ice.
As minister for Police, I worry that our police have the right resources and training to deal with an escalating problem.
There is increased illicit drug use and supply, and emerging and expanding organised crime involvement, including, but not limited to, outlaw motorcycle gangs, an increased firearm presence and use, and limited sentencing options and the absence of a factor of aggravation with respect to the Criminal Code Act.
From an operational perspective a policy suite has been required, necessitating amendments to several pieces of legislation. This wide-ranging response is required to assist in targeting organised and sophisticated criminal offending, illicit drug manufacture and trafficking, and associated violent offending. All too often in today’s illicit supply world these activities include the use of firearms, engaging in violence as part of enforcing drug debts and of protecting drug markets.
I 100% support this legislation. It should have already been operating at our borders and on our highways, except Labor blocked our urgency motion, which blocked passage of the bill at the last sittings.
This it is not just about ice. This legislation also covers drugs such as speed and heroin, firearms and clandestine lab kits, etcetera.
Declared drug routes are a key tool to assist police to crack down on this evil drug, and others, and prevent them from getting onto our streets and into the hands of Territorians. It is well known that the results are devastating.
It is clear that criminals use certain roadways to bring drugs into the Northern Territory with intent to supply urban and remote areas. Limitations currently exist in relation to the successful search and seizure of illicit substances destined for Indigenous communities and urban areas.
The Northern Territory Police Force has only seen one seizure in remote Indigenous communities to date. However, there is a core group of Indigenous users and dealers of methamphetamine based in Northern Territory major centres. The worry is one of these young people in an urban area will become hooked on a drug like ice then go back to their community. Once you are on the stuff it is extremely difficult to get off it. There will then be the ongoing concern of ice getting into our remote communities.
Endorsement of this legislative change will assist Northern Territory Police strengthen their law enforcement response as part of a wider response to tackling the illicit drug issues and associated offending that are being experienced in our community. Such amendments have already been seen in South Australia. Section 52B of the Controlled Substances Act South Australia refers. This section contains a special power relating to declared drug transit routes. The act allows a senior police officer, at the rank of inspector or above, to declare an area, usually a roadway between two points, to be a drug transit route. Such a declaration can last for up to 14 days and allows officers to exercise additional powers of search and seizure on the drug transit route during the period of that declaration.
Working in collaboration with the Australian Border Force, Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission, the Northern Territory Police Force is committed to combat the supply, importation and manufacture of ATS. To this end, on 13 June 2015 all agencies committed resources and established the Northern Territory joint organised crime Task Force Nemesis.
Task Force Nemesis recently identified and shut down the operation of clandestine laboratories in Darwin’s rural area. The chemical diversion team and the drug organised crime division are focused on the reduction of local methamphetamine distribution.
The lengths people go to conceal these drugs are often quite disturbing. Northern Territory police are committed to removing this dangerous drug from our streets, and will continue to run ‘dob in a druggie’ style campaigns in an attempt to gain further intelligence about these networks.
The chemical diversion team and the Drug and Organised Crime Division prioritise investigations relating to the establishment of methamphetamine networks, money laundering and criminal assets linked to methamphetamine networks. A range of legislative amendments, including increasing border protection, interception options and increased offences for firearms and drug-related offending, are welcomed and will assist Task Force Nemesis and the Northern Territory Police Force drug and organised crime squads to put the heat on ice.
The member for Karama raised a valid point about acting now to come up with solutions to deal with ice. I said recently the solution to deal with this problem has to start in our homes. It has to start with parents and carers talking to their children and making them aware of the dangers of drugs in our society. That has to continue into our schools. We have great programs like Healthy Harold, but we are working on an expanded program into our middle schools because, like the member for Karama said, that is where we have to target some of our resources. I agree wholeheartedly, you could lose a child at that sensitive age where many are going through massive changes in their lives.
We are working right now to put a strengthened drugs program in our schools, including our secondary schools. We need the right message and it has to be hard, real and understood. If we are too soft, kids of that age might think it is a joke, and we do not want that. The solution has to start in our homes with parents and carers. It has to continue in our school systems, targeted at the right level – primary, middle schools and secondary. We then have to ensure our police force has the right tools – this is just one of them – to do the job effectively, and then ensure we have the right penalties in place and the right health and rehabilitation programs to complete the cycle.
Recently I was asked if I agreed with Senator Lambie when she said that rehabilitation should be forced. I struggle with that because until somebody is willing to or wants to get help they are not at a point where rehabilitation will be that successful. Too many people enter those programs and, sadly for some, they need to reach rock bottom before they know they desperately need help and put their hand out. Until somebody reaches that point – some will fail.
I was worried when we tried to get this legislation through nearly two months ago. It showed the hand of the Labor opposition, which talks hard about introducing things, and it had the chance. This House could have passed the legislation earlier. As the member for Blain pointed out, the House felt it was compelled on urgency to deal with committees rather than deal with drugs, and I put it on the table then. This was not designed by me or the member for Port Darwin. This is a tool police put forward as something working in other jurisdictions and there is no reason it could not work here.
The debacle of the last sittings was that the Labor opposition had a glimpse of power, and I saw quite clearly how they would use that power. I worry about how they would use it if they were to form government again in the Northern Territory.
It is not time to talk anymore, it is time to act. It is refreshing to hear this legislation will be supported tonight, will pass, and will provide an effective tool for our police force to do their job.
I welcome this legislation. I give it 100% support, and I wish our police the very best as well as other people involved in dealing with people on ice.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will deal with what I suspect is the most pressing issue for members and the one raised the most. I thank all honourable members for their contributions. I am somewhat critical of the member for Nhulunbuy for straying from the righteous path of this bill into other areas, nevertheless, she made other points which are important to address. They are similar to the ones raised by the member for Karama and are a central issue of this bill. I take the contribution by the member for Karama in the spirit in which it was intended, and seek to address and dispose of those issues to the satisfaction of the member for Karama. If not, I hope to leave her with an understanding of the motives behind the sections to which she referred.
I presume the member for Karama will want to go through the committee stage amendments for formality sake if nothing else.
I want to deal with this in relation to the pillar, which I quite like, that the member for Karama described regarding the reversal of evidentiary burden in relation to deemed possession. Her point is well made. There are many lawyers, and I count myself as one, who still believe in what some might consider the quaint notion of if the Crown accuses the Crown must prove. It is one of the fundamental liberties in our system, and I am sure that is what Dick Ward would have told you up to his dying breath.
I want to attend to the issue because she posed a challenge to the government by saying, ‘Why not run it as you normally would and come back in a years’ time if it is not working?’ I advise the member, this is the product of experience, and we are introducing this as part of a national agreement between all jurisdictions because they have all run into the same evidentiary problem.
‘Property and direct control of’ is an old common law expression that has found its way into any number of drug search and seizure powers. It is like reasonableness, and there are literally volumes of case law on what property and direct control of means. We are talking about the stash of dope in the glove box of the car or ice in the back pocket of the person sitting in the back seat, and how that affects the people around them.
Criminal law recognises – both the Griffith model of the criminal code and the model criminal code – the notion of reverse onus. It is well established that even if the prosecution can prove all elements of an offence – let us say an assault, and we use the Griffith model of the criminal code for convenience sake, and that somebody assaults another person in circumstances where the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that all elements of the assault have been made out. Somebody unlawfully made physical contact or applied force to another person without their consent, so all elements of the assault are made out.
Nevertheless, it is possible for the person to whom this charge is laid to demonstrate to a court, despite the fact all the elements of the offence are made out – the only test here is the balance of probability so you do not need the higher threshold of beyond reasonable doubt – that for whatever reason the assault was a mistake of fact, which is a great Griffith model type criminal code defence proposition.
I will give you an example of an assault. A man is standing on the rugby field; it is a well-established element of the word assault that you can give permission to be assaulted in a sporting event within the rules of the game. The whistle blows at the end of the game, but one player who does not hear the whistle, immediately after the game is completed tackles another player, who then brings a complaint of assault against the person who tackled him. The person who did the tackling was still under the impression – perhaps because he heard another player or did not hear the whistle, or a combination of things – that the game was still proceeding and, as a consequence, despite the fact all the elements of the assault had been made out, if that person is able to demonstrate that, ‘I genuinely thought the game was on and was tackling a player who was still engaged in the field of play. I did nothing other than what the game expects me to do’, you would pretty easily make out the defence.
To reach that point a number of things would have to occur. We will talk about the practical nature of the police and how they go about their business. I suggest that in circumstances where a police officer arrives at the rugby field, talks to the player complaining of being assaulted and then speaks to the other player, the police officer would realise it was a weak case.
They will talk to a few other players who will say, ‘Yes, we heard the whistle but it wasn’t very loud’. One player will say, ‘I didn’t hear the whistle either and I told him to tackle the other bloke’. The police officer would, at that point, not proceed with the complaint. Perhaps the person who feels aggrieved may complain to the police, and the complaint procedure would be followed. Essentially, even at that level, the police would quickly satisfy themselves there was nothing to see.
Maybe the police officer is not so sure. The evidence is not too strong one way or the other so he or she investigates and takes it to the DPP. The DPP reflects on the issue and says it is too hard and they will not be successful.
Alternatively, the DPP – which puts a pretty high threshold on prosecutions – says there is a pretty high likelihood of prosecution and the matter is put before a court. At this point the person gets to plead the matter in front of a court, and if they can satisfy the court on the balance of probabilities that the mistake was real, that person will walk out of the courtroom before being convicted.
There are a number of practical thresholds before you are convicted. Each one is a legitimate test of the voracity of the issue. There is a test for the police officer, who can use discretion. Police have a long-established common law power of discretion, and the courts encourage them to use it.
You then have the investigation, and the senior police officers may give some guidance or advice through experience. You then go to a lawyer in the DPP, who either says it is too hard or they should proceed. Ultimately the court is the final arbiter.
What guides that process is the practical, real evidence that the court is confronted with. Let us go through the process for the Greyhound bus example that was used. What happens with the Greyhound bus? What position is the driver in if someone is sitting at the back with half a kilogram of ice in a duffel bag? The short answer is nothing, because any common person similarly circumstanced would look at that and say, ‘How could you possibly say there is possession of the drug?’
Ms Lawrie: What if it was stashed in the bus?
Mr ELFERINK: No person similarly circumstanced would suggest for a second that property was in the direct control of the bus driver.
What about stashed in the bus? That is a good question. Once again the evidence would guide that. If it is in tucked away in a door panel that somebody had to unscrew and put back you will have a hard time convincing a court that the driver knew about it. You would be looking at the mechanic before the driver. The evidence guides the decision as to whether or not you prosecute.
What about the other example used by the member for Nhulunbuy when she referred to the member for Barkly? It turns out two French tourists are travelling around paying for their holiday by selling ice in remote Aboriginal communities. Along comes the noble and caring member for Barkly, who pulls up and assists them with their car, and they jump in the back of the car with some drugs. All of a sudden they are pulled over and the poor old member for Barkly is saying, ‘Holy cow, I don’t know anything about it’. Once again, reasonableness will apply. Trust me, that happens.
I can share with the House an experience where that happened to me. I pulled over in Palmerston to help a guy in a broken down Mercedes – whoever knew a Mercedes could break down, but this one did. I tried to help the bloke while in my private car. I was off duty so the guy had no idea who I was.
My wife and I tried to jump start the car. It would not go so I said, ‘Where are you going?’ He said, ‘I’m going to Malak’. I said, ‘I’ll give you a lift because I’m going to my mother’s place in Karama. I’ll drive around the corner and drop you off in Malak; how does that sound mate?’ ‘Yes, cool’, he said. He then said, ‘I just have to get something’. He ran back to his car, grabbed his duffel bag and sat in the back of my car, which immediately filled with the stench of cannabis. I could not believe it. My eyes were almost watering. I immediately knew what was in the bag, and he looked sheepishly at me in the rear view mirror and said, ‘Just some dirty laundry, mate’, and I said, ‘Yes, I bet’.
I did not say anything but kept talking to my wife. I was concerned that he may have been armed so I drove towards Malak and when I got to Berrimah Police Station, instead of going through the roundabout I turned right and he immediately said, ‘You can drop me off here. I’ll walk from here.’
I was happy to let him out of the car so I could get a decent look at him. He was not armed so I leapt out of the car, produced my badge and thought to myself, ‘You need to get a lottery ticket because I cannot believe your misfortune’. He had 2.5 kg of dope, one of the biggest off duty dope busts I have ever had. It is an interesting question because, under these laws, what would have happened if I had been pulled over on the way to the police station.
I was sitting in a car full of dope, and I sure as hell knew it was dope by that stage. However, I am on my way to a police station so the evidence would be – my wife was present and could give evidence – ‘We just stopped to help this guy’.
The bloke would probably not implicate me anyway. The police would do all the requisite background searches, and I am a really good witness to prove the case. The police would say, ‘Even if we look at this guy who says he just stopped to help, picked him up and he had 2.5 kg of dope in his bag. Sure mate.’ I would be a much better witness than defendant for the police case. You have to think about that when you consider practical perspectives.
The purpose of this lecture is that in every circumstance there will be real world practical components. Deemed possession ultimately says if you are in possession or have direct control of property and there are drugs there – let us say we find ice in your back pocket after having been picked up in a night club – and somebody said, ‘Just hold this for me’, and you did not know what it was, you would have to demonstrate that you really did not know what it was and that somebody else had given it to you.
If you ran that case perhaps some DNA evidence could be taken from the bag which would help build your story. The police officer’s job is to investigate impassively and without a presumption in mind. It is hard to do. A police officer will tend to hunt the person they are prosecuting. Sometimes you have to remind yourself that you have to be led by the evidence just as much as the court has to be.
With the presumption in the other direction the experience nationally is that it becomes an extremely difficult thing to prove. The next proposition, the one I think the member for Karama alluded to, is what is the point of balance? Do we load up the prosecution with such a burden of proof that it becomes almost insurmountable in many cases, thus defeating the purpose of the legislation?
Alternatively, do we create a legislative instrument that would enable a court to cast a benevolent eye upon the person raising the defence whilst enabling a police office to bring the matter to the court because the possession occurred? It would be no different to a number of existing excuse provisions under the model criminal code or, alternatively, under the Griffith model of the criminal code, because in that instance of deemed possession all the elements of the case would have been made out. However, it is still possible to defeat a prosecution on the low ground of, ‘I have a reason for why that occurred’.
Of course, ‘mistake of fact’ in this instance would be a good example of being in possession. You could say, ‘I didn’t know what it was. I thought I was collecting lawn clippings in a bag in a pub at 3 am’. Alternatively, if it is not a mistake of fact you could claim you did not know. ‘I did not have the requisite mental element to commit the offence. I didn’t know I was in possession of this thing’, or, ‘I was doing it lawfully’. For example, ‘I was conveying a person knowingly in possession of 2.5 kg of cannabis and I knew what he had in that bag. I would have had to have an olfactory collapse to not have noticed what he had in that bag. Nevertheless, I was conveying him to a place where justice would be done, and therefore what I was doing was essentially lawful.’ I could not tell you the defence off the top of my head, but there is a defence for that.
In all those examples you have to strike a balance. The balance to be struck here is the one that deems possession based on the experience of other jurisdictions – hence the national agreement – is a standard acceptable but not an affront, to the concepts of liberty that the member for Karama so jealously guards.
I hope that satisfies the member for Karama inasmuch as she understands the approach of government in relation to this. I suspect that she will still want to put her amendment, and I welcome that and further discussion if she so desires, but that will be the position of government going forward.
For other members who have made comments I note that, with the exception of the member for Karama, the legislation will pass unamended and unchallenged by those who resisted the urgency motion. That is a little disappointing because I do not know how much ice we may or may not have seized over the past few months if this legislation had been passed in October. That will not be known because you never know how many car accidents you have prevented if you run a traffic safety campaign; you can only work it out statistically. There have been a number of notable and substantial ice seizures over the last month-and-a-half or two months. Some of those seizures may have been prevented earlier if this power had been available to police.
Of course, those seizures do not really dent the marketplace. There is no change to the price of ice in the Territory and it remains largely available. That is sad because it tells me we are not getting enough of it, and anybody who has had anything to do with policing illicit substances knows attacking the marketplace has always been challenging. However, I thank the House for a civil debate through this process and understand we intend to go into the committee stage.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 7, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 8:
Ms LAWRIE: Mr Chair, I move an amendment to clause 8 which was distributed to all members of the parliament. It is schedule 37 standing in my name to omit clause 8(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill 2015 (Serial 136).
In seeking advice from Parliamentary Counsel there were a couple of approaches to take. You could invite defeat or you could omit. I wanted it to be clear and unambiguous that the status quo, the existing law, would be retained. Hence, I will go down the path of a committee stage amendment to omit rather than to defeat.
In dealing with this I will raise a couple of matters. Obviously other members of the parliament, particularly the member for Nelson, have dealt with the CLANT submission on the legislation. For the record, because it goes to the heart of the committee stage amendment, I will go back through that for the Attorney-General.
CLANT strongly opposes clause 8 of the bill, which would amend section 40(c) of the act. Section 40(c) says:
- Proof that a dangerous drug or precursor was at the material time in or on a place of which the person was:
(i) the occupier; or
(ii) concerned in the management or control,
is evidence that the drug or precursor was then in the person’s possession unless it is shown that the person then neither knew nor had reason to suspect that the drug or precursor was in or on that place.
By replacing ‘evidence’ with ‘taken to be proof’ they reference your second reading speech, Attorney-General. They point out that section 40(c) was carefully considered but not criticised by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Grosvenor v The Queen [2014] NTCCA 5 at [29] to [37]. It is well understood and applied by the courts. CLANT considers section 40(c), in its current form, strikes a reasonable balance between the applicable competing policy interests and should not be amended.
Reading the CLANT submission made me think more carefully about the proposals in clause 8. I, like the member for Nelson, have had conversations with other practitioners. Finding out, by way of chatter around parliament, of your office’s response to other Independent MLAs this morning by e-mail I wanted to dig a bit deeper. The advice I have been provided with is there has been some reversal of burden of proof in New South Wales and Victoria, but it does not follow that it is necessarily a good thing.
The amendment is being implemented to ensure evidentiary provision is only utilised in clear cases where there is knowledge of possession of a dangerous drug. In other words, the amendment is being introduced to allow convictions to be imposed in cases where it is unclear whether there is no knowledge of possession of a dangerous drug. This turns a fundamental feature of our criminal justice system on its head. You are presumed innocent unless and until the state proves otherwise beyond reasonable doubt. The amendment will remove the lack of knowledge of possession of a dangerous drug as a blanket defence.
If a person does not know there is a dangerous drug in the car they are driving, or the room they are in, they are not in possession. That is a complete defence, whether under the current law or the proposed law. The effect of the proposed amendment, however, will be not to remove a defence but make it more difficult to mount by reversing the burden of proof. The suggestion that somehow defendants are currently raising a blanket defence, which we remove by the amendment, is misleading.
This is advice I received from our legal expert. As I said in my contribution …
Mr Giles: I wonder if it is the same person who gave her advice on Stella Maris.
Ms LAWRIE: I will pick up on the interjection from the Chief Minister. Can you for one moment behave like a Chief Minister? We are in a committee stage debate which has nothing to do with Stella Maris. Try to behave like a statesman for a moment.
Attorney-General, I listened carefully to the examples you provided. I am not a legal practitioner, but seriously, with all the examples you provided – from the Greyhound bus to the assault in rugby, which to me was apples and oranges because whilst I understood the evidentiary trail, it was not to do with goods. In the other examples you provided, which were to do with goods, including the bizarre situation where a guy had a duffel bag with marijuana and you picked him up – that is unbelievable. All those examples meet the probability test well and truly.
Every one of your examples proved why we do not need reversal of the onus of proof. I was waiting for one I thought was why we needed to reverse onus, but the examples you provided met a probability evidentiary trail quite well. Not being a legal practitioner, I was waiting for the difficult part, the part that would let them get off.
As I said in debate, I will not labour this because we have an agreement. You have the support of an Independent member. Whilst other members shared concerns, they listened to the legal fraternity and to advice. You indicated you will be proceeding with this, that you will not accept the committee stage amendment, so I will not labour it.
When our legal practitioners say not to do something it is wise to listen. When we have examples such as Grosvenor v The Queen, which is contained in the CLANT submission, and when you drill down it is Justice Riley, our Chief Justice. Can we not trust our judicial sector? It is no small issue to have a recent case referred to where they genuinely drilled down into section 40(c) and found it not wanting.
Justice Riley’s findings were in relation to the operation of section 32 of the Criminal Code Act in Carnesi v Hales. Justice Riley explained the operation of section 40(c):
- Section 40(c) differs from similar provisions in other jurisdictions in that it provides that the fact that the person was an occupier or concerned in the management or control of a place where a drug was located ‘is evidence’ that the drug was in possession of the person. In other jurisdictions expressions such as ‘is conclusive evidence’ that the drug was then in the person’s possession or that the substance ‘shall be deemed to be in the possession of the person’ appear. In this jurisdiction the effect of s 40(c) is that a finding that the drug was in a place occupied by the person or a place in relation to which the person was concerned in the management or control provides some evidence of possession but does not make that evidence conclusive. Section 40(c) of the Act is an evidentiary provision. It raises a presumption that in the prescribed circumstances there is evidence that the drug was then in the person’s possession. The presumption, if not rebutted in the manner described in the section, amounts to an item of evidence which must be considered along with all of the other relevant evidence in the case when determining whether the drug was unlawfully in the possession of the person.
Chief Justice Riley found section 40(c) to be appropriate in his judgment. That is my interpretation, and the interpretation of the senior legal practitioner who gave it to me.
Similarly in Jaeger-Steigenberger v O’Neill, Justice Mildren concluded that the evidentiary presumption is only a piece of evidence which if not rebutted may but not necessarily must, lead to an inference of guilt. Whether the inference can be drawn beyond reasonable doubt depends on the whole of the circumstances.
Significantly, the court did not suggest in that case, or as far as we are aware in any other case, that the law should be changed. Jaeger-Steigenberger v O’Neill is a good example of a case where, had the burden of proof been reversed as is now being proposed, the defendant would have been unfairly convicted. In that case, both the judge who heard the appeal and the magistrate who conducted the original hearing appeared to have real doubt about whether she was aware there was cannabis in the car – her father’s – that she was driving.
For what it is worth, Attorney-General.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, there is nothing wrong with the Chief Justice’s interpretation of the legislation because it is the judge’s role to interpret the legislation and make findings in relation to the intention of the parliament. The problem is that the intention of the parliament, if you go to the Parliamentary Record of 1990 when this legislation was introduced, was that presumption of possession. It has been interpreted in a way which is not entirely consistent with what the parliament intended in 1990. His Honour is at liberty to find that by virtue of the fact that His Honour will be drawn only to the clarity of the document. If he finds no problem with the clarity of the document, he reads it and says, ‘This is what it means’. His Honour will not turn his mind to the second reading speech because the primary source of advice to His Honour is what is in the legislation.
If the legislation is drafted in such a way that it is ambiguous – the parliament means one thing and His Honour interprets it differently – my answer is that the parliament must reserve the right to amend legislation in a way that will apply it in the way intended in 1990.
I am satisfied that is the case. His Honour, when presented with a similar case, will cast his eye on the legislation as it now stands and interpret it in accordance with what is written in the legislative instrument. His Honour will come to a conclusion. I suspect, being the good, cautious person I know His Honour to be, as all judges are and should be, and I hold up our Chief Justice as a solid and excellent example of the decorum and caution that you would expect to find on the bench – he would nevertheless be bound by the desires of this parliament because we are ultimately the supreme law making body in this jurisdiction.
I understand that CLANT would like to see His Honour’s words repeated in this House to overwhelm me with the idea that the deemed possession presumption is an overreach. However, you cannot put those words into His Honour’s mouth. His Honour has done nothing more than interpret the legislation as written. To place that into His Honour’s mouth would be an overreach. I suspect that is what CLANT has done.
CLANT, the Criminal Lawyers Association of the Northern Territory which has given me a prestigious Silver Dingo, works very hard to look after the element of criminal law dealing with defendants rather than prosecutions. This is where the balance argument comes in.
Is the legislation, as currently drafted, right? Is what we are attempting to do correct? That is a judgment call. It is subjective. It is, as I said to the member for Karama, something I step through cautiously. I do not do this lightly or with any flippancy. I am confident that the original intention of this parliament is captured in this legislative instrument. However, if the parliament chooses to go down a different path in relation to this, that is how the parliamentary system works.
I thank the honourable member for her care and research in relation to this matter, but I think we have reached the point where we can dispose of this matter successfully and will have to agree to disagree.
Mr WOOD: Mr Chair, the notes on clauses in the explanatory statement relating to clause 8 say:
- This amendment ensures the evidentiary provision in the Act contains a ‘reverse onus’ type clause where an accused person must prove lack of knowledge of possession ....
What concerns me is that obviously the police have to provide evidence to show you possessed the drugs. However, we are talking about people with a low level of education. People might be smart in some ways but not very smart in other ways -taking marijuana into Aboriginal communities. This change will affect them. I am not sticking up for them, but innocent people must prove lack of knowledge of possession. Will people understand that? That is not the way it is normally done in our society.
It is like the French system, where you have to prove you are innocent. Would Aboriginal people understand what this is about? They would probably just go to the lawyer and say, ‘I didn’t do it’, and the lawyer, under normal circumstances, would ask the police to give proof of possession. You now have to prove lack of knowledge of possession. Is that a complication, especially for people who may not fully understand what that means?
Mr ELFERINK: I get what you are saying. Even the most unsophisticated person in our community is able to – well many unsophisticated people in our communities – form the mental element of criminal intent. That is one of the tests. Let us talk about any indictable offence. If you are worried that somebody may not know they have to make a statement in their defence to disprove an allegation made against them – you will see that right across the criminal law. The prosecution can make out all the elements of the offence in many instances and still not succeed because that person had an excuse. Excuse provisions form a substantial slice of our Criminal Code Act, both in the Griffith model – because our criminal code is hybridised at the moment – and within the modern criminal code there are excuse provisions.
There are several elements to the process of securing a conviction, and the first thing the prosecution has to do is collect the evidence. This section says, ‘We found 5 kg of ice in the boot of Billy’s car. It is an indictable offence and will go to the Supreme Court. We asked Billy if he knew about the ice in the back of the car. He said, “No, I borrowed the car”’. You do not have to be a sophisticated person to know that if you are driving around with ice in your car you are a criminal. If you cannot form that mental element in your head then you are not guilty – automatically. If sophistication is an issue it is a very low standard. My 10-year old daughter knows when she is doing the wrong thing. The sophistication of the person does not need to be particularly high when they know they are doing the wrong thing. Most people know selling ice is against the law. If they have ice in the car and are pulled over by the police who say, ‘Why do you have ice in the back of the car?’ there is one of several answers.
‘Okay, you got me, it’s a fair cop, and I’ll plead guilty at the first opportunity’, is one answer. Or it could be, ‘Goodness gracious me, is there? I didn’t know there was ice in the back of the car.’ At that point some further investigation has to occur. ‘How do you think it ended up there?’ ‘It’s not my car, I borrowed it from Bob.’ The police check Bob’s background and he has 58 convictions for selling drugs. Jim has zero convictions; he has never been convicted of anything. You then start to believe Jim. Jim does not have to be particularly sophisticated, but you will believe him because you are already up against the threshold.
The evidence is already there. The case has been made out that you have ice in the car. However, because there is no way you can prove the mental element, you will not succeed, and it is up to a court to test. Before the court tests it the DPP tests it. Before the DPP tests it, the senior police officers in charge of the investigation section test it. Before they test it, the police officer making the arrest tests it. Each one is allowed to exercise their discretionary power. If they feel there is enough for a prosecution, or are uncertain about the prosecution, they pass it to the next level.
The first level of judgment is PC Plod who makes the arrest. PC Plod says, ‘I’m not so sure’, so he asks his boss. They chat about it and say, ‘We’re not so sure either so we’ll send it off to the DPP’. The DPP says, ‘We don’t know. Yes, I think it’s a pretty strong case’, so they put it before a court. The court is the final arbiter.
In the practical sense, even if you have deemed possession, the checks and balances are all the way through the system. CLANT is arguing that, with the current model, the proximity of the drug in your area of direct control is mere evidence of possession. It is an evidentiary component and a pretty strong one. However, the original drafters of the legislation took it one step further and said it is not evidence. It makes a successful assertion that you are in possession, but it is an easily rebuttable assertion, only on the balance of probabilities. The police are still obliged to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
The language of the deemed possession component is strengthening it from mere evidence to say it is sufficient to make out the case. You are deemed to be in possession until such time as you can prove, on the balance of probabilities, that you did not know it was there or for some other lawful reason you had it in your possession. The moment you pass that threshold you will not even get to court. If you find yourself in court, the court will remain prudent, temperate and cautious in relation to how it deals with those thresholds.
I do not have time to deal with the raft of case law on what is and is not in when it comes to this type of thing. The point I am trying to make is that the original legislation drafted in 1990 intended to imply deemed possession. However, because the legislation was not as tightly drafted as it could have been, the courts have chosen to interpret it at the lower level, saying it is merely evidence of possession, leaving a slightly greater amount of wriggle room for the person to make their case, thus putting a greater onus on the police to meet ever certain evidentiary burdens.
We are seeking to re-establish what was intended by the parliament in 1990. That is, essentially the legislation was originally drafted – if you read the Parliamentary Record you see it was clearly the intent of the Attorney-General at the time, as well as the House which agreed with the legislation, to have an operating deemed possession clause. However, the courts are very prudent and cautious in relation to reading legislation, and will always err on the side of liberty, and that is what they have chosen to do. We are simply readjusting the legislation to the original intended form the parliament prescribed in 1990.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken together 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.
MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Sale of Public Assets
Sale of Public Assets
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received notice from the member for Nightcliff which reads:
- I propose for discussion this day as a definite matter of public importance the failure of the Northern Territory government to consult with or act in the interests of Territorians by selling the Port of Darwin, selling the Territory Insurance Office, selling public buses and threatening the public ownership of the Territory’s power and water system.
It is signed by Natasha Fyles and dated 17 November.
Is the proposed discussion supported? It is supported.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, the CLP came to office in August 2012 with a catalogue of promises to Territorians. Nowhere did the CLP tell Territorians they would sell their major publicly-owned assets.
Within the first year the CLP sold the Territory bus system without seeking a mandate from the people. It made no attempt to gauge the opinion of Territorians throughout the sale process.
Twelve months ago this coming weekend, the CLP sold off the Territory Insurance Office, or TIO as it was commonly known. Once again it did so without talking to Territorians.
Less than 12 months later it has done the same thing with the Port of Darwin. In each case Territorians made their opposition to the decision known, despite the CLP continuing to ignore them. In effect, this government has thumbed its nose at Territorians.
In each case the government did not conduct proper consultation with Territorians; it did not ask for their opinion. In each case the government ignored the concerns of the local workforce – Territory families in jobs they rely on. The question now worrying Territorians is, what is next?
Labor does not support the sale of major publicly-owned Territory assets. We accept that publicly-owned land should be sold by government in pursuit of growth and development, but major assets such as our port, schools, hospitals, Power and Water assets and others must remain publicly owned.
We do not support the sale of major public assets because we believe it is not in the best interests of Territorians. It is not in the economic or social interests of the Territory. It is equally clear that the CLP has an ideological commitment to reducing the size and reach of government, and views asset sales as part of that policy.
The CLP of today is very different from the CLP of the 1980s and 1990s. That CLP viewed economic growth in the Territory as being led by government in the interests of Territorians.
There is a reason the Northern Territory owns major public infrastructure. The Northern Territory is in its early stages of development. We are a young economy with one-sixth of the land mass and 1% of the nation’s population. Our people are largely grouped in metropolitan areas, particularly around Darwin and Palmerston in the north, with regional towns, major communities and small communities and outstations spread across the Territory.
Driving the growth and development of that mix is still largely the job of government, and will remain so for some time. Every day we need the private sector to grow and develop, but the underpinning of our economy is the government. The government is the biggest consumer of goods and services, the largest purchaser of products and the single largest issuer of contracts. It remains the most important employer of Territorians across the Territory. No other entity can reach across the Territory the way government can. We have not established the structure and shape of our economy in a way that older, more mature economies have.
This is both positive and negative for us. We are still seeking to diversify and grow our economy, and push the limits of what our economy contains. We are not shackled by old technology and dying industries such as coal, but for us to take full advantage of this requires a strong government hand on the levers of our economy. We have not formed an economic size where private enterprise will lead investment in critical capital requirements. Without government there would be no port to sell and no Power and Water assets.
Government investment in infrastructure has developed and grown our economy. It can do so because the government does not require a profit or a return on investment for its shareholders. In a young economy the government is also the only organisation with a whole-of-Territory view. The government can act alone on what infrastructure is needed where, what to support, and can do so because it has that whole Territory view. That is something this current government does not see.
Importantly, government can also plan for the whole of the Territory better than any other organisation. Because of its extensive reach and access to research and data, government understands what investments need to be made now for future growth. Government also owes nothing to anyone, nor is the government in competition with anyone. It can make decisions for the long-term interests of the Territory. By removing the port from our control, by getting rid of our insurance options and by selling Power and Water assets, we reduce our ability to shape the economy in vital areas. That is not in our interests.
There are also social consequences to those decisions. The sale of public assets means Territorians, who have often invested many years in their jobs, and who have seen a clear future for themselves and their families, have seen their lives suddenly go down a new path with new challenges. This is not about changing their boss; this is about changing their conditions of work. This is particularly important in areas of superannuation, where government workers employed before 1999 have significant superannuation support.
The sale of public assets invariably leads to a reduction of employment in those assets. Look at TIO. Despite the promise that no one would lose their job, the new company redeployed 43 people within six months of taking over the business. This will not be the last of it. I believe over time and with changes in technology, TIO will be reduced to a shell and run by interstate and international interests. It will not be the Territory-owned corporation it once was.
The social consequences of this drop in employment are clear. Families will leave town. They will join the queue of Territorians fast becoming former Territorians and living elsewhere.
In 2014 the Territory lost 3500 more people to interstate migration than arrived. This is the largest net interstate migration loss in many years and an enormous social consequence for the Territory. We have suffered a massive loss of skilled people. Why are they leaving? One big factor is they do not have a job and it is too expensive to stay. The sale of public assets and the subsequent reduction in the workforce adds to the move south.
The CLP should make no mistake, the drop in population is one of the most important social and economic challenges facing the Territory, but they are making it worse.
There is a more subtle but important social consequence from these decisions which goes to the trust of government. In the modern 21st century, people expect to have some say in what their governments can do. They expect governments to be up front about their intentions during election campaigns and to engage in a clear and comprehensive public discussion about the issues. We have not seen that from this government; in fact, we have an unelected Chief Minister. People do not expect to be lied to during election campaigns, then ignored when governments make decisions they were not open about. This erodes trust in government, trust in members of parliament and trust in our public institutions.
The erosion of trust in government is everywhere in the Territory. People do not trust the government to undertake even the most fundamental of its responsibilities. This lack of trust is undermining business confidence and the belief that government can be trusted with important economic and environmental decisions. A corrosive feeling pervades our community thanks to these types of decisions.
The Territory bus system was our first major asset to go. If you ask the drivers today if they feel the same level of support as they did with government conditions, they would tell a tale of deep concern about their future and their service.
The government then sold TIO against huge community outcry. They sold it quickly, rammed it through this House and did not stop to listen or think. The Territory Insurance Office is an ingrained part of the Territory and has been around for decades. It has served us well during times of major crisis, and the Katherine floods come to mind. TIO understood the Territory and Territorians. TIO provided work for 250 local families at a time when it would have been under enormous pressure to reduce the size of its staff. It had been innovative in what product it offered Territorians, and it filled an important niche which provided insurance coverage in the extreme weather circumstances we face in the Territory, something interstate insurance companies do not understand. That has now gone, and we are yet to see the full consequences of those changes.
It is interesting to note that one of the issues canvassed in the northern development white paper was the need for an insurer that is prepared to provide coverage for people living in extreme weather zones. This concern arose out of people being unable to get insurance following a category five cyclonic event such as Cyclone Larry. It seems at the time the Country Liberal Party sold our unique coverage, the rest of northern Australia was seeking ways to get that coverage.
Turning specifically to the lease of the Port of Darwin, if the Chief Minister does not believe there is concern about the lease of the Port of Darwin, he should think again. Territorians have seen it as the government making yet another unsupported decision with no discussion and no concern about their opinion.
Madam Speaker, you would have heard this feedback in your community, but I was quite surprised that people raised the lease of the port. With TIO they had an affinity – they bank there, have insurance and they recognise it. One may be excused if they had no contact with the port and they might not have understood the importance of its operation. I was very surprised at the public outcry and comment about the government. ‘They sold off the port and didn’t even ask us. They had no mandate. Who are they?’
Labor does not support the lease of the port. We believe it is a massively important strategic asset and is too young and immature to be transferred to the private sector. We believe that transferring monopoly control by government to monopoly control by a private company has not and will not progress the interests of the Territory and Territorians.
The Territory has a bright future. Geographically we are uniquely positioned on the Australian mainland in proximity to the fastest-growing economies of the world. That is why future investment, management and operation of the Darwin port and other Territory ports are critically important to our social and economic development. We have a unique opportunity that other places in Australia do not have, simply because of their location.
The Country Liberal Party and Labor may debate many things, but we always had a bipartisan approach to links to Asia and the Territory’s destiny as a link between Australia and Asia. A key driving part of this vision has been the trade links supported by the Port of Darwin and its connection to the southern capitals by rail. There has been a bipartisan approach to support for the railway. For years we linked hands with the then CLP government against the Coalition and Labor governments on the importance of building the Adelaide to Darwin rail line.
We supported this mixed private and public investment approach on the greenfields project because we knew that was the way to get this important link up and running. In our term we guided the final delivery and early utilisation of this infrastructure. We know how important it is to build up the sea link and the supply chain backing it. When we won government, Labor made a substantial investment in port infrastructure and initiatives such as the Darwin Business Park.
The port suffers from a lack of economy of scale, but has a critical role in the Territory’s development and a big future. Because of its lack of economy of scale and subsequent hire costs, the port has historically required subsidisation. Without government subsidisation, the port’s new owners may well look to increase port costs to users over time. This could and would discourage port users. It could also stifle growth of trade across the port. This could also mean chasing new business and targeting profitable new customers, possibly to the exclusion of marginal customers who might be pushed out.
The port committee established by the government canvassed these issues. In Western Australia a similar question was asked of privatisation versus public ownership. For some time the Western Australian Liberal government decided to keep control of its strategic assets, its ports, but explore different ways to get the private capital into its ports. It succumbed to the ideological politics of port sales and, in the end, sold its port. In the meantime it had utilised public/private partnerships. We recognise the importance of getting private capital into the port but think there are other ways of doing it. There are ways of having public/private partnerships that mean you do not lose strategic control of or dividends from the port.
Labor believes this 99-year lease – the government would obtain a lot more investment into the port. So far the commitment to $35m over the first five years and $200m over the first 25 years does not meet the expectations of what the port needs. This money could have been sourced from within or through partnerships but would not have relinquished control of our port. One of the important recommendations from the port committee’s work was ensuring the government did not rush any decision. Recommendation 8 places emphasis on doing better work. It says:
- The Committee recommends that, prior to entering any lease arrangements, the Government implement a community information and stakeholder consultation strategy to:
a) identify further improvements to the leasing proposal, including
- i) what parts of the harbour should be included or excluded from the lease; and
b) communicate what is being proposed so affected businesses can plan accordingly.
We did not see any of that from this government. Given the strategic implication of the port and the impact on port users, consumers and the wider community, there was no need to rush this sale. Most importantly, the CLP had the opportunity to make amends for the complete lack of public engagement and consultation on the sale of TIO by deferring the lease until after the question had been put to the public.
It is less than 10 months until the election. The Territory did not need to rush into the sale. The CLP could have asked for public endorsement of its position.
The Labor Party did just that in the most recent Victorian state election, where the sale of the Port of Melbourne was placed before the public. Mike Baird, Premier of New South Wales, did the same thing with the power poles and wires campaign in the recent state election in New South Wales – up-front telling voters what would happen.
Instead, we have an arrogant government that rams things through that it did not mention before the last election. In fact, the unelected Chief Minister is pushing ideas onto the community and selling assets without any consultation. These premiers trust their constituents and will engage with them in critical decision-making. The commitment to public engagement in the decision-making process is supported by the Productivity Commission. This is especially the case when state monopolies are being transferred to private monopolies. The Productivity Commission’s Public Infrastructure Inquiry report said:
- Properly conducted cost–benefit studies of large projects, and their disclosure to the public, is an important starting point for guiding project selection and improving the transparency of decision making.
Not only did the government fail to take Territorians into its confidence, it did not release any cost-benefit analysis of the proposal. It made no public economic case for the proposal. Territorians have no starting point in this decision, and no understanding of why this needed to happen beyond the desire of a government to make it happen.
Since the announcement there has been no public exposure of the deal. Exactly what has been agreed to by the CLP government? We know the sale price was $506m, and we know the investment requirements, but we still do not know what else has been agreed to.
This is no way to treat Territorians. This is not your asset, Chief Minister. Yes, you are the Chief Minister, but it is not your asset to sell. It is not like your family home or family farm. You have sold it without consulting shareholders.
The Labor opposition is concerned about the way this deal has unfolded. We want to make sure that in rushing to achieve this deal all necessary requirements have been met. This includes proper assessments by the relevant foreign investment review mechanisms and strategic assessment bodies.
Labor supports foreign investment in the Northern Territory, but no matter who invests here, proper rules and processes have to be followed. Given the incompetence in this government, the port sale may be added to the long list of failures to go through proper process.
Labor is also concerned about the workers at the port. The enterprise bargaining agreement expires in 2017, and unions and the opposition have expressed concern regarding what happens to the rights and entitlements of workers after that.
We are aware that the maritime union and the government are engaged in discussions about the protection of employees, but the fact the government did not have these supports for workers locked away before they announced the deal is concerning. I congratulate the MUA and other unions for their ongoing representation and support of our workers at the port.
The buses are gone, TIO is gone and now the port is gone. Territorians are asking, ‘What will be next?’ Some in my community have said, ‘Do we need to pin our children down so this government doesn’t sell them?’ Tongue in cheek, but a little serious.
The answer to the question is clear. The CLP has split the Power and Water assets, and they are now being assessed for sale. The Treasurer has made it clear to anyone who will listen that the sale of Power and Water is a personal priority. Information is now starting to emerge from within Power and Water that the Hudson Creek systems control centre is being openly discussed as a target for the sale ...
Ms MANISON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77 I request an extension of time.
Madam SPEAKER: In an MPI you cannot have an extension of time.
Ms FYLES: Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity this evening.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, people listening to this or reading the Hansard will be a little less wise after the contribution from the member for Nightcliff. The majority of what she said was incorrect, much of it incoherent and parts of it misleading.
When the member for Barkly had responsibility for the port, we were able to get a decent debate about port infrastructure, logistics and supply chains in the Northern Territory. What we heard from the member for Nightcliff added no value to any debate in the Chamber.
I listened with my colleague, the member for Blain, who knows a fair bit about the port, having worked there, and neither of us could comprehend what the member was talking about.
The member fails to understand that the Northern Territory government owns, builds and removes assets such as infrastructure on an everyday basis. We are building new government assets right now with the Tiger Brennan duplication and Palmerston hospital. We continue to build new assets. We build new schools on a regular basis – the boarding facility at Nhulunbuy .
Ms Walker interjecting.
Mr GILES: The member for Nhulunbuy clearly does not like the tone of this conversation. We listened to her colleague speak but she will not provide the same respect.
We announced that we are looking at an equity partnership in a shiplift facility at East Arm to support upwards of 4500 new jobs in the Territory. The member for Nightcliff made some throwaway misleading comments about the Chief Minister not supporting jobs at the port. The first thing on our mind was the 100-plus jobs at the port. We have secured that and will grow jobs at the port. We will work on the shiplift, build a new asset, hold equity in that and create up to 4500 new jobs as part of a new marine servicing industry for the Territory. Much of what she said was dog whistling, xenophobic and added no value.
Towards the end of her diatribe she spoke about the structural separation of Power and Water. The Labor Party is 20 years behind all its other state and territory colleagues and jurisdictions. During its tenure it had the opportunity to be part of a reform agenda but, because it was lazy, it let businesses become unsustainable within government. It did nothing but rack up debt.
Other Labor governments, starting with the Hawke and Keating governments, showed leadership. They changed the dynamics of the Australian economy by freeing up lazy government capital and reforming government owned corporations. The Labor Party in South Australia has done more in the past 12 months than the former Northern Territory Labor government did in eleven-and-a-half years of government. When it comes to asset sales, the member for Nightcliff fails to talk about private sector partnerships, whether that is the Marine Supply Base, which is probably one of the worst deals for Territorians, or one that would rank slightly worse, the AGP pipeline, but I will not go into those details.
I turn to Power and Water. When in government the members opposite signed up to a national reform agenda. It was a reform of the energy sector, something all state governments contributed to over a 15-year period, except the Northern Territory Labor Party.
They signed up to national energy reforms but did not do anything about it. That is why, under Labor’s watch, Power and Water debt headed to $2bn. On the contrary, this government has undertaken the necessary reforms in line with the reforms undertaken in other parts of Australia. Labor opposes our structural reforms and still cannot get their heads around the benefit of these structural reforms to the community. This includes lower debt, greater electricity security and a way forward to lower prices.
Our government will continue with the reforms and promote extra competition into the electricity market in the NT. In coming months you will see other benefits flow to the community as a direct result of these reforms. I particularly thank Power and Water customers, and congratulate the hard-working staff at PWC, Jacana and Territory Generation for making the reforms possible. They have stuck through the tricky process of splitting Power and Water so we could have a competitive environment throughout the organisation.
TIO was a difficult decision. I had three days in the role of Treasurer to make this decision. The decision had to be made to save TIO from eventual death. Anyone who was a Cabinet member of the former Labor government will tell you they intended to sell TIO post any election. International and national competition had eaten away TIO’s viability and its ability to offer competitive prices in a tough market. In addition, we have taken the risk of a major disaster away from Territory taxpayers and put it into the international market. We have spread the risk to ensure TIO will continue to be a main part of our community fabric.
I remind the House that TIO was also the last government owned insurance office in the country. Every Labor government in every state had sold their insurance office. Northern Territory Labor criticises the government, but at the same time knows full well they tried to sell it when in government, but lost the nerve to do it. They cannot make hard decisions. Not only did we free the burden of a massive risk to taxpayers, but we are using the funds from the sale to help safeguard our communities from floods, notably Rapid Creek, Katherine and Alice Springs.
Before I focus further on the Port of Darwin, I will outline a small part of what is wrong with Northern Territory Labor. They are living in the past and have no concept of the rapidly changing world around us. Their idea of running government is to spend more money, which will drive us into more debt, make no structural changes in the economy, let other states and governments get things done and just cruise. If this had continued the Territory would have headed over the debt cliff.
Darwin port is the door to the future of the Territory. If the door remains open just a crack there will only be a trickle of trade. If we open the door wide, the NT will be the main gateway into Asia and the rest of the world, creating jobs for Territorians.
The Darwin port needs money to get it into shape so it can take advantage of the four major free trade agreements, the trans-Pacific partnership signed by the federal government, and the other export opportunities a Coalition government has facilitated.
Our priority is not to put money into the port. Our priorities are funding education, health, law and order, and community programs. We do not want to put money into large capital projects, such as the port, which sit for decades. Let the private sector do that. That is our philosophical approach, our economic approach and how we build the Territory.
Landbridge not only brings the additional capital needed to upgrade the port; it also brings expertise to run the port and can complement the hard-working staff there. This expertise will see an increase in capacity and will quickly bring transport innovations to our shores.
Landbridge has confirmed its intent to maintain the established workforce at the Port of Darwin as I described, and that there will be no forced redundancies during the term of the current enterprise agreement, which terminates in June 2018. Landbridge also intends to implement a stable and competitive pricing regime for port services, with no more than CPI-indexed pricing adjustments for use of current port facilities.
One controversial asset I would like to talk about is Richardson Park. There is much debate about Richardson Park and who made a decision and who did not. The process of the Public Accounts Committee was one of the most deplorable things I have seen recently. Yes, community consultation is important, and yes, we should always listen to the interests of people. Right now the old Richardson Park stadium is sitting there. It is an asset owned by government and probably worth $20m to $30m. It is derelict. People are sleeping there illegally, consuming alcohol illegally, trashing the place, the antisocial behaviour is causing concern to neighbours and there are complaints about it. Government had an option to build a new asset which was originally around $40m and costed up to $47.5m. We did not believe that $47.5m into a stadium which would not meet NRL, soccer or union specifications at the national level was the right way to go. We thought we should put more money into hospitals and education.
We decided to put $20m into Richardson Park. I will not go into all the work on Richardson Park, but I ask Labor: what was your policy for the $20m to $30m asset? You proposed building a few chairs at Marrara. I understand that policy but do not agree with it. What was your policy for the $20m or $30m asset? Was it to bulldoze it and write off $20m or $30m worth of assets? That is very poor asset management policy.
The Leader of the Opposition has not contributed. He is not even in the Chamber, despite being a member of the port committee …
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, withdraw that comment. There is to be no reference to members being in or out of the Chamber.
Mr GILES: I withdraw that the Leader of the Opposition is not in the Chamber. He has not participated in the debate. He was part of the port committee and recommended the best way to proceed with the port. We adhered to all bar one recommendation – I am happy for guidance on that – to get the best deal. Commentators across the board have said this is the best and cleanest port deal in Australia’s history. We seem to have form on that going by today’s port announcement.
The Leader of the Opposition has not contributed to the debate. We know he supports it but is not talking to it. The debate has been run by the left of the Labor Party, not the right. The member for Nightcliff did not articulate any opposition asset policy. What would the approach be? We know the member for Fannie Bay, the Opposition Leader, is privately saying, ‘We support this, but publicly I have to say different things because I am in Labor’. We know the left controls Labor.
The Leader of the Opposition is saying one thing. The member for Nightcliff, Ms Fyles, is saying a Labor government would buy the port back. The money is already in the bank, but she proposes to put government into debt for $506m or whatever the buy-back price is. The price would have increased because people are already lining up to buy that 20%. With today’s announcement about the gas pipeline, potentially over $100m worth of gas pipeline will go over the port, supporting the supply chain logistics through the Territory with more business, and the port will be more valuable.
Perhaps the member for Nightcliff will spend $600m buying the port back, while the Leader of the Opposition says privately he supports it but publically says he does not and does not like the Chinese. This is not a proper policy approach, and is where we come back to the content of the debate. There was no content in the member for Nightcliff’s debate, which is why it is hard to debate back.
I can debate up hill and down dale why TIO would die in the next three years. Its pricing structure moderated prices equal for everybody so big companies could cherry pick off the simple policies and not insure other policies. TIO would have snowballed to death within three years.
I can talk about the port and why we needed to expand it, and have done that uphill and down. I can talk about how foreign investment is good for the Territory. I could talk about how the biggest hospitality employer in the Northern Territory is owned by the Kiwis – Darwin casino. I could talk about the casino in Alice Springs, which is owned by Malaysian Chinese. I could talk about INPEX, the biggest economic driver in the Territory, being owned mainly by the Japanese and partly owned by the French, being Total.
I could talk about the Italians who provide the gas energy for the lights here tonight, and the microphones and everything. The company providing the gas for these lights is a state-owned enterprise, the largest in Italy. Landbridge is a private company.
We could talk about the gas pipeline which runs from Bonaparte to Darwin, which is mainly owned by a publicly-listed company in the Northern Territory but has small ownership by Marubeni, a Japanese company.
We could talk about the US Marines in the Territory or the Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap in Alice Springs with the Americans. We could talk about the fuel we put in our cars which comes out of Singapore and is refined and put into barrels in the Middle East.
We live in a global environment. We cannot put our heads in the sand and say we do not like the Chinese. We have to adapt in a global environment. We have to make the right decisions, the tough decisions, to get the best job opportunities for Territorians.
I make speeches on a regular basis. One common theme in most of my speeches is what I have learnt most in the last three years. That is, the easiest thing to do is nothing.
If you make one decision you will upset people. Today we announced the successful tenderer for the gas pipeline was Jemena, a 60% Chinese state-owned and 40% Singapore owned company. This will cause concerns.
Labor will run fear campaigns about this. I asked Jemena who they were. They said, ‘You do not know Jemena? We are the second-oldest company in Australia, started in 1834.’
I believe the Bank of New South Wales was the first company. It started AGL, Australian Gas Light Company, and then spun it off. It started many companies. It owns all the transmission power lines in Victoria, and supplies gas to 1.3 million customers in New South Wales. It is a major provider.
The first thing from Labor is, ‘Chinese and Singapore’. It is the second-longest running company in Australia’s history. This is a great thing for the Territory. It will create jobs in the Territory, particularly in the member for Barkly’s electorate, and there will be more jobs in the port area in years to come because of downstream investment.
This MPI is not a matter of public importance in the vein the member for Nightcliff said it was. It is a matter of public importance on how we are smart, run economic agendas, build our infrastructure for the future and create jobs for Territorians.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, I support this matter of public importance on the failure of the Northern Territory government to consult with, or act in the interests of, Territorians by selling the Port of Darwin, the Territory Insurance Office, and public buses, and threatening the public ownership of the Territory’s power and water systems.
I listened closely to the member for Nightcliff’s contribution and the Chief Minister’s contribution to debate. I heard the term ‘up hill and down dale’ a few times. It is a favourite phrase of the Chief Minister. Hearing him speak about the merits behind the sale of TIO and the port, what has happened at Power and Water, and how he feels he has brought forward debate, I feel he does not understand the concept of what genuine, meaningful consultation is. It is a two-way conversation and involves listening to people and engaging back and forth.
One of the biggest criticisms of this government will be that it failed to consult with Territorians when deciding to see the Territory’s assets of the port and TIO.
It failed spectacularly, particularly in the case of TIO, when it comes to genuine public consultation and discussions with Territorians about the sale. Prior to the sale of TIO there were many rumours in the community and people were talking about it. Serious questions were put to the government on numerous occasions about whether it would sell TIO. We did not get a straight answer and most were along the lines of, ‘Nothing is on the table, nothing is off the table’.
At the same time the former member for Casuarina retired and there was a by-election. Two days after the by-election the government said, ‘We’re looking at selling TIO. What would you like to spend the money on?’ They forgot the critical question was, ‘Would you support the sale of TIO?’ People do not consider genuine consultation to be, ‘We’re looking at selling TIO. What do you want to spend the money on?’ That is not a genuine two-way conversation. If you felt you had a compelling case to sell TIO why did you not go to Territorians for the most genuine mandate you could get, being the support of the people.
It was not an issue during the Casuarina by-election. If this was such a fabulous idea, why did you not put it out to Territorians for debate? Instead, you announced it after the event. You would have received a firm answer from the people of Casuarina, as you saw in the polls conducted by the Northern Territory News at the time. It was a deeply unpopular decision. Territorians did not want you to sell TIO. People felt the government was talking at them, that the decision was made and there was no turning back on it. The government had made up its mind and was already looking forward to the next budget, the budget after that and into August 2016, asking where they could spend the money. ‘Where can we win back favour with the people of the Northern Territory because so far we have done an appalling job?’
The government rammed through the sale of TIO in one of the most disgraceful processes we have seen in the parliament.
It appears today the government has regained the numbers to do as it pleases. It will be interesting to see how they exercise that power. Will we see more examples of the disgraceful processes followed by this government in the past, such as ramming through the sale of TIO? The government rammed it through in one day. That is not proper consultation or consideration, and not what is meant to be happening in this parliament.
Let us see what you do now you are no longer a minority government. What will happen now? Will we see more arrogance from this government in its consultation with Territorians, which is talking at them not listening to them? This is what you have done in the last three-and-a-half years of government. The sale of TIO was a clear case of the CLP government’s style of consultation with Territorians. People will not forget that any time soon, that is for sure.
This government has also sold the port. The government will say it is a long-term lease, but 99 years is a long time. That is a sale; it is gone. That is past our lifetime. If the government wanted the ultimate mandate – with less than a year until the election, and the time this sale went through was one of great uncertainty with the numbers for this government – why not try to get it from the people. Why not genuinely consult with Territorians on a deeper level, and why not take it to the next election? For example, you had an opportunity in the Blain by-election to test it with the people you did not. One questions the level of deep and meaningful consultation this government engages in, and its definition of consultation.
This matter of public importance not only looks at the lack of consultation around selling TIO and the port, but also at the future of Power and Water. I am sure we will hear from the Treasurer on this. There is still uncertainly, and people have questions.
Questions and concerns have been raised about what is happening with system control at the moment. I would like the minister to explain what is happening. Is there a system control within the Power and Water Corporation? There was talk of it becoming a separate government owned corporation. Is it being partly privatised? To use a term the CLP likes, will there be a transfer of ownership of part of system control? It would be good to get some clarity on that and see if there are changes. Many concerns have been raised about it, so it would be good to hear the minister’s thoughts and for him to put on the record what is happening there. There has been a lot of conversation about it and people would like answers.
There have been some significant changes to Power and Water during the term of this government. The most significant one is that people are now paying 30% more for electricity, 40% more for water and 25% more for sewerage. For an average family that is an extra $2000 a year on top of their power and water bills, and this government has decided to ram people’s bills up by an extra 30% for electricity, 40% for water and 25% for sewerage. This does not take into account the 1 January 2015 5% increase everybody copped whether in the urban centres or out bush. Looking at the Power and Water annual report, at that time the government had collected an extra $150m in revenue from the power increases alone.
They are pocketing more money yet taking money out of the pockets of Territory families. I remind you, that is an extra $2000 a year an average family in the NT is paying because of the CLP government’s decision to break a promise after the 2012 election about lowering the cost of living. Instead they rammed power and water prices through the roof. That has created great burden and pain for many families because they have to pay a hell of a lot more.
I come back to the issue that people want certainty on. If the CLP government continues to consult with Territorians the way it feels is appropriate, which is not listening and talking at people, can we hear? This government has a tendency to say one thing and do the other. I will take the opportunity, every time I can, to ask them to put something on the record. I want to rule out that you will sell or transfer ownership, whole or part, of anything in the Power and Water Corporation, Jacana Energy or Territory Generation between now and the next election.
I call on the Treasurer, and the government, if they intend to partly privatise or transfer ownership of assets or parts of Power and Water Corporation, Jacana Energy or Territory Generation, get the ultimate mandate, which is the Northern Territory election in August 2016.
This is an important matter to discuss tonight. We have seen huge changes in the last three-and-a-half years of this government, especially around the sale of Territory-owned assets without a mandate from the people and without consulting Territorians at a genuine and meaningful level. This government is cashed up from the sales, so let us see what they intend to do with the money they now have.
Let us see what they do between now and August to try to win back favour with people across the Territory who they have smashed their relationship with. They have gone about government in an arrogant way, and not consulting people properly means Territorians do not trust them. They have a great deal of ground to make up, friendships to mend, and relationships to build on. That has probably been made a bit easier by having more money, but people do not have short memories. They remember the pain of the 30% and 40% power increases. They remember the pain of the 25% sewerage increase, and they know they are paying $2000 extra per year because of your increases.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, what an interesting matter of public importance from the member for Nightcliff. Setting aside the fact she cannot spell the Speaker’s first name and uses capitals in the middle of words, it is just nonsense. It is like handwriting from a kid in Year 1 learning to write. Hopefully she does not become Education minister somewhere down the track. In any case, she probably failed Year 1.
It is a ridiculous matter of public importance. I was interested in the Chief Minister’s explanation of what went on with the port. I was fascinated with his take on Richardson Park. I had never thought about Richardson Park that way. Exactly what is Labor’s policy when they abandon it and have it bulldozed? Will Labor put a brand new suburb there? Will there be high rises in the area, as was previously planned by people from Darwin rugby league? What would Labor do once they got rid of the Territory asset at Richardson Park? It is a good question and something Labor has not commented on. They simply say they want to move rugby league to Freds Pass. That is pretty well out of mind, out of sight.
Put it in the scrub, down in the rural area where no one wants any development. It could be hidden away somewhere with limited access to services because there are limited development opportunities. More than likely, the members for Nelson and Goyder would oppose that because it would represent development in the rural area, which is something they do not want.
Mr Wood: As usual, you digress.
Mr TOLLNER: I do not digress; I am speaking on the matter of public importance. The fact is the government saved TIO. Unequivocally, this government saved TIO. Without a doubt, TIO was dying on the vine.
Some 30 years ago TIO had 100% of the marketplace, and today it sits at about 40% or less. What happened over the last 30 years is interesting, because 30 years ago or more no insurance company wanted to come to the Northern Territory. It was too small a marketplace with too many big problems, and there was no interest by anyone in bringing products to the Northern Territory.
Rightly, government formed the Territory Insurance Office. Over the last 30 years a plethora of companies has come to the Northern Territory and entered the marketplace. People on the other side cannot seem to comprehend the concept of a marketplace.
In the world of socialists and communists, you do not have a market, you have a provider. There is no market, there is a provider and a user, and people who have enterprising ideas are shunned. Government controls everything.
That is the world they live in. They do not appreciate the fact that these days there is an insurance market in the Northern Territory and participants in that market – a range of providers.
Over the last century or so, insurance companies have become larger, and not for the desire to get larger just to be big. They grow because of the economies of scale – the ability to dilute risk across a range of areas, places and problems.
That is why insurance companies get bigger. As we have seen across the globe, insurance companies are generally backed by only a handful of really large insurance companies that diversify their risk across the globe.
In the Northern Territory, the government owned insurance office could not diversify its risk. Its entire risk portfolio was 90% in Darwin and 10% in the rest of the Northern Territory. The problem with that risk being so concentrated in one location is that they needed to pay more and more for their re-insurance costs.
Re-insurance costs for the Territory Insurance Office, when we liberated it from government ownership, were around 30% of premiums. The rest of the market was paying between 5% and 10% of premiums for re-insurance costs because they diluted their risk.
The reality was that Territory Insurance Office’s mandate was to only insure in the Northern Territory. They could not spread their risk. Consequently, every year that went by, every day that went by, the Territory Insurance Office became more and more uncompetitive. That is why I said TIO was dying on the vine. Had we gone the Labor way we could have said, ‘Let’s ignore that, the government can bear that risk. When the government falls over, if there is a big disaster, it doesn’t matter because the federal government will step in and take that risk.’ You have to ask yourself what the point is of having an insurance company if everything is backed by the government, and ultimately the Australian government?
It defies logic, so government looked at the situation. We analysed what was going on with the Territory Insurance Office and understood it was on the brink of collapse. Frankly, if a major cyclone like Tracy hit Darwin again, this government would have been wiped out along with every house and building in the Top End. This is the risk Territorians faced with continued ownership of the Territory Insurance Office. Liberating TIO from government ownership and allowing it to diversify and dilute its risk into a much greater pool brought down its reinsurance costs, made it much more competitive and allowed it to continue operating in the Northern Territory. Allianz has an enormous pool of risk across the globe. It is one of the largest insurers on the planet if not the largest, and has the ability to diversify its risk across the globe.
That was a sensible decision because, fundamentally, Territorians value their TIO. They like the brand, and rather than see TIO die in a ditch, we decided to liberate it from government ownership so it could continue to operate for decades to come in the Northern Territory as the Territory Insurance Office.
Instead of Labor politicians explaining those simple facts to Territorians, what have they done? They have whipped up a storm of concern not because it is good for Territorians, but because that suits their political objective. To create fear in the community is the Labor Party objective. It is similar to what I heard the member for Wanguri say in relation to threatening public ownership of the Territory’s power and water systems.
I was scratching my head over this MPI, wondering what the hell this mob was talking about. We do not intend to privatise the Power and Water Corporation. Then the member for Wanguri asks, ‘What is happening with system control?’ Again, it is convenient for members opposite not to understand markets. The other side wants to control everything, the same way communists want to control everything. When it comes to system control, it has to be handed over to somebody to manage the market.
We have made no bones about the fact we want to see a utilities marketplace in the Northern Territory, with competition on the generation and retail fronts. Part of that is about dragging in the Australian Energy Regulator, the AER. The AER is a government organisation put in place by COAG. Labor members opposite will not remember this, but about 20 years ago governments around Australia signed up to competition reforms, agreeing to put in place market mechanisms to see utilities markets established in Australia. Labor acknowledged that when they changed the Power and Water Authority to the Power and Water Corporation. That was a step in the direction of implementing the market reforms agreed to in the 1990s at COAG, and good on them. I give them a pat on the back for taking that step. However, they did not continue that reform process because it all became too hard for our communist friends on the other side. The idea of having a market in place is an anathema to Labor members in the Territory.
Part of having a marketplace is that we want a market operator. In Australia we have the Australian Energy Market Operator, AEMO, another creature formed out of COAG. States and territories agreed to form the Australian Energy Market Operator so companies could operate in a marketplace. Part of that means transferring system control to AEMO. AEMO was formed in COAG by Australian governments, and is funded and has its costs paid by industry – generators, retailers and transmission line operators who operate in markets.
I do not know why the member for Wanguri thinks you can have a marketplace without a market operator in the utilities sector. If the member for Wanguri wants to call this privatisation of a government asset – goodness me, I do not know what you could compare that to, but it is certainly not privatisation of a government asset. It is a step towards creating a utilities market. It is a simple thing for most people to understand. Clearly it goes above the pay grade of the average Labor member sitting on the other side because they do not seem to get it.
We have been living in this country – I imagine most of them are passed 20 years so they would have an idea of how other markets around the country operate. I listened to the member for Nelson say, ‘I am curious to know, Treasurer, whether these reforms have taken place anywhere else in the country?’ I thought, ‘Has this guy been living under a rock?’ We are the only jurisdiction in the country not to have implemented these reforms. We are 20 years behind the rest of Australia. The previous government dragged its heels on these reforms.
I will also pass comment on previous Country Liberals governments as well, because they should have been quicker to act on putting in place utility market reforms. This is a ridiculous matter of public importance. They are grasping at straws, trying to whip up fear and concern in the community.
A xenophobic mob sits opposite. The last time I heard comments like this they were coming out of the mouth of Pauline Hanson. She was saying, ‘You’re selling the farm. You’re selling Australia and the Chinese are taking over everything.’ Shame on you mob.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, some of that speech reminds me of the 1950s – the communists and all that stuff – and we do not want to go back there. It surprises me that the government is leasing the port to a private company from a communist country.
We do not have a lot of time with an MPI, but if the government is concerned about the state of Richardson Park, why has someone not secured it? I have visited it …
Mr Tollner: Never had it. It was owned by the DRL, Gerry. We have only just got it back.
Mr WOOD: Be quiet for a minute. Put a sock in it and listen to what I have to say. When I mean secure it, I mean put a fence around it and protect it from damage. If you think the asset is worth keeping why have you not protected it? We have looked at it, and if you do not want people breaking the place up then you should protect it. Its future will be part of the discussion. Anyway, enough of that.
In relation to TIO, the Treasurer misses the point. It is not whether it should have been sold but that there was no discussion about it. I remember calling a public meeting at the university, and we got the CEO of TIO, Richard Harding, to come along, and the Leader of the Opposition, but we could not get the Chief Minister. The government, at that stage, missed the point of what people were concerned about.
The government had a good point about the future of TIO and the changing structure of insurance in the Northern Territory, but it did not get that message out. It was not willing to talk to people about why TIO did not have a future, or that insurance rates would go up. It was a fact of life whether TIO or another company would take it over, and it would be difficult for TIO to survive in that marketplace. That is what the issue was about and why people were annoyed.
I was also annoyed with the sale of the printing office and the public bus system. They were done after parliament had sat. There was no attempt to debate either sale in this House. At least with TIO and the port there has been debate.
I do not support the section of the MPI relating to the port. The sale of the port is unpopular but it is a government decision. To say there has not been any discussion in the public arena is not correct. I was part of the Port of Darwin Select Committee, and prior to that committee – at the beginning of last year – the government introduced legislation to allow the port to be sold. I took off on my own accord because I needed to understand what a private port was all about, so I visited the Port of Portland. I will probably always remember that visit because that was the time of the failed coup d'tat.
I also visited the Port of Adelaide, which Flinders Ports owns. I met with stevedores, agents, users and managers at both ports. When I returned the government decided to set up the committee, and I had a list of what the committee did. The committee had private briefings with Flagstaff Partners and MinterEllison lawyers. Obviously they were working for the government to ensure everything was done correctly on such a serious matter. The committee visited the Port of Brisbane, the Port of Adelaide, the Port of Portland, the Port of Albany and the Port of Geraldton, the Port of Fremantle, and had a final look at the Port of Darwin.
Two public hearings were held on 31 March and 1 April which included Asciano, Patrick General Stevedoring, the Port of Darwin Project Steering Committee, the Northern Territory government, the Maritime Union of Australia, the Australian Agriculture Company, Vopak, Bhagwan Marine, Qube, the Northern Territory Livestock Exporters Association, Genesee & Wyoming Pty Ltd and the Northern Territory Chamber of Commerce, and it also received public submissions. Those meetings were open to the public, and the public had an opportunity to make submissions.
I understand that from those submissions only one opposed the sale, which was the union. The issue with the union has been an issue of concern to me as well. I had an undertaking from the Chief Minister – I hope he does not think I am verballing him, but he understood the issues the workers at the port had and basically said he would make sure they were fixed. I take the Chief Minister’s word on that, and I have not heard any negative feedback in regard to the issues.
When you consider the size of this port sale, the concerns of the employees were something the government needed to make sure it fixed. I am not sure if it is completed, but I would like to hear how it is going.
When it finished in April 2015, the committee brought out the Port of Darwin lease model and a series of 18 recommendations, and the government responded to all those recommendations. I do not have the time to go through them all, but that is what the government has done.
It was a bipartisan report. Labor, the CLP and the Independents supported privatisation of the port. Sometimes it is difficult, even for people like me – I am not an expert on these things and sometimes have to rely on what other people say.
Perhaps one of the failings of the government in putting forward its case for privatising the port was not using some of the material we put in this document to promote its view.
There is a section which talks about the risk of private sector involvement. It talks about the ACCC’s view of these things. My understanding, from reading some of the documents, is the main recommendation from organisations like the ACCC is they generally support the principle of privatisation of businesses such as ports. It talks about public ports frequently lacking professional management, and senior positions often being filled through a political selection process. Furthermore, there is a layer of bureaucracy separating those responsible for operations from those who manage the port.
In contrast, private operations have very thin management structures, with clear assignment responsibility and accountability.
Point 4.20 of the report says:
- The ACCC considers that, as a general principle:
Privatisation may increase the efficiency of many businesses … Through competition for capital, private ownership improves a firm’s productivity incentive. Privately owned firms have greater incentive and ability to be cost efficient and innovative compared to government owned enterprises.
The report also says there are some concerns. There is a section on the risks of private sector involvement.
The report was well researched and well presented. We had nothing to do with the details of the sale of the port; that was entirely up to the government. If people have issues with that they should see if the government has dealt with the recommendations in the Port of Darwin Select Committee report.
I was concerned that foreign ownership of the port might conflict with present port users, and there has been a lot of discussion about that lately. I believe some of the information is not correct. My understanding is that the Australian Department of Defence looked at it. If people have concerns about it that is fair enough, but some of it goes back to the Department of Defence. If the government has, by due diligence, gone through the process of making sure it is okay for Landbridge to run our port, and people have a different view, the issue is not with the Northern Territory government but the people in Canberra who supported that decision. They need to make sure those concerns are backed up with facts.
I worry about the relationship between the United States, Australia and China. We all know what has happened in the Spratly Islands of late. I am not a foreign policy expert but I am concerned. I have to trust that people in the know, presumably the Department of Defence, which includes the Army, Navy and the Air Force, had some input into the decision. If they are not concerned, that should be sufficient. If people are concerned they need to take it up with the Department of Defence rather than the Northern Territory because the Northern Territory has done what it said it would.
I was hoping for more investment from Australia. It is sad there is not, but I was advised it is difficult to get 100% privately owned companies interested in buying a port. Many superannuation companies do. The port in Portland is run by a superannuation company. I understand many of those companies are backed by foreign banks. It is difficult to find a 100% Australian owned company that is interested. I do not want that 20% to go anywhere. I would rather it be retained by the government to make sure there is some Australian ownership of our port.
I accept that sometimes hard decisions have to be made by government. Many ports in Australia are now privately owned in both Labor and Liberal states. In fact, in Western Australia, which has a Liberal government, the three ports are all government owned. In Victoria, a Labor state, all the ports are privately owned. It varies up and down the east coast.
It is not as simple as saying a private port is better than a public port. The information the committee received – we spoke to as many people as possible – was that this was the best way to go.
I was also concerned because I did not want this money spent on an advertising campaign for the government prior to the next election. I have suggested to the minister that some of this money should go to remote communities. I have also suggested that the government could look at self-help housing programs. For communities not on the housing list it could create jobs, or in communities with materials to build houses it could reduce overcrowding in houses. We need to look at micro-developments in the Territory which, when totalled up, would be equivalent to a fairly large infrastructure development. I hope we do not only look at the big shiny projects, but we make sure people throughout the Territory receive benefits from this sale. Otherwise it looks like the big smoke gets it all and the people in the bush get nothing.
I understand some of the issues regarding the MPI. Whilst I agree with them, for me the issue was to talk about the port. People may have a different view, but I believe this was the right decision.
Mr BARRETT (Blain): Madam Speaker, this matter of public importance says:
- I propose for discussion this day as a definite matter of public importance the failure of the Northern Territory government to consult with or act in the interest of Territorians by selling the Port of Darwin ...
The first part of this matter of public importance relating to the failure of the Northern Territory government to consult with or act in the interests of Territorians by selling the Port of Darwin – first, it is a lease not a sale. The two are different and that was established in the committee’s report. Second, the Port of Darwin is a loose term. What are you talking about? Is it everything inside Charles Point? It is so poorly formed and written that it is embarrassing.
The MPI refers to a failure of the Northern Territory government to consult. Stakeholders were consulted repeatedly. We sent many letters out to many people asking for input and what they thought the recommendations should be. The Leader of the Opposition can verify that. In some cases we went twice or three times, and we phoned people saying, ‘Please let us know what you’re thinking’. I remember calling Ian Wright from OM Holdings, the manganese exporter, to say, ‘I know you have the e-mail. Can you please put a submission in? Send me something. You are the only bulk exporter, and if bulk exports are missing from the consultation it will stand out.’
I know this port, I know the people there, the players, and I understand how the port functions end to end. I know the vast majority of people who work there, and when you say with a smug smile, ‘The fate of the Northern Territory, failing to consult or act in the interest of Territorians’, it disgusts me.
One thing I do not get about politics is that you can say anything you want in this Chamber. It does not have to make sense or line up with evidence, you can just spray it. The worst part is this stuff is sprayed around and it drives me nuts. The opposition does this to scare people. My favourite is somebody saying to me, ‘You guys are getting $5m a year for 100 years because it is $500m’. I said, ‘Where did you hear that?’ He said, ‘The union guy told me’. I said, ‘There’s a big difference between $500m up front and $5m a year for 100 years’.
There is time value of money. Putting $500m in stinking Westpac shares will get you $36m franked tax free. Telling people this was a crap deal because we got $5m a year is insanity and shows a complete lack of understanding of the processes, and a lack of depth of the people on the other side who are trying to convince people to hate us by saying this and spreading stories of no consultation. You cannot disengage in a process and then say you did not consult.
It is embarrassing for the member for Nightcliff’s leader that she is effectively saying the Leader of the Opposition did not consult. He was on the committee that made the recommendations and knows who was consulted. I do not understand why someone would come into this Chamber and do this just to pick a fight or waste time. It never ceases to amaze me when I see this happen.
I look at the important things happening in the Northern Territory. I look at the things that matter to me, what is going on, the problems we are trying to address, and we get the failure of the Northern Territory government to consult. We even had post consultation. I spent a lot of time with stevedores talking about it through it and after it, and with people who work in the industry. ‘What are you feelings? What are people around the port saying?’ The nastiest comment was that people were apprehensive. Sometimes the misinformation that is spread – the opposition talks everything down to the point where people believe the lie. I do not know why you do that because when somebody finds out the truth they will say to the opposition, ‘You told me this was true’.
When that person said, ‘It’s $500m so $5m a year is a terrible deal’, I explained the time value of money. Do you know what they did? They phoned the person who told them and said, ‘Why did you tell me that? You made me look stupid in front of Nathan.’
When you convince people of foolish things you know are wrong you are showing your own foolishness. People will know how hollow you are if you do that. It is hollow, baseless and embarrassing.
Selling the Territory Insurance Office – they know as well as we do the issues with the Territory Insurance Office.
Let us go to threatening public ownership of the Northern Territory’s power and water systems, because that was a big issue during my by-election; it raised heads. A bunch of ETU guys were terrorising people at polling booths, picking fights and arguing with people saying that we would sell Power and Water, and scaring people. It is as if they stop at nothing and it is embarrassing.
The Northern Territory’s power and water system – the member for Wanguri said, ‘You guys are taking $150m off consumers and it is going straight into the coffers’. They keep sprouting the same stuff, which is embarrassing because anyone who understands finance will know the problem was you did not cost it right. When things are not cost reflective there is no such thing in economics as a free lunch. Someone has to pay the bill; the money has to come from somewhere. Will it come from debt? Will you debt fund it ad infinitum?
It is insanity. The reason the price had to increase was the cost being charged per kilowatt hour was not cost reflective of generating, transporting or charging for it. You cannot say we are ripping people off because we made something cost reflective. From the data I have seen it is still not cost reflective; all it has done is improve the position somewhat.
To say the government has robbed Territorians of $150m – that $150m would have gone on the credit card. That puts the trust back on the fiduciary. That is the worst financial management because you are just kicking a can further down the road. That can is getting bigger and somebody has to pay the piper. You know full well, when you tell people the Giles government is ripping people off because it increased Power and Water tariffs, it was being made cost reflective and restored some fiscal balance to the Northern Territory because we are on a watch, and to Power and Water so it was not in the can as much.
People have to remember that when we are on a negative watch – if we are downgraded by Moody’s it changes the interest rate on our debt. That makes a big difference to Northern Territory expenditure on things we cannot get back. It will not go on things that are deliverable to the people of the Northern Territory. It will go because some person on the other side of the floor, for years in a row, decided the price of power and water would not be cost reflective for whatever reason. At some point it had to be corrected.
Saying the Northern Territory government is doing nothing to lower the cost of living – the Northern Territory government solved the tar baby problem relating to fuel prices. It has done a lot of work to enable Power and Water to operate more like a GOC should.
We ask why privatisation happens. The underlying economic reason for privatisation leads you to the underlying reason governments exist. Governments are there, from an economics point of view, to redistribute income and join into markets where market failures exist.
If we look at how mature the insurance industry in Australia is we see the industry is not in market failure. Why should government compete with and crowd out businesses in the Northern Territory?
Why should we run a port, something that can be regulated and run more efficiently and effectively with investment from outside sources? The opposition says, ‘Why did you sell it? It’s not in the Territory’s interest.’ What was not in the Territory’s interest was racking up debt.
If you want to talk about the failures of the Northern Territory government, I point to the failures of the previous government to not work with TIO when it had the opportunity, not deal with the port and not correct the issues in Power and Water. You can turn that little finger around to yourselves and say, ‘We are to blame for these issues’.
I am proud of what the Northern Territory government is doing to lower risk so future industry and business can come to the Northern Territory. We are acting as a government should – as a de-risking agent so the numbers stack up and people will bring new industries here.
The Marine Industry Park and the shiplift are great examples of that. It shocks me that people do not understand the magnitude of the shiplift.
Picking up military contracts is fantastic. If we get military contracts for Cape-class vessels, suddenly all our built-up capacity in the Northern Territory will have two clients, not one. There is built-up capacity not completely geared to gas. A downturn in the gas industry no longer means that capacity leaves Darwin. It means they have two customers, one being a baseline customer that will keep things ticking over. As the gas industry ebbs and flows with global commodity prices we will see those industries grow and shrink, but they will stay, and that is the important thing. That is what we are talking about when growing industry in the Northern Territory.
This matter of public importance, the way it is written and everything it insinuates, is a disgrace. I am almost ashamed to waste time answering it and putting on the record the facts about the four issues raised in it.
Discussion concluded.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Move Motion to Remove Speaker and Elect a New Speaker
Move Motion to Remove Speaker and Elect a New Speaker
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended would allow me to move the following motion and subsequently have the question determined:
1. that the Speaker is removed from office by the Legislative Assembly in accordance with section 24(2)(d) of the Northern Territory (Self-Government Act) 1978 (Cth)
2. that a new Speaker be elected pursuant to Standing Order 7.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Port Darwin has just moved a very grave and serious motion. I ask that the motion is signed and distributed to all members so we are able to see the exact wording and terms of the motion.
Mr Elferink: Madam Speaker, it is being circulated now.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask that you suspend for 10 minutes until we receive the motion. It is grave and we deserve to see it.
Madam SPEAKER: It is unprecedented in the history of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council. I agree with the member for Karama and suspend parliament for 10 minutes while the motion is being circulated.
The Assembly suspended.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Move Motion to Remove Speaker and Elect a New Speaker
Move Motion to Remove Speaker and Elect a New Speaker
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, the member for Karama truly identified this as a grave and serious motion, and, quite correctly, as unprecedented in the history of the Northern Territory. The motion before the House has only been drifted to on two other occasions I am aware of. In those circumstances the Speakers, for the sake of the dignity of the House, chose to …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, it is not a motion before the House. You are only speaking to the suspension of standing orders.
Mr ELFERINK: That is correct, Madam Speaker, so I have to make out the case for suspending standing orders.
Madam SPEAKER: Continue, just have it correct.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, Madam Speaker.
The issue essentially comes down to what can be found on page 163 of House of Representatives Practice 5th edition. I ask members to indulge me in this because it is important that I am able to describe the structure of this argument. An argument of this nature requires proper structure and effective prosecution.
House of Representatives Practice says:
- One of the hallmarks of good Speakership is the requirement for a high degree of impartiality in the execution of the duties of the office … This important characteristic of office has been developed over the last two centuries to a point where in the House of Commons a Speaker abandons all party loyalties and is required to be impartial on all party issues both inside and outside the House.
This infers a very important quid pro quo. It is a serious penalty in this House to reflect on the Speaker other than by way of substantive motion, such as the motion we are about to discuss. To reflect on the Speaker is considered a grave sin because the Speaker is supposed to rise above us all. She is our referee, our guide and the person who adjudicates with impartiality.
That infers and implies that the Speaker is duty bound not to reflect on members, as parliamentary practice demands, both inside and outside the House. House of Representatives Practice 5th edition reflects on the Australian environment at page 164:
- Notwithstanding the foregoing and the fact that the Speakership has long been regarded as a political appointment, Australian Speakers have striven to discharge their duties with impartiality. The degree of impartiality achieved depends on the occupant but, as a rule, Speakers have been sufficiently detached from government activity to ensure what can be justly claimed to be a high degree of impartiality in the Chair.
Further, on the same page, it says:
- Members are entitled to expect that, even though politically affiliated, the Speaker will carry out his or her functions impartially. Likewise a Speaker is entitled to expect support from all Members regardless of their party.
The Speaker embodies the dignity of the nation’s representative assembly. The office is above the individual and commands respect. The degree of respect depends to some extent on the occupant but it is fair to say that the office, despite isolated incidents, has been shown to be respected on both sides of the House.
Madam Speaker, in your dealings in the House you have set a very high standard for yourself. There was an occasion in the not so distant past when government sought to suspend standing orders. You chose not to participate in that knowing full well the consequences. Whilst I do not want to enter into the partisanship of that decision, the reason you gave not to suspend standing orders was that the integrity of the House was of such a standard and importance that you were not prepared to set aside the normal standards to support government, or anybody for that matter. That is the standard you set, which places the bar very high indeed.
That is also reflected on page 165:
- It is unquestionably of great importance that, as a contribution towards upholding the impartiality of the office, the House chooses a candidate who has the qualities necessary for a good Speaker.
That sets the standard we expect in this House and is the challenge we have today. It has become increasingly evident with the passage of time that such impartiality one would expect from a Speaker has not been coming from the Chair either inside or outside the House.
It is not unusual for you to make a number of Facebook posts during the course of the sitting day and at other times. You make many Facebook posts and I will give you a number of examples. On 24 April 2015 you reflected on the member for Fong Lim in relation to urban blocks and then stridently criticised a member of this House. On 14 September 2015 you stridently criticised government, and on other occasions you have chosen to reflect on members of this House -government and non-government – thus raising the doubt of your lack of partisanship in this House.
When I call a point of order in this House, whilst you may deal with the point of order fairly or unfairly, after being criticised and reflected upon in this House I always ask if the treatment I receive at your hands is fair. It is not always guaranteed because I have been the subject, as have other members, of a number of reflections from the chair. I find it surprising that partisan comments are made on Facebook from the chair whilst we sit in this House. If I am not mistaken that occurred today whilst you were sitting in the Chair.
There is no shortage of comments from you reflecting on members in this House and their conduct. That is indicative of a failure to apply appropriate standards of impartiality. Those constant reflections on members of this House risk demeaning and diminishing this House in the eyes of not only the people who occupy it, but also more generally.
As Attorney-General and defender of the courts, I often have to bridle in my defence of them. I may not agree with what they do, but I am the voice of those courts. You are the voice of this House in maintaining its integrity.
I do not suggest that you are not a passionate member of this Assembly. You obviously care about your constituency. You care about many of the issues discussed in this House, and if the member for Goyder continued to do so that is a matter for the member. It is not possible to separate the member for Goyder from the speakership role no matter how artificially you try to.
A case in point is the letter I found on my desk at 10 am today. You authorised yourself to commence a motion before this House to refer a matter to privileges. I spoke to you in your office less than 24 hours prior to that to brief you on what the government intends to do. Within those 24 hours you determined, under the auspices of the speakership, to move a motion through the privileges process.
I received an e-mail from your assistant at 9.50 am, which was an invitation to the condolence motion at 10 am. The first I was aware of it was when you spoke in this House, because the envelope remained sealed on my desk. Even if I had opened it at 10 am, as other members may have, it was still very much a surprise.
I was dismayed with the paragraph on page two of that letter, which said, ‘I am therefore writing to all members to make clear my intentions to outline the procedure so there can be no claims of surprise, and to demonstrate I wish the matter to be dealt with fairly by the Assembly itself’.
On the contrary, the surprise was absolute. This letter was not in my possession until you were on your feet. I was not aware of it because I did not get an opportunity to open it. I had no prior notice and do not believe other members received prior notice of the motion you moved this morning.
This morning’s motion had all the hallmarks of a contrivance in the sense that the Deputy Speaker was in the House ready to assume the Chair, but you chose to bypass the Deputy Chair and place the member for Karama in the Chair, who I suspect had notice of the intended motion.
Madam Speaker, it appears you are tweeting as we sit. You have just tweeted, ‘The government wants to sack the Speaker as they disagreed with my member for Goyder motion’. This is not the reason, Madam Speaker. The reason is I cannot speak in this House without reflections on what the government is doing.
This is not how a Speaker and honourable members of this Chamber should conduct themselves. I ask members to remind themselves of the demands placed on the Speaker, and for the sake of members I will repeat the important principles in play here:
- One of the hallmarks of good Speakership is the requirement for a high degree of impartiality in the execution of the duties of the office … This important characteristic of office has been developed over the last two centuries to a point where in the House of Commons the Speaker abandons all party loyalties and is required to be impartial on all party issues both inside and outside the House.
Madam Speaker, you tweet and make Facebook posts that are critical of members in this House while debates are occurring. This is not what we should expect of a Speaker in this House.
I fully understand this motion will generate great excitement amongst the members opposite. It is not something that I or the government choose to do lightly, but we find ourselves in a position where we cannot expect, on any reasonable grounds, any form of impartiality from the Speaker. The Speaker is clearly not able to separate her duties as a Speaker and a politician on the floor of this House. Simply authorising yourself, without any form of reasonable notice to the members of this House, to lodge a privileges motion is not what we or any reasonable member of parliament would expect from a Speaker.
Madam Speaker, as the member for Goyder I am sure you will be a passionate and strident representative of your electorate. From my perspective, and I suspect many in this House, you are also the representative of this House. You maintain the integrity of this House and, sadly, sitting in the Chair tweeting reflections on individual members of this House is not consistent with the office, and expectations of the office, of the Speaker.
There is no thrill or trill of excitement in me by bringing this motion before the House, but it is necessary to make sure the integrity of this House and the office of the Speaker are maintained so we can give comfort to the people of the Northern Territory that the Speaker of the House understands the role.
Speaker McCarthy was a quintessential Speaker when it came to the integrity of the role, rising way above partisan politics. I did not see him in a parliamentary wing meeting when he was Speaker.
Speaker Aagaard had to navigate the difficulties of minority government, and whilst occasionally voting with the government, I always felt she was concerned about the integrity and reputation of the House. It is not tolerable that members are being reflected upon in the public domain on Facebook, the tweeter-sphere domain, etcetera, by the Chair.
It erodes my and other members’ confidence in this House that I will get a fair hearing when I raise a point of order or an issue of some dispute or contest, Madam Speaker.
It is a clear cut argument that I put before members of this House ...
Ms Fyles: A few tweets upset you.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on the interjection that a few tweets upset me – a good interjection. A few tweets from the Chair, whilst the House is in session reflecting on people in the House, is not appropriate. It would be the same as a referee on a football field calling out a personal opinion on the players then being surprised when the players bridle at some of the decisions the referee makes. That is what is occurring here.
This is an unprecedented motion. To put not too fine a point on it, I understand that you were informed of the likelihood of this motion earlier today by the Chief Minister.
On the two other occasions this situation occurred in this country the Speaker, for the sake of the dignity of the House, chose to step aside rather than bring the motion on.
Madam Speaker, you have chosen not to do that, and that is your right. You will even, no doubt, enjoy a right of reply, as you should well do. Unfortunately the many tweets, public comments on radio and television, even today, reflecting publicly on whether or not payments are being made to the member for Arnhem, are not appropriate for a Speaker.
I do not enjoy this motion, but it is one the House has to consider. I advise Madam Speaker and all members of this House that this motion was considered carefully and thoughtfully.
Mr GUNNER (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, Labor does not support the suspension of standing orders or the late night coup on the office of the Speaker. This is an outrageous, unprecedented attack on the office of an independent Speaker, a Speaker who has acted over the course of her tenure with respect, in a considered fashion, a sensible fashion, and in a manner that has earned the respect of Territorians. Labor supported Kezia as Speaker when she was a member of the CLP because we knew she would do a fair and considered job in the Chair. Labor supported Kezia when she chose to become an Independent for the same reason, but with the added rider that we had seen her by then operate in the role of Speaker in a fair and considered manner. That is all you can ask of the Speaker. She has done it by action and has earned the respect of Territorians and of this House, and she has earned better treatment than what is being meted out tonight by the CLP.
Today the CLP regained a majority in this House. The first thing they did was revert to their base instincts, which are to be arrogant and to bully. Tonight is an act of vengeance against the member for Goyder. It is not an act that will go down well with Territorians, the people you have a trust deficit with. This is no way to go about restoring the faith of Territorians – another late night coup. When Territorians are asked who they trust, the CLP or the Independent member for Goyder who sat in the chair as Speaker, there will only be one answer: the member for Goyder, Kezia Purick.
This action will not sit well with Territorians. You have already set a new low bar for government in the Northern Territory, and tonight you are plumbing to new low depths.
We stand with the Speaker. There are government members who should do the right thing and stand with the member for Goyder as well. She has executed her duty and had the strength of her convictions. She has acted in an impartial manner, as we all should, for her constituents.
Let us look at the sequence of events that has brought us here. The CLP decided to make a political stunt out of an ice bill. They called it on urgency and the majority of this House said, ‘No, we will consult properly with Territorians and stakeholders. We will act appropriately, as members of this House should.’ The CLP did not react well to that. They ran advertisements in the paper which are potentially in contempt of this parliament. As the member for Goyder, the Speaker made the considered decision she wrote to us about and moved a motion.
I will read from her letter:
- I do this in my capacity as the member for Goyder who, like any other member of the Assembly, has the right and responsibility, to ensure that the Assembly will uphold high values for all members and require accountability by the government.
That is really important because the CLP does not like scrutiny or being held to account. The member for Goyder’s grave mistake in their eyes is daring to hold a government to account.
It is our job, as members of this Chamber, to speak on behalf of the constituency. The CLP has chosen to hang the member for Goyder for doing her job as a local member. I will continue reading from her letter:
- I am not taking this approach lightly. I am acting in the interests of the democratic institution of the Assembly itself. It is the role of all members to protect the institution of the Assembly and to ensure it operates separate and distinct from government. The Assembly does not exist to do the bidding of government. It is where all Territorians are represented, not just the place where the executive is formed.
We believe you are a fair and respectful Speaker. We do not always agree with you, but we respect the fact you make decisions in a considered manner and we live with them because it is your job as a Speaker to do that. I will not speak for the Independents, but I can safely say they also respect your decisions, and we believe that is your role as Speaker.
That is what you do in this Chamber. You might not like being kicked out for an hour, but when it happens you take it. You might not always agree with the decision, but you wear your lumps. As far as the CLP are concerned and their base instinct goes, it is arrogance and bullying. Tonight we see an act of vengeance. This government does not like scrutiny and does not want to be held to account. The first action they take when they get the numbers is to hang the Speaker.
Territorians will not forgive this. You have done many bad things during your term of government, but this may be a step too far. This act will not be forgotten or forgiven by Territorians. You can kiss goodbye any chance of fixing the trust deficit you have with Territorians.
We do not support the suspension of standing orders. We do not support the late night coup on the Speaker, and we will fight this all night and in any way we can. We support the member for Goyder as Speaker.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, the government has just dug a hole bigger than the hospital hole at Holtze. No matter what the reason, if they think the public will agree to this they have rocks in their head. They might have a concern about how quickly your motion came before us this morning – it might not have been the way to do it. Is that a hanging offence? Not at all.
The issue the member for Goyder raised today is one I am also concerned about. If people read my media releases they would realise I had written to the Auditor-General about those ads and would understand I was extremely angry about them ...
Mr Tollner: You should have moved the motion, not the Speaker.
Mr WOOD: The member for Fong Lim says I should have done it. The Speaker is also the member for Goyder. We have a seat here for her. Some people have criticised her, and I understand why, for having the member for Karama sit in the Chair. One should remember it is very unlikely that people on the support side in this ad would support the member for Goyder’s motion.
The member for Goyder is my friend, am I am not speaking just because she is a friend. She is slightly eccentric. She gets those genes from her mother, who sat here in this parliament. That is the way she is, and the way many rural people are. I do not always agree with her. She has said things I would not say in a month of Sundays, but perhaps we should be proud of that because we are the Northern Territory. We are not stuck up all the time. We have some leeway in what we do and what we debate. We are a little free and easy, one of the benefits of living in this part of the world.
The motion today should not destroy the Speaker. People should be happy that we can debate an issue as serious as this in parliament without the threat of being hung, drawn and quartered because you have been brave enough to raise it.
Does that mean the next Speaker will be a puppet Speaker? Will that Speaker do what the Country Liberal Party government wants them to? They will not rock the boat because they will be out the door. You have an Independent Speaker. I was an Independent Deputy Speaker when we had an Independent Speaker before the Labor party got rid of them. I believe having an Independent Speaker is the best way to go.
The Independent Speaker has raised an independent issue. The issue relates to false claims in an ad with her name: Kezia Purick, Goyder. Who had respect for the Speaker when they did that? Do you blame the Speaker for saying, ‘You put my name in this ad. I will use parliament to say you have done the wrong thing.’
This motion to suspend standing orders is to set an execution in place which should not happen. The issues you raise today are not that important. Yes, you can be critical. I do not always agree with the Speaker, but is this a hanging offence? Some people have their noses out of joint, and some are scared we might debate a serious issue taxpayers paid for and which was a bunch of lies. Are you scared to face up to that? Are you scared to have that debate? I think you are, and the way to get around being scared is to sack the Speaker. You will look like dills in tomorrow’s news. It will take ages for you to recover because you will be seen to set up a puppet Speaker to do your bidding. You will look foolish.
I cannot support the suspension of standing orders. We should have a cold shower and go home. Let us deal with the issue another time – adjourn it – and move on. This is an unnecessary motion.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I too will not support the suspension of standing orders. I had no doubt, after this morning’s reaction from the member for Port Darwin, the Leader of Government Business, that they were not happy with the decision you took to uphold the integrity of this House. You did that by taking on the serious issue of government use of taxpayer funds to misrepresent what happened in this Chamber at the last sittings. It shows how dearly the member for Goyder holds the integrity of this House that she was brave enough to do that.
The issues the Leader of Government Business led in the suspension of standing orders from the House of Representatives reference were impartiality and to be seen as unbiased on party issues. At any sittings the member for Goyder has been just that. I say that because I have felt the brunt of the member for Goyder’s displeasure by being tossed out of the Chamber. I have felt the brunt of the member for Goyder as Speaker threatening to take me to privileges. I had to apologise over a media release. I cannot count the number of times the CLP, in opposition, issued media releases against the former Speaker, the former member for Nightcliff, but she was a stickler.
Our Speaker does the job as required: impartially. She continues to do that as an Independent, and the feedback I get from the public is, ‘We are so glad there is an Independent Speaker’. They see the bullish, arrogant and over the top behaviour of the government, know the numbers are precarious and want and like to think there is fair debate. Yes, we are guillotined from time to time by the Leader of Government Business; he uses the blunt guillotine to gag motions. When he is not exercising that, people get to debate things and the Speaker keeps the order of the House.
The Speaker, so many times, refrains from voting on matters when she has the opportunity to. On rare occasions she leaves the Chair to talk about matters she is passionate about, particularly rural planning. That is fair enough because she also has to represent her constituents.
Impartiality has been a hallmark of the years the member for Goyder has been the Speaker. It is evident she is unbiased on party issues by the fact she is now an Independent. She will always have her conservative leanings and her deep and valued friendships within the CLP, and that is natural. However, being unbiased on party issues is what you can achieve as an Independent.
A blunt and brutal guillotining and execution of the Speaker tonight would be one of your greatest follies, Chief Minister. The disingenuous speech from the Leader of Government Business pretended it was purely coincidental that the Speaker’s tweets and Facebook posts are proof she is not impartial.
That is unbelievable. Territorians will not be fooled by this brutal execution of the Independent Speaker by the CLP. They will not be fooled by any attempt you make to install one of your own into the Speaker’s Chair. Maybe there is an outside chance – a deal done with the Independent member for Arnhem. I have my money on the member for Blain, who is very ambitious. He has been an agitator against the Chief Minister in regard to numbers. This will be one way to stop that agitation.
People will not be fooled. They will see this for what it is: a vengeful retribution against the member for Goyder for standing up for the values we hold dear in regard to honesty. The advertisement, Chief Minister, was a bald-faced lie.
The Committee of Privileges would have to consider that. It is a motion to consider it, and you have the numbers on the Committee of Privileges. You could have dealt with it or, as you showed this morning with the numbers, adjourned it. You could have debated it and used your numbers to stop any referral to privileges, but you are not that smart. Instead, you chose to do something as ridiculous as this blunt and brutal action tonight. If you were smart, Chief Minister, you would have cooled your heels. You would have slept on it. Someone with some wisdom, hopefully somewhere in the halls of government, would have said, ‘Don’t be foolish. Don’t take on the member for Goyder. She is already popular because she is seen, believed and understood to be independent, fair and generous.’
Look at the number of people who engage with parliament as a result of the Speaker reaching out to the community. That is a good thing. People enjoy it; they feel welcome. The delegation from Niue felt welcome. She is very Territorian in her approach. She is friendly, not full of airs and graces, but nobody’s puppet. She is impartial. Will you install a puppet and make yourselves seem like bigger clowns than you are already perceived to be.
Cool your heels and sleep on it. Understand that you will not always agree with the Speaker. The Speaker will not always agree with you, just as with members of the opposition and the cross benches. That is what impartiality is, and the member for Goyder displays that constantly.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, the midnight bulldozer rumbles again! This is another midnight coup in Territory politics. We are already the laughing stock of the nation and you just added to that by wanting to sack an Independent, fair Speaker. Why sack her? Is it because you do not like being called out? You do not like accountability.
The Attorney-General said a few tweets and some Facebook posts were the reason to remove a fair, Independent Speaker. If it was not so serious it would be a good comedy. This is an outrageous attack on a Speaker who is fair and Independent.
Labor supported the member for Goyder becoming Speaker when she was part of your team. I can speak about her fairness because I was the first person kicked out of this Assembly, and not just once. That is okay because it is a House of passionate debate. I accepted it was nothing personal and that she had a role to uphold. Decorum in this Chamber is something those opposite have no idea about. You are the unelected Chief Minister who hung on after a midnight coup by refusing to resign and now, in the true style of the Giles government, there is another coup late at night to roll an Independent, fair Speaker. Maybe the Speaker will do an Adam and refused to resign. We will wait to see. You do not like scrutiny or being called to account.
Labor does not support the suspension of standing orders. We believe the Speaker has done a good job. We do not always like her decisions but we respect them. She has ensured that the role of Speaker has been upheld. She has withheld from voting. I have said to her, ‘If you agree with that, Madam Speaker, why not vote?’ ‘Because I am in the Chair and it is not appropriate’. She understands the role, something those opposite do not.
You are attacking an Independent, fair Speaker who stood up for her community. You claim you have no agreement with the member for Arnhem, yet if you are so confident of the vote there must be more to it. Territorians will not believe you.
We do not support the removal of an Independent Speaker. We supported the member for Goyder when she was appointed to the role as a CLP member, and we continue to support her as an Independent member of parliament. She has been firm, fair and honourable in her decision-making. In August this year we looked at whether the parliament should have an Independent Speaker because we felt that Independent role has been a good thing.
This motion is appalling. The reason given that this morning you did not have notice is appalling. You put an ad in the paper which was a lie. All our names were on it. You used the government crest. Did you think about that when you placed the ad? No, and someone has to be called to account for that. The Speaker has respected us and you should respect her.
To suspend standing orders late at night is the gravest motion this parliament will see. It is an arrogant move from an arrogant government, and one you will not live down. If you had any hope of regaining the trust of the community you have lost it after this. The member for Goyder is one of the most popular Independent members. People respect her because she says what she believes and represents her community fairly. She has a dual role in this parliament as the Speaker and as the member for Goyder, and she has done both well.
Your arrogant government was clearly not thinking. This is another thought bubble, to put it politely. Every one of you, before you agree to this motion, should think about it because this will reflect on you in your electorates. You might laugh, but it will reflect at the election next year. We do not support the suspension of standing orders.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I urge members to support the suspension of standing orders so we can get to the debate.
The reality is this Speaker has not been independent for a long time. The points the Attorney-General made were extraordinarily well put and discussed. I have been somewhat disgusted by the actions of the Speaker over recent months. The Speaker has appeared on television saying I am a disgrace. I have nowhere to go with that and cannot respond. I am dragged into parliament and there is a motion, but if you reflect on the Chair you are dragged into privileges and asked to explain. You feel defenceless against a bully when the Speaker is on the television publicly naming and shaming you. There is no way this Speaker can be considered independent.
The fact is 13 people blocked the ice legislation ...
Ms Moss: The urgency motion.
Mr TOLLNER: There was a reason for it to be passed on urgency and that was explained. Every mother and father with a kid addicted to ice, or every policeman dealing with people affected by ice, has to do it on a daily basis. It might not matter to people opposite, who only care about what is in the newspaper. The first item of business today was debate on the ice motion. When did we get to it? At 8 pm, after all the business the other side and the Independents consider important. There is no care for the mothers and fathers of ice-addicted kids or the police who have to deal with it …
Mr Wood: Rubbish. You are so arrogant.
Mr TOLLNER: The member for Nelson says it is all rubbish. If there is no committee involved and we do not spend tens of thousands of dollars on public consultations, he is not happy. Nothing can happen unless we form a committee. That is not the way government works, member for Nelson. At times you have to do things on urgency, and 13 people stopped that.
It was right for them to be named in the media. The government had the right to let all the mums, dads, police officers, medics and people involved in this know who stopped the legislation coming into force more than a month ago.
Today we have stunts from the members for Nelson and Goyder, trying to suspending standing orders so we could debate a censure motion on the government for an ad.
You talk about petty things! For an ad? A couple of months ago we had to suspend standing orders so you got notices of statements 24 hours in advance. The Attorney-General, the chief law officer of the Northern Territory, did not know about a possible privileges motion when he walked into parliament. You are screaming blue murder now, after suspending standing orders several months ago so you could get a statement 24 hours in advance. The reason you do not get statements is you cannot be trusted with them.
It is disgraceful. All you try to do in this House is create chaos. Ever since there has been a minority government, the opposition and the Independents have gone out of their way to create chaos.
You wonder why we laugh at the PAC. The member for Araluen suspended standing orders in the middle of the night to appoint the PAC. She received a $25 000 pay rise and no one batted an eyelid. Do you think that is appropriate? This was supported by our Independent Speaker? You have to be joking.
It is all about creating chaos and, as Speaker, your job is to maintain the integrity of this House, not create chaos. When a Speaker is actively involved in creating chaos you have serious problems. Territorians want stability in their parliament and government. They do not want a bunch of Independents and a riffraff Labor Party backed by a dodgy Speaker creating chaos.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, withdraw that comment.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw.
The idea of creating chaos in this House is obscene, but the Independents seem to think that is the way to go. The way to bring the government down is to create as much chaos as possible. This is supported and endorsed by the Speaker, who is leading the charge. Any one of those 13 people mentioned in the ad could have moved to suspend standing orders, but the Speaker did and there was no debate.
The Leader of Government Business should have been heard when he said, ‘A point of order, Madam Speaker! We are opposed to this.’ No, we did not debate that. No, we went straight into it. It is appalling behaviour from someone who is supposed to be above all that.
This Speaker has brought disrepute to this parliament. It has been shameful to see the conduct of this Speaker over the last few months. This did not just occur today; this is a culmination of events. This morning was the ultimate disgrace. This Speaker set aside standing orders, marched to a chair and put the member for Karama in the job when we have a duly elected Deputy Speaker. Again, you see the orchestration of chaos. The member for Karama is not even on the Speaker’s panel ...
Ms Lawrie: Yes, I am.
Mr TOLLNER: Since when?
Mrs Lambley: This morning.
Mr TOLLNER: Again, it is orchestrated chaos. It is a big call to remove a Speaker. You have to be pretty bad for the call to be made. The fact we have the riffraff on the other side, the muddling mob of Independents who are largely not independent and only interested in creating chaos in the House, is a disgrace. The Speaker should be above that, but in this case she has gone into the mud with all the grubby people who want to create chaos in the House, and she led the charge this morning. That is appalling behaviour.
The member for Nelson has a certain affection for the member for Goyder, and good on him. That is great. We all have at some stage. However, over the last few months I have been the target of the Speaker’s wrath ...
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: I am not complaining, but it is time to go.
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: It is not revenge. It is a love for the institution of the parliament.
Mr Wood: You are a little boy.
Mr TOLLNER: I could not give a stuff what people call me. I have been called names before and it does not bother me. When it comes from the Speaker in such a public way and I have no right of response, it is appalling, and the Speaker has stepped way beyond anything that can be considered independent.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I do not support the suspension of standing orders. This is an outrageous move by a desperate government. It is unwarranted and unprecedented to remove the Speaker from office on the whim of a motion that the Speaker, as the member of Goyder, moved in this House this morning on very valid grounds.
I have known Kezia Purick for close to 20 years. She ran the Minerals Council of Australia Northern Territory Division, and I worked in the mining sector. Whilst we did not have a close association during those years, when I worked in the minerals sector I had a lot of time for Kezia Purick. She knew her business, knew the Northern Territory and she knew her job.
When she and I were sworn in on the same day in 2008 I was pleased to see her. It signalled the chance you have in the Northern Territory, a chance people in other parts of Australia do not get. As Deputy Leader of the Opposition I have watched the member for Goyder and listened to her participate in debates, and, importantly, observed how she operates not only as a member of parliament but as a member representing her constituency.
Given the many years the member for Goyder has lived in the Northern Territory, she has a big reputation and a big following because of her integrity, her genuine interest in people and her capacity to fight for people and do the right thing. These qualities have made her a very good Speaker of this parliament, given she was dumped from the role of Deputy Chief Minister by the CLP and handed the role of Speaker. She has done the job extremely well.
I have been on the receiving end of Madam Speaker’s wrath. I have been asked to leave the Chamber once or twice, and asked to pipe down during debates. She is a rational, clear-headed person. She is not biased. She is entitled to her opinion and views, but she has undertaken her duties as Speaker of this House with dignity and diligence. Let us be honest, the only reason you want her out is that you are a desperate government desperately clinging to power.
You will go to any lengths to remain in power. We know nine government members, in a midnight coup in February, did not support the member for Braitling remaining as the Chief Minister, but somehow he is still there. What does the member for Braitling hold over you? How is it that even though he is so unpopular, not elected and flanked either side by the two men who led the midnight coup in February, he is still there? Somehow he is clinging on. Is it that to remain in that seat and hold on illegitimately to the title of Chief Minister he has to get rid of the Speaker? It is unprecedented in the history of this parliament.
Tomorrow our parliament will be in the national headlines once again. We will be a laughing stock. People will wonder about this – as described in The Age recently – exotic breed of Liberals in the Northern Territory known as the CLP. It is disgraceful. I do not believe every one of you supports this. I do not believe the member for Katherine, representing a rural constituency, has his heart in this. He knows his election prospects are damaged by unceremoniously tossing out the Speaker. I do not believe the member for Daly supports this, and we know he will reconsider his position at Christmas. I do not believe the member for Brennan supports this. I believe he has more decency than many on that side. I do not believe the quiet member for Arafura genuinely believes this is a good thing. He probably feels uncomfortable. You all seriously underestimate the backlash come the next election, the next edition of the Northern Territory News and the next bulletin on the ABC.
One of the best litmus tests in the Northern Territory as to how you are travelling is what Col Wicking puts in the Northern Territory News. I believe one of his cartoons in the next day or so will show a big bloke with a fag hanging out of his mouth and a big chair with a little man sitting in it. There will be some commentary around the boys club picking on yet another woman. Somehow, magically, the member for Braitling, unelected, unpopular – nine out of 14 did not support him – is still there. What hold does he have over you? I was gagged from talking about this during the last bill but we have been talking openly about it now.
This is what it comes down to. My name is on here as well. I did not block laws; we did not block laws. We exercised our democratic right to be informed about debate.
You have taken out taxpayer funds, member for Fong Lim. As Treasurer you should be ashamed. You put the government crest on, and spent taxpayer funds on, and advertisement in Northern Territory newspapers saying these people, including the Speaker, blocked the laws.
You have no reputation, member for Fong Lim, which is why you are not running in your seat. You are fighting with the member for Drysdale for pre-selection for Spillett. You know you are on the nose. You are all on the nose. Be it on your heads, this motion. I support the member for Goyder remaining as Speaker. She has done an excellent job. I wait with great interest to see who on your side is rewarded and put in the seat.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I do not support the suspension of standing orders. What is happening now is a bloody disgrace. I was fortunate enough to have dinner with Madam Speaker. The Minister for Business, the member for Sanderson, gave Madam Speaker a very affectionate kiss and cuddle. We were having dinner with the delegation from Niue, and now I know it was the kiss of death. Seriously, member for Sanderson, how can you support this?
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing order 62. That is offensive. I have a good relationship with you and it goes above what happens in the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Johnston, please withdraw those comments.
Mr Styles: You are a disgrace.
Mr VOWLES: I withdraw.
I find that comment offensive but I am big enough to take it on the chin. It does not affect me that much.
We know what happened this morning with the member for Goyder’s motion. We differentiate the roles she plays. This is about how she stole the thunder from the massive gas pipeline announcement.
For two or three weeks we have been hearing rumours about the member for Arnhem going back to the CLP or supporting the CLP in this House. We saw that today. We know the headlines are about what happened this morning and the member for Arnhem supporting the government. We know there is a deal. It will be announced and the deal will come out in the open. This morning took away your credibility and announcement of the gas pipeline. That was the worst kept secret we have heard about.
We thought bringing Larisa back, either supporting you or joining you in the next few weeks, was the nail in your coffin. The public will destroy you because you are showing you want power at any cost. Whatever it takes you want the majority back. You want to ram through legislation and do whatever you want in parliament. What do you need to do? You need another member so you work on the weakest link. ‘Let us get the member for Arnhem. Let us visit her, do things and get her back on board. We can do whatever we want.’ That is what happened.
During the lunch break I opened the NT News. Hello, on page nine it said, ‘CLP – Houston, we have a problem’. There was a negative 56 rating for the Chief Minister. The member for Fong Lim had a lower rating than Paul Keating at his worst. I am sure the member for Fong Lim wears that as a badge of honour. He is taking the hit.
The Leader of the Opposition has a positive rating because people trust him. They do not trust the Chief Minister, the member for Fong Lim or this government. We have polling. Your gas announcement was wiped out, you have the member for Arnhem back, and you have a page nine story saying you will be destroyed at the next election if something does not change. Eleven hours later we are committing this disgraceful act in parliament. We are sealing our fate. The public, because of this government, thinks we are idiots, are in this game for ourselves, do not think of anybody else and are all a joke. This – everybody in this room knows it – proves it. There have been some lows in this Chamber, but this is the lowest of my three years as a member. This is the lowest of the low.
I have been tough on the Speaker and she has kicked me out a few times. Once she kicked me out and I did not even say anything. I took it on the chin. I might have mumbled a few things under my breath but I went out the door and said, ‘She’ll kick me out for an hour. I will come back in an hour and I’ll learn a bit more. I will suck it up but I’m coming out here.’
When the Speaker says something you believe it. We supported the Speaker when she said she would become an Independent – ‘I want to be the Independent Speaker’. It is a monumental thing to go to both sides of politics for approval to be an Independent Speaker. It shows the respect we all have for her in that role.
Tonight the member for Port Darwin said there were a few tweets. His ego was hurt a bit by it. She was tweeting and Facebooking – this is the modern world. We live in a technology era. These things happen.
The member for Port Darwin, the Minister for Health, wanted to slap the member for Nightcliff. He had prisoners escaping. We had the Palmerston hole that is not a hole that is now – I do not know what it is – ripping $39m off the federal government for a payment because works had to start on the facility.
I go back to Peter Styles, the member for Sanderson, at dinner tonight. I find it unbelievable that people can look someone in the eye, have a conversation, then 45 minutes later vote against somebody they said they respected, said is a good person and does a good job as Speaker. You want to get rid of her because she does not fall in line with you and because you have had a few issues today, and over the past few months, with her not supporting you.
Has anybody on that side been kicked out of the Chamber? There would not be too many.
Mr McCarthy: None.
Mr VOWLES: No one on that side of the House has been kicked out, and we have robust debates. I find it hard to believe that, all of a sudden, the member for Goyder’s position of Speaker is untenable. I struggle with that. It is a disgrace for all of us. You will not come back from this with the public. Having the member for Arnhem support you is a terrible look for politics. Whoever thought of that strategy seriously needs to get another job because you have sealed your fate. Now we are doing this. You are about to remove probably the most popular member in the public’s eye – I say that with a slightly hurt ego – and put someone in who will tick and flick anything you want. That is a disgrace for democracy and for this House.
On that side of the House there is a big morality problem. The member for Katherine has done more for relationships with Vietnam than anyone previously. The relationship in Katherine has become a bit dodgy, and with you supporting this, member for Katherine, you are seriously jeopardising any opportunity you have of being re-elected. I know you support the member for Goyder. I know the minister for Sport, the member for Daly, is a great supporter of the member for Goyder, and I struggle to believe he supports this motion.
I am a little nervous about numbers on your side of the House. I am sure you will let the member for Arnhem out of the office to vote. She is probably locked in Adam’s office waiting to come down for the vote.
We need to seriously look at ourselves and ask what we were elected to do, who we represent and what we are trying to achieve. My wife just finished studying psychology, and if you look up the meaning of narcissist – a lot of people on that side of the Chamber tick all the boxes for a narcissist.
What we are doing here is a disgrace, and it is disgraceful that this parliament has sunk so low. The realms of reality have melded into one. Just like the member for Port Darwin’s goatee, this needs to stop and needs to go. That is not Madam Speaker, the goatee needs to go, member for Port Darwin.
Let us do the right thing and not remove Madam Speaker, the member for Goyder. We should support an Independent Speaker, not someone who will tick the boxes for whatever you want. You are the government, so lead. Be the government you are supposed to be and do the right thing for Territorians. This is not the right thing for Territorians.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I do not support the suspension of standing orders that would allow a dastardly, low and dishonest motion to be debated in this House.
I fess up straightaway that I am a techno dinosaur. I am more comfortable on a high-frequency radio but I made two tweets tonight. The first one said, ‘CLP moved to remove the NT Legislative Assembly Speaker and replace. Bad day at the office for government with usual CLP tantrums. Grow up.’
When the member for Fong Lim was on his feet I tweeted, ‘Tollner pleads aggrieved by NT Speaker. Big fella takes a dive. Get up, Treasurer, and run the ball.’
My wife has just texted me to say, ‘Get on your feet and defend Kezia’. I have joined the technological age, Madam Speaker, and I pick up on that lead because it is a technological age. I thank the member for Fong Lim because he, by default, allowed me to benefit from the Dave Tollner school of media: any media is good media. The ice poster with my name at the top which got all the television coverage created a perfect platform for me to discuss with my constituents exactly what it was about. Thank you, member for Fong Lim, because it was great media for me. It was an opportunity to have an honest, open and accountable conversation about what took place when the government used taxpayer funds in a punitive sleight-of-hand attempt to discredit members of parliament.
I go further to prosecute a budget process and an entry in the CLP government budget books where $35m was transferred to the Chief Minister’s department. That became the Chief Minister’s new fund. We said then and see now it provided a lucrative opportunity to run this type of tactic. It was about the advertising. We have seen saturation advertising on television, in newsprint, on radio and in social media. Then we had the low depths of the ice campaign, with the ad in the Northern Territory News almost immediately – like spoilt brats. They were not able to cope with an honest debate or an open and accountable opposition in the House of the people so they put a cheap ad in the newspaper, and it has completely backfired. That has been brought back into this House to hold the government to account. Fair cop. Anybody would fess up and accept responsibility for that motion to be debated.
No, we have seen a twist and turn. We have seen a very bad day at the office, an incredible tantrum, and an unprecedented move in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly to remove the Speaker. The government is failing and the Leader of Government Business, who had the most integrity of the CLP outfit, has really dropped the ball.
We have seen a litany of failures over a number of weeks now. I can understand the stress and psychological pressure the member for Port Darwin has been under. He is a heavy hitter, a hard worker, and an intelligent human being who has had one litany of failures after another. The member for Port Darwin would have an ego to match his intellect. It must be hurting and be seriously impacting on his ability to make clear and decisive judgments. In the House tonight we see the result of his poor judgment.
I am disappointed personally because, as I have said many times, I learn lessons from everybody. I learnt lessons from the member for Port Darwin in opposition, and I learnt lessons from him in government. This is a disgrace. I believe the pressure is too much and he needs to seek help, because this decision is not typical of the member for Port Darwin, I know. This is desperation politics.
However, it fits a pattern. There has been a litany of failures across a number of portfolios over an extended period of time, some serious hammering in the media, no support from colleagues because they are a divided bunch and, consequently, poor decision-making and the search for a scapegoat. His scapegoat is a respected Territorian not only because of her family and position in the Territory, but also as the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly.
The other thing that concerns me about the member for Port Darwin bringing this motion to the House today is we heard extensive debate about the sacking of Ken Middlebrook, the Commissioner for Correctional Services. That, to me, was an example of the minister not taking responsibility. He looked for a scapegoat. He was quite happy to sidestep that responsibility and allow a public servant to take the fall – the end of a career in the Northern Territory which does not fit the character I came to know.
Again, I believe this is stress. There is something seriously wrong here. The debate used me as the scapegoat and desperately clutched at any semantics possible to paint everybody else as the perpetrator, and the minister, the member for Port Darwin, as the victim. While listening I was thinking, ‘I had the privilege of working with Commissioner Middlebrook for four years’. The member for Port Darwin had the privilege of working with Ken Middlebrook, the Commissioner for Corrections, for just over three years. The minister has had 36 escapes, an incredible litany of failures trying to deal with complex juveniles in the Northern Territory, and a major media disaster pouring concrete and wasting $27 000 worth of taxpayers’ money. It has been one disaster after another but it fits the pattern of just blame somebody, get somebody else to take the fall and we will move on.
There seems to be a common agenda amongst members opposite that if we sack our Speaker we will replace her with somebody who will allow an easier flow within the parliament. I do not think there will be trust in this decision.
The member for Johnston mentioned today’s Northern Territory News. It seems to be another coincidence that some serious polling suggests you guys are on your way out no matter how much of that $35m you invest in advertising across the community. No matter how many economic projects you add to your signature, no matter what you say or do, it seems nobody believes the CLP, nobody trusts the CLP, and for a government that is a very serious position to be in.
It is ironic that you woke up to that news story today and tonight you want to sack the Speaker. It seems the victim blame mentality has intoxicated all of you. This is not the solution. It is completely out of order, and we should show respect for our Speaker and thrash it out across the House. We should be strong and have the courage of our convictions to thrash it out. If there is a motion before the House to refer a matter to privileges, let us debate it.
It was pushed today but is still on the Notice Paper. We suddenly see a radical move to sack the Speaker, the member for Goyder, who brought the motion to the House.
It is interesting when you live and work in an electorate which set up the first work camp in a new era of corrections. I celebrate lots of the initiatives of the Barkly Work Camp, and it is great to keep a close relationship with the staff and inmates at the Barkly Work Camp. I sincerely say that the prisoners at the Barkly Work Camp saved our football league. We could not get umpires or administrative staff and were slowly running out of generous and diligent volunteers in the community. The prisoners were training and started to take over the duties. They saved our league so all our players and their kids could participate in the sport they love, administered by the Barkly Work Camp, and others now, but they saved it.
I wondered tonight, when listening to this motion, how it would be if I suddenly took offence to the Barkly Work Camp and their umpiring of the Barkly AFL and wanted to sack them. I could say, ‘No that’s not good enough, you tweeted something about me’. I could say, ‘You didn’t support my team’. I could also say, ‘My team seems to be disadvantaged by your administration so I will sack you’. How would that stand in the community? On the opposition benches we have a similar position, questioning whether government will gain any credibility in the community from this decision. You have to ask if you will get the desired outcome. Will it increase your polling? Will it increase your parliamentary performance? Is it better to take it on the chin and work through it like Territorians?
It seems to be in your hands until there is a division. Members on this side of the House have questioned whether you really have this together because there are some serious concerns about your teamwork and collegiality. Tonight there has been mention of a dysfunctional government and a litany of failures. You will be judged by this motion and, at the end of the day, no matter which way it goes the people of the Northern Territory will decide, and the people are always right.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, I do not support a suspension of standing orders. It is past midnight on another extraordinary day in the Northern Territory parliament. It is shameful that we have come to this. The position of the member for Goyder, a firm but fair Speaker, has been challenged.
The government has had some challenging moments with numbers recently. This morning it appeared it had managed to gain a number and can win on the floor. The government’s true colours are again coming through loud and clear, and we can see that through the extraordinary actions this evening.
The reason people have such strong views about this government is because of its actions. It has been consistent over three years. People have seen an arrogant, ruthless, menacing government. They have seen a bullying and vengeful government. Today we see another example of that.
I listened to the member for Fong Lim. Two government members have spoken to this motion to suspend standing orders. I am curious to see if more government members will speak to this very serious motion before the House.
I do not believe all government members believe this is the right move. Many people in the government, advising the government, have grossly underestimated the consequences of this. They have grossly underestimated the value Territorians place on the Speaker and the respect they have for the member for Goyder. She is extremely well respected in the community because she talks the talk and walks the walk.
She has been firm and fair as a Speaker, and today she had the guts to stand for something she felt was grossly wrong and moved a serious motion about a government action that was completely out of line. That action was running the now infamous ice ad, an ad that crossed the line of decency and what Territorians expect from us as members of parliament. It crosses the line of appropriateness when a politically charged and misleading ad is run by government at taxpayers’ expense. That is unacceptable, and I have received a lot of feedback about it, as have other members. People can see the need for the government to be scrutinised over that ad because it was way out of line.
It is the midnight hour and the government is trying to remove the member for Goyder as Speaker because some serious questions have been asked about its answers. Again, it is taking vengeful and arrogant action that will not go down well with Territorians. This will backfire on you badly. You already have huge trust issues across the Territory. People have seen nothing but self-inflicted chaos from this government over the last three-and-a-half years. What you are doing tonight will not improve the situation or help regain ground in the trust stakes. You will lose a lot of ground. You have grossly underestimated what you are doing tonight.
In the midnight hour we have spoken about Twitter. I have a tweet, #Remember the dream team. It is a picture of the members for Katherine and Port Darwin in the Elsey Room after the midnight coup. If they had managed to pull that off I wonder how different this year would have been. Where would the CLP sit with Territorians now? How would this year have been for the Territory? What more could we have achieved? We would have seen a different style of leadership and would not be in the position we are now, with this arrogant and vengeful government trying to overthrow a firm, fair and Independent Speaker.
This is a shameful act. I cannot believe we are going through more extraordinary times. I do not believe the rest of my political career will be as bizarre or interesting, but also as shameful, as the last three years. It is a silly move by the government and you have grossly underestimated it. Let us see who else votes to suspend standing orders and remove the Speaker.
This is not a good move. You will lose even more ground and, my goodness, you have a lot of ground to make up so think carefully. It will not reflect well on this parliament.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, you have always been a friend. I was very disappointed when you left the CLP and I have no qualms in saying that. I do not think you and I have ever had words, but I am happy to be corrected.
Tonight we are talking about a suspension of standing orders to remove the Speaker. I would not like to see that happen because I would love to see the member for Goyder remain as Speaker of the Northern Territory parliament. However, what has happened in this parliament over a number of months has seen public confidence in the parliamentary process eroded.
The member for Fong Lim spoke about elements of chaos in parliament. This continues to make the parliament a laughing stock. That is not the government, but parliament. That is a significant challenge.
Some people in the Chamber talk about the ad, ice and so forth. This suspension of standing orders has nothing to do with that.
A perfect example of how parliament has disintegrated to unprofessional levels was highlighted in this debate when the member for Johnston made derogatory remarks about the member for Katherine and Vietnam. Funny it may be, and the members for Casuarina, Wanguri and Fannie Bay laughed at it.
Mr Vowles: You did it to me on ABC radio. You accused me and it was proven not to be true.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Johnston.
Mr GILES: It was allowed to go uncorrected in this Chamber and it is not fair and reasonable to make personal attacks across the Chamber. Attacks of a personal nature about partners or otherwise should not be made. It is not the first time it has been done in this Chamber. I have been subjected to it and it goes untested ...
Mr Vowles: Proven you lied on it.
Mr GILES: And again, Madam Speaker.
My preference is for the member for Goyder to be Speaker. This motion is about how we improve the quality of parliament in the Northern Territory. How do we ensure it is not about chaos but about process and procedure, it contains robust debate, and we continue to deliver on the principles of democracy? Yes, some small examples have been cited of the Speaker talking on social media, the Speaker doing this and the Speaker doing that. I believe the Speaker should be independent and should not hold an opinion. I know as the local member you speak as the local member ...
Ms Fyles: A guaranteed independent member.
Mr GILES: I gave you the privilege of being quiet when you spoke, member for Nightcliff.
I believe that any local member has an obligation and an opportunity to represent the views, interests and concerns of their constituents. However, when you take a different position, whether as a minister, a Deputy Chief Minister, Leader of Government Business or Speaker, you take on added responsibilities and you need to rise above many of the issues that present themselves.
At the start of today I thought, ‘Here we go again, more chaos.’ Despite the members opposite trying to pinpoint individuals on this side, everybody here has had a gut full. They were all annoyed about it. You are pinpointing the wrong people – those you thought might have had more of a gut full than others. People had just had a gut full. Every time we come to parliament it is, ‘Let’s run as much muckraking and chaos as we can. We will not hold government to account. Let’s not debate tough issues or advance issues for Territorians.’ This has been an issue in the Chamber for months and I have wished, hoped and prayed that the Speaker would stamp her authority on improving performance in the Chamber, but that has not occurred.
This morning the Speaker sought to make a ruling on her own motion. From an independent point of view that is unheard of. It is like a football umpire playing for the other side during the game. The orchestration of the game – ‘I have sent you a letter’. I have just been told my letter is in this envelope on my desk. I had no idea it was there. It arrived at 9.50 am. The Deputy Speaker, who is elected by this parliament, did not sit in the Chair; it was the member for Karama, and the member for Port Darwin was not allowed a point of order.
I know it sounds trivial but this is the culmination of many things. We need to improve, collectively, the performance in this Chamber. For the Speaker to make a judgment ruling on her own motion then step aside goes beyond the pale. While everyone on this side was saying behind the scenes, ‘Let’s get rid of the Speaker today’, it challenged me because I want the member for Goyder to remain as Speaker. However, there were certain challenges I faced today.
There are many examples of the member for Goyder publicly speaking on a range of things, and I believe she has gone beyond the Speaker’s role in some of her commentary. Yes, there were Facebook comments and Tweets, but tonight on the ABC news I saw the Speaker of the Northern Territory parliament asking what cash had been given to the member for Arnhem to get her to vote with the CLP. Those comments are not becoming of a Speaker or of a Chief Minister. How can the Speaker make those comments? This is not personal. I have always liked and respected the member for Goyder, but how can a person in that position make that comment? To me that is too hard?
Ms Fyles: How can someone in your position refuse to resign?
Mr GILES: Member for Nightcliff, you are bringing the debate up again. You are really improving the level of debate.
We started today with chaos on the floor of parliament – no control, no respect for process, no respect for standing orders and the history of democracy through the Westminster system. We then went straight to the PAC stuff. We were not debating the first order of business, which was legislation about the misuse of drugs and trying to get ice off our streets. In all electorates people are talking about that – parents and kids. They are not talking about the Speaker moving her own motion. They are not talking about the PAC. They are talking about ice in the community, and that is why we are here. That is the improvement in parliament I want to see. That is why I support this suspension of standing orders.
I went to the Speaker today twice – without breaching any conversation …
Madam SPEAKER: Once.
Mr GILES: I spoke to you at the Chair the second time, Madam Speaker. I went to your office the first time and said, ‘Government members have lost confidence in you as Speaker. What can we do about it?’ I will not go into the rest of the conversation. I thought there was an opportunity to make some repairs. I mentioned it again as you sat in the Chair.
Changing a Speaker is an enormous thing and not a good thing; however, we must have a parliament that delivers confidence to the community. It must be strong, robust and independent. It has to be independent, and that is one of the challenges I face here. Although three members have spoken, everybody was disgusted this morning. We want to debate it. If you want to talk about the ice ads, let us talk about the ice ads. If you want to hold us to account, hold us to account, but we need a parliament that performs. That is incumbent on all 25 members of this Chamber, and for those who hold higher office their obligations and responsibilities are greater. You cannot ask who is receiving cash donations. Allegations of corruption are serious. Independence at that level of office must be maintained.
Labor does research; we do research. The biggest issue on anyone’s lips is instability in our parliament, yet we come into parliament and it is chaotic immediately. We know at the start of parliament Tuesday morning there will be chaos. By Thursday afternoon Labor and the Independents will be tired and it will be calm. Then at the next sittings it is the same thing. It is not about business; it is about how much chaos there is at the start and how quite it is at the end.
Every week is the same. The opposition gets all cock-a-hoop on the Monday before parliament and says, ‘Here we go’. The media asks how I am going. Am I stressed? We know what will happen. You will run some silly game at the start of parliament on Tuesday but by Thursday afternoon it will be calm. The wind will be out of your sails, you will go away and we will not hear anything until the next parliamentary sittings. You will spend all that time building up the next chaos plan. What can we do to erode confidence in the institution of parliament in the Northern Territory?
Earlier today the member for Nightcliff mentioned the number of people leaving the Northern Territory. We are losers in net migration every year and always have been. People also leave the Territory when they lose confidence. The more you talk the Territory down and show a destabilised level of governance, the more you erode the confidence of individuals and business. That is a challenge we all face.
We may have different philosophical ideas about how we want to see government run, policies run or programs, designed and that is fine. We all have differences of opinion.
This is one of the challenges. Be robust, but be mature. That is all we are asking for.
Madam Speaker, what you did this morning was outrageous and not becoming of a Speaker. What I saw on television tonight was highly offensive to any member of parliament. I support the suspension of standing orders.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I do not support the suspension of standing orders.
What I see tonight is the execution of another woman by the CLP government. It is plain and simple. This is not about process, not about what the Chief Minister said, not about the Speaker not adhering to the rules of parliament; this is about the government losing control of this parliament and seeing it as a necessity to execute the Speaker of the House, the member for Goyder.
Over the last 12 months this government has been obsessed with executing, alienating and exterminating. There are other examples of that which I will not go into.
The rhetoric I have just heard from three members of the government about standards of behaviour and adhering to process and protocol is the pot calling the kettle black. It is hypocritical and shallow. The only group in this parliament that Territorians do not have any confidence in is the government. Have you read the polling on page nine of yesterday’s NT News?
Mr Tollner: Labor polling.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Obviously not. It is not Labor polling, it was commissioned by the NT News and was not aligned to any political party. Even if it was attributed to a political party, member for Fong Lim – who continues to interrupt my speech after having a go at someone else for interrupting the Chief Minister’s speech – it still indicates, as have all the other polls over the last 18 months, that this government is in deep trouble. Why on earth would you go down this path? I do not understand why the government would try to execute the Speaker of this House tonight or any other night. It is insane. It is suicidal. Why are you doing it? It makes no sense at all. Have you not read the polls in yesterday’s paper? The previous five polls all indicate that your popularity is going down the drain, clear and simple.
Joe Bloggs sitting in Moil, Alice Springs or Tennant Creek can read and understand it. Obviously you cannot. Why are you doing it? The only reason that comes to mind is that you have lost control of this parliament. You are still a minority government. You have never come to terms with it and today, in the face of what the member for Goyder did in trying to uphold good process and protocol within this parliament, you could not stand it. You had a dummy spit. You have illustrated what can only be described as terrible judgment by doing something that is unprecedented in the history of the Northern Territory government. You want to throw out the Speaker because you cannot stand to not be in control of this parliament.
National notoriety is what we will have once again in the papers and on television tomorrow morning for being the most dysfunctional parliament in the Northern Territory. You can blame the opposition or the Independents, but you only have yourselves to blame. This dysfunctional government has executed several women now, not men, from the ranks of the CLP and cast them aside. Now you want to cast the Speaker aside because you cannot cope with a lack of control in this House. It is despicable and unheard of. What are you thinking?
It is a kamikaze act in the history of the Northern Territory parliament and of the Country Liberal Party of the Northern Territory. I can only imagine what party members are thinking if they happen to be awake at this time of the morning listening to these shenanigans. It is disgraceful. I cannot imagine what is going through your collective minds. Why have you come to this decision?
The Speaker of the House, the member for Goyder, your former colleague, has stood by you for the last seven or eight years, working alongside you, as have I in the past, and as have the members for Namatjira and Arnhem. Time and time again you illustrate to the people of the Northern Territory you are not willing to compromise or to play ball. You just want to exterminate people who get in your way or make you see a side of an argument or a perspective that does not appeal to you.
It is not how adults, good politicians or good representatives of Territorians conduct themselves. What you are trying to do in this House tonight is beyond the pale. I utterly reject it.
Ms ANDERSON (Namatjira): Madam Speaker, I want to make sure I put things on the public record. I do not support the suspension of standing orders. In general I want to talk about your family and you.
The government is making a huge mistake. The Purichs are an old Territory family and they have not just worked in the Northern Territory. Kezia’s sister has worked in Western Australia in the Ngaanyatjarra lands and Pitjantjatjara lands. She is a fluent Ngaanyatjarra speaker and Pitjantjatjara speaker. Aboriginal people across all that country respect this family. Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory respect the Purichs.
You will regret the decision to remove the Speaker, who has been a fair Speaker. Like everybody else in this House I was thrown out by the Speaker on one occasion, and we all take that. I thought this morning’s motion was the Speaker showing us the integrity of this House, teaching us right from wrong – you cannot break the rules. Her job is to make sure she outlines that for all of us as individuals, as members of parliament, and makes sure we act with integrity, respect this House and uphold the integrity of this parliament.
I do not believe anyone will like this news. I dare any one of you to walk down the streets of Darwin at lunchtime. We want to see that because there is more support for Kezia Purick across the Northern Territory than any of the 12 of you sitting on the other side. You will regret this decision.
Ms MOSS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I do not support the motion before the House to suspend standing orders.
Quite frankly, I am appalled. What an incredible first year I have had in parliament with the things I have seen. Thank you very much to those opposite for providing a real lesson in what not to do in government. Tonight the Chief Minister gave reasons for suspending standing orders. He spoke about not wanting to start every parliament in chaos, yet at 12.45 am we are debating this appalling motion to suspend standing orders to remove an Independent Speaker who is highly respected. Territorians, tomorrow morning, will be waking up to this news …
Mr Wood: This morning.
Ms MOSS: This morning. Thank you, Gerry. This morning Territorians will be waking to this news wondering what on earth happened overnight. You will be judged harshly for it. No matter what happens, whether this succeeds and we debate what the member for Port Darwin believes he can sell to Territorians about why we should remove the Speaker, you will be judged harshly for what has happened in the House tonight.
You will be judged because the member for Goyder is a highly-respected member of this parliament and a highly-respected Speaker. I have had the pleasure of watching Madam Speaker, and I acknowledge that she is sitting here tonight while we debate whether or not she should be removed as the Independent Speaker of the House, how difficult that must be, and how she is conducting herself in the manner she always does, with respect to every member of this House.
The Chief Minister talked about an erosion of public confidence and about chaos, things he knows very well. He also said this all started a few months ago which, as has been pointed out by other members of the House, was when we first had a minority government. The government was not interested then in showing respect for other members of parliament. The Chief Minister did not show any respect for the Independents or the opposition. The government has lost control of the House. The government does not like that and is looking for someone else to blame. Something has to change here and I do not believe it is the Speaker.
Of course the member for Goyder is passionate about issues on behalf of her constituents. That is the reason she is sitting in this House, just like every other person. She was elected by her constituents to represent them. She has a right to act for the true welfare of the people in her electorate, and she does that with grace and great passion. We have all witnessed the member for Goyder standing up for her constituents with great gusto.
She also conducts herself in the role of Speaker with fairness, integrity and grace. I have had the pleasure of watching the Speaker over the last week with the Commonwealth Youth Parliament – young people who were here for a week. We had a sister parliament in here today, and I can only imagine what they will be thinking when they see what has happened.
The Speaker represents the parliament and welcomes the community and our parliamentary colleagues from around the world. She is highly respected for that for good reason.
I want to point out the hypocrisy of the people moving this motion. Today we called for the resignation of the member for Port Darwin, a minister who has made a range of highly-inappropriate comments and actions over a long period of time, including, as the Minister for Disability Services, mocking a member of this parliament who has a hearing impairment and comments about senior Territorians with a terminal illness. There is a range of things we can point to. He is the Minister for Children and Families, the Minister for Disability Services and the Minister for Correctional Services, and members of this House debated his record today. We talked about the passion the member for Port Darwin has for his job and his achievements in the role. The Chief Minister showed his support for the member for Port Darwin. Yet we are here at 12.50 am debating removing the Independent Speaker of the House, who, as far as I can tell, has done nothing to deserve this treatment.
That is hypocrisy. This is a serious motion to put before the House. I would like to hear from more government members because we have only heard from three. The Chief Minister claims everyone on that side supports this motion, so perhaps we will hear from the member for Sanderson. Maybe the members for Daly or Blain, or others, can tell us why they believe we should suspend standing orders tonight.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, members have spent a lot of time tonight talking about independence. The issue I raised was impartiality not independence. I do not mind if Madam Speaker is a member of a political party or not, is an Independent or whatever. The issue is, and must always be, an impartial Speaker. A Speaker who constantly criticises members of this House, makes suggestions of impropriety and questions their motives, cannot sit in judgment of those members. The Speaker is the judge. This is the highest in the tradition of the Westminster system. This is the highest court in the land. How would members respond if a judge of the Supreme Court was tweeting or passing comments about the performance of witnesses in the witness box or lawyers at the bar table?
There would be outrage; people would be upset. What do we expect from our judges? Impartiality. We want impartial judgments passed upon us based on the issues before us. Members have said they have been thrown out by the Speaker. That is a reflection of their conduct and a matter for them and the Speaker.
You cannot assert yourself as an impartial judge because you are required to make judgments in the Speaker’s role time and time again. When I stand here knowing the Speaker has been making comments in the public domain, reflecting on me and my performance and whatever else, how can I have faith in the judgments being made? How can I have faith that the impartiality I look to the Speaker for exists when I know he or she is not showing impartiality? The Speaker is being quite partisan and that is the problem. It is not independence but impartiality. It is a clear and important distinction to make.
The Speaker must be beyond reproach and beyond the manoeuvring that happens on the floor of this House, yet this morning we saw exactly that sort of manoeuvring.
It was about getting involved in the game. A judge in the Supreme Court does not buy into the game. He sits back and gives directions where they are needed. Ultimately, the contest that occurs before the judge is the contest the judge then passes a judgment on. That is the role of the judge. That is the role of the Speaker. I cannot, nor can any member who is being criticised by the Speaker publicly, often unfairly, have confidence in the fact a judgment will be passed in accordance with the merits of the matter and not necessarily a reflection of some judgment made or premade before we came into this House.
That is the failing I am trying to address in the House today. The absence of impartiality is, unfortunately, highly pronounced. It is writ large in the House of Reps practice, and it is writ large in the implications of how this House should run. That is what I am, and I presume other members of the government are, contesting.
I do not wish to speak at great length as there are a number of items of business to get to, subject to this suspension being successful. I think we just get on with the business.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 13 Noes 12
Mr Barrett Ms Anderson
Mr Conlan Ms Fyles
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Mrs Lambley
Mrs Finocchiaro Ms Lawrie
Mr Giles Mr McCarthy
Mr Higgins Mr Manison
Mr Kurrupuwu Ms Moss
Ms Lee Ms Purick
Mrs Price Mr Vowles
Mr Styles Ms Walker
Mr Tollner Mr Wood
Mr Westra van Holthe
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Remove Speaker from Office
Remove Speaker from Office
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker I move that:
1. the Speaker is removed from office by the Legislative Assembly in accordance with section 23(2)(d) of the Northern Territory (Self-Government Act) 1978 (Cth)
2. a new Speaker be elected pursuant to Standing Order 7.
I will not go through the whole argument again.
Ms Fyles: We are!
Ms Lawrie: It is important enough.
Mr ELFERINK: That is fine.
Madam Speaker, I explained my reasons in the motion to suspend standing orders.
It is a matter of impartiality and of being able to trust the call of the Speaker, a Speaker who rises in judgment above us all and is able to convince us that she or he is able to sit in judgment by virtue of the integrity of the position they hold. I do not have that confidence, sadly, because of the reasons I outlined earlier.
I have been careful to make sure the issue of impartiality is well understood by every member in this House because it is writ large in the history of our Westminster system. I took the time to read those lengthy quotes to demonstrate the importance of that impartiality. It is vital. There is a contract between the Speaker and every member of a parliament, and that contract is that we cannot and do not reflect on the Chair. I have always been extremely careful not to do so and have deferred to the judgment of the Speaker. When I felt slighted I had, on occasion, cause to press on. However, eventually I sat down because I deferred to the Chair, and outside this House equally so.
I have never attacked the Speaker publically because I have been very mindful of the contract that exists between me and the speakership, but like a contract it has to be a meeting of the minds. There has to be a quid pro quo, a something for something, consideration of contract, and the consideration which must pass from the Speaker as a contracting party is that when I do not reflect on her she should not reflect on me or any other person in this House.
It is for that reason that Speakers live in that rarefied atmosphere. If a Speaker conducted themself otherwise there would be a breach of that contract, and that is the problem here. If you, Madam Speaker, were interested in maintaining the terms of that contract, the advice in relation to what you planned to do this morning would have been given to me in the meeting I had with you yesterday afternoon. No such advice was received. The letter claimed you did not want a surprise tactic, but it was delivered in such a way there was no other option than to be interpreted as a surprise. That is not part of the contract. It means the member for Goyder, in the embodiment of the Speaker, has stepped down from the speakership and lowered herself into the Chamber. She can no longer sit in judgment because she is part of the political fight and has abandoned her impartiality in the process.
When I call a point of order and it is flatly ignored, do I feel that is an impartial judgment? No, I do not, because the Speaker has made any number of comments about me publicly and reflected upon my role as a member of this House.
The contract is breached, and one of the resolutions of a breach of contract is that the contract can be terminated. That is what this motion seeks to achieve.
Mr GUNNER (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, we have heard three very weak arguments from CLP members about your integrity in this role and the grounds for the decision to bring forward an outrageous unprecedented attack on the office of the Speaker. The CLP said you dared to use social media, you dared to do your job as a local member and somehow you are responsible for the chaos in the CLP government. That is a whole new level of delusion.
Madam Speaker, you have done your job to the best of your ability and in a manner we believe retains confidence that you uphold a considered and sensible approach to the office. The minister who moved this motion against you is, at the moment, guilty of gross incompetence in the carriage of his duties. He has been prosecuted in the House today, including a censure motion over prisoners who have escaped under his watch, specifically the last one, an axe-murdering rapist who has been roaming the streets of Nhulunbuy.
We also saw him fraudulently dig a hole and fill it in at the Palmerston hospital site, and a number of other contraventions of his duty as a minister. Today he dares to call into question your ability to do your job. That is an outrage. Territorians trust you, but they do not trust that mob. Their use-by date has well passed.
Territorians cannot wait to kick you out of office because you have failed your duty to them and today you are being arrogant bully boys again. Everything you are guilty of doing over the last three-and-a-half years – you come here at midnight and do it again.
As soon as you get the numbers you revert to your base instinct, which is being arrogant, bullying people and being vengeful. Territorians will not forgive this action. They will wake up in the morning to this news, and I doubt you will like their response. For the life of me I cannot understand why you are committing an act of gross political stupidity.
This attack on the Office of the Speaker diminishes the parliament. You have abused the trust of the people and are an embarrassment to the Northern Territory. You are making us more of a national disgrace, and I cannot understand how you can blame the Speaker for your gross incompetence as a government and the chaos on your side. Deciding to take an oval away from a school without consulting, and digging a hole and filling it in, are examples of gross incompetence by the CLP, yet Madam Speaker is somehow responsible for that and you want to execute her. It defies belief.
Madam Speaker retains the confidence of this side of the Chamber and we will be nominating her, if she will accept it, to remain as Speaker. She does a good job and should be the Speaker of this House. The question before this House is who should be Speaker. We believe the member for Goyder should be Speaker. She retains the confidence of this side of the Chamber and we believe she should stay in the Chair.
Madam Speaker, you have our vote of support.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, this new debate revolves around you being removed from office. I listened to the member for Port Darwin, and I often wonder if people go straight for the throat when they have a problem or if they look for a solution. Tonight we have gone for the throat.
Madam Speaker, you are not perfect, I am not perfect, no one is perfect. We all make mistakes and do things that are not quite right. If the government believed you were not doing your job properly, one member could have said to the Leader of the Opposition, ‘I have some issues with the Speaker. Could you and I have a meeting with the Speaker to discuss them?’ I do not know if that happened, but that is the first thing to do. It is like, ‘Shall we go to war? Before we do that, which could cause a lot of damage to ourselves, we might look for a peace treaty.’ We might say, ‘Let’s talk these issues through’.
If the members for Port Darwin and Fong Lim are finding it difficult to cope with things because of the Speaker – I have no doubt the Leader of the Opposition, being a member of this parliament too, may also have issues. I am sure they would be willing to meet with the Speaker, and perhaps the Clerk as a neutral observer, to discuss some of the issues. That way we could find a solution without going down this path tonight.
I ask the government to reconsider and look at another process to take it up – if they believe the issues are legitimate – with the Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition and the Clerk. Surely we do not have to go down this path to achieve a solution to issues you believe you have with the Speaker.
I accept what the member for Port Days says, but he raises the issue of impartiality. He raises other issues which may be fair enough, but a lot of what has been said tonight has occurred over a few months. The issue of today’s letter arose because the government also crossed the line of impartiality with the Speaker. The government placed this cowardly and untruthful advertisement in the paper which named the Speaker, and the government brought the Speaker into this Chamber by saying she blocked ice laws. We all know that is not true. What was blocked was an urgency motion.
The member for Fong Lim is scraping the bottom of the barrel when he says I have no concern for mothers and fathers affected by drugs because we asked the government not to rush this legislation through. After all, the government stuffed up. Is the government incompetent too? Who put two sittings of parliament close together? Who did that? Who designed the sittings so that the government did not have the 30 days it needed for legislation to be looked at and had to rush things through? That is the government’s fault. Should the government be censured for poor management? Should whoever designed this be sacked? No, we hope they do a better job next time.
These issues have not previously been raised in the parliament. I know people get the proverbial when they are kicked out, and some deserve to be kicked out, but this issue has not raised its head publicly before. I do not know if the Speaker has been spoken to in a formal manner by the government, through the Clerk if necessary, to discuss issues of concern.
No one has mentioned there being a reasonable approach to the Speaker about these issues. They have said, ‘We’ve had a few problems. Some of us have been unfairly dealt with by the Speaker. The Speaker has put things on Twitter.’ I reckon people who tweet are twits. Some issues may irk the government so why not discuss it with the right people outside this Chamber? No, we go straight for the jugular and say, ‘Goodbye, Madam Speaker. We will put our own version in place.’
I believe the general public respects the idea of an Independent Speaker. I believe you will be making a big mistake if you elect a member of your party to be Speaker. I have been around long enough to know where the bias will be, and it will not be on this side that is for sure.
I ask that we have a secret ballot for the vote. I will amend the motion ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Perhaps I can assist the member. My motion already refers to Standing Order 7. If it is a contested election it will be by way of secret ballot by virtue of that standing order.
Mr WOOD: I might need a ruling, Madam Speaker. We are not contesting a new Speaker ...
Madam SPEAKER: No, the motion is to remove the Speaker.
Mr WOOD: We are removing the Speaker. My advice from the Clerk is that we can have a ballot to see whether the Speaker should be removed. I am asking that a secret ballot be conducted for that.
I move that after the word ‘that’ in the motion we insert the words, ‘a secret ballot is conducted to determine whether the Speaker is removed from office’.
Speaking to that amendment, it is important to use a secret ballot. I was talking to people before about my experiences in Canada, where members, including the Speaker, the Chief Minister and ministers, are elected by the parliament through a secret ballot. It is a great way to do things. That means the parliament operates as a parliament, not a series of political parties. When there is an election for the Speaker, if there is more than one nomination there is also a ballot. Such a ballot is allowed in this parliament.
This is one of the most serious days in this parliament. We have had some serious debates on very serious issues. I remember the removal of abortion from the criminal act to the medical act, and regardless of people’s opinion on that we had a long night debating it. It was an excellent debate. We have had serious debates in this House.
This one is probably the most serious because it reflects on a person, their character and on the position of Speaker. I hope the government decides, before we take this ballot, that we will give the Speaker an opportunity to discuss this issue with both sides of parliament. In other words, let us withdraw this motion. That is what I would prefer. I know we do not have the numbers, so that would definitely be a move by the government.
This will have political ramifications for the government. Perhaps the government does not care. That is life in politics. That is not the reason to not proceed with this motion, but from a commonsense point of view we need to do this the right way, and this is not the right way.
Have you given the Speaker the opportunity to hear your views on problems with the way she operates as Speaker? Nobody is perfect. The Speaker has some idiosyncrasies other Speakers may not have. So what? If there is a problem with the way she operates, why not work through it? Why do we have to go down this path? Is this the one and only chance then you are dead? Do we discuss this with our Speaker as parliamentarians?
The member for Port Darwin spoke about the importance of our Speaker. I believe the Speaker is important enough to be given an opportunity to speak for herself. You, as members of parliament, you, as the government, should talk to the opposition and deal with this issue outside this parliament. Let us see where we go from there. This seems to be sudden death. ‘We made a decision in that room. We got upset.’ I do not believe there is chaos to the extent it is being used as an excuse here.
Yes, obviously this issue was dropped on people’s desks this morning. The reason the Public Accounts Committee put its motion forward was because members believed it had to be done while tenders were out for the development at Richardson Park. Also – it was proven in two votes today – we believed the government had won over the member for Arnhem and got her vote. If we did not bring this forward today – I have already heard that discussion – the government intended to wipe out the existing PAC.
We had no other option but to bring it forward today. That is what the so-called chaos was about. We believed the government was planning to make the present PAC defunct. That would have meant the PAC could not present its report. I do not know of any legislation – not urgency bills – that has not been passed by this parliament under a minority government. We have debated them. We have tried to bring the government into line to make sure the bills have had proper time to be discussed, but, as far as I can remember, no bills have been blocked by this side of the parliament.
There has been a lot of debate and that is normal. The great thing about a minority government is that some of us recognise we need to be mature, debate issues and recognise there is a government. The advantage is that the government has to work harder to show its legislation is worth supporting. Is that a bad thing? I do not think so. Does the government believe there is chaos? Yes, because things are not so easy. You cannot pass things when you feel like it; you have to work harder to get things through.
Are you blaming the Speaker for that chaos? That is an excuse for finding it a little more difficult to do your job now you are in a minority government. However, that is all irrelevant because I have no doubt you have won over the member for Arnhem. That has been proven tonight. Surely, if the member for Arnhem was not on your side she would have voted for the Speaker, but that has not happened.
Madam Speaker, I am not sure if this is the last time you will be in the Chair, but I hope not. I hope the government sees some sense. Regardless of your faults and what some on that side of parliament have said, I think you do a pretty good job. You control a mob which could sometimes be called rabble and sometimes is a rabble. You have a good understanding of the standing orders. When I was deputy I struggled with standing orders. You have your faults but are still a good friend of mine. I support you, and this is a despicable day in this House.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for his eminently sensible suggestion not to take the CLP sledgehammer approach to the parliament, to the Office of the Speaker, to our Speaker, who has been impartial and dealt with both sides of the Chamber in a tough but fair way when occasions have called for it. I thank the member for Nelson for suggesting that the Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition sit with the Clerk, that this motion is withdrawn, and issues either side of the Chamber might be aired in a respectful way.
I add, member for Nelson, that as father of the House and given the House has six Independents, you should be around that table too, but that would be for you to consider. As an Independent I respect your experience and wisdom at that table.
During the debate on the suspension of standing orders I heard a variety of contradictory reasons from members opposite for this despicable move to oust the Speaker. The first contribution from the Leader of Government Business was a denial that it was to do with the referral to privileges motion and that it was about Facebook and tweets. Then a contradiction came from the member for Fong Lim, who went straight to the chase, that it was the privileges referral; then he went into his personal grievances. We then heard from the Chief Minister that it was chaos in parliament. The man lives in a bubble of denial. The chaos in the politics of the Northern Territory – you cannot go past three Chief Ministers, more than 12 Cabinet reshuffles, members departing the CLP and a revolving door. During this Assembly we have witnessed the member for Arnhem go from the CLP to the Palmer United Party to Independent to some sort of arrangement to support the government.
The chaos has not been the doing of the member for Goyder. In fact, when the member for Goyder could no longer bear the chaos of the CLP and became an Independent, to the great disappointment of many Territorians she confirmed that she would support the government by not supporting a motion of no confidence. There was great hope in many people’s hearts who had been hanging out for an election to let Territorians have their say to end the chaos of the CLP when the member for Goyder announced her departure from the CLP, the fourth departure in a few years. It is unprecedented. By your own actions you have lost your own, not by the actions of the parliament or the Speaker.
The member for Goyder chose the honourable path for her former party, the CLP, and her former colleagues, who now sit in judgment of her without the decency of trying to work out whatever issues each of you has as a gripe or a dummy spit today. She chose the honourable path of maintaining a government in minority and trying to work with everyone, as many of us have witnessed over that time. When I was Leader of the Opposition she threw me out or threatened to take me to privileges, but that did not alter the fact I had a respectful working relationship with the member for Goyder. I would go to her on occasions and say, ‘As Leader of the Opposition, these are the issues I want to raise with you about what occurred in the Assembly today’, in a mature, respectful manner, because that is what you do.
Do not take the sledgehammer yet again. Do not get me wrong, it will give me a lot more ammunition to throw at you in my electorate, which is embracing the movement of Independents. They are over the behaviour of the major political parties ...
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: Little wonder when you hear the chortling and guffawing from the member for Fong Lim, who rates as the most unpopular politician in the Territory. Let us try to find someone else to blame, Dave.
You have an opportunity to remove the sledgehammer approach and take the diplomatic approach, as proposed by the member for Nelson. Be sensible. You would probably get credit from some corners if you did that. You also have an opportunity, if you continue with the sledgehammer, to do it in an honourable manner and allow a secret ballot on whether or not the Speaker is removed. Given that a secret ballot is allowed on a contested ballot for Speaker, it is not a big step to have a secret ballot on the grave question of removing the Speaker.
If there had been a skerrick of consistency in the arguments put forward by the government tonight – into this morning – about the reasons to remove the Speaker, you might have been onto something, but in your usual manner – where each of you fly off with your own deep-seated personal grievance issue rather than take a mature approach – you go in your chaotic directions – this has not been a credible debate by government. It will not be well accepted by the public because people are over this sporadic behaviour. Our parliament is well served by someone who, as the member for Nelson pointed out, understands the rules of the House, the integrity and importance of the parliament, and embraces and encourages interaction with parliament.
This is another chance to take a deep breath and apply some diplomacy to the grievances people pursue from different perspectives tonight. Sort it out as mature adults and let us keep an Independent Speaker, a truly impartial one. For all the complaints you put forward, I could stack up a series of complaints of my own, but I respect that it is what an impartial Speaker does. They dole it out on both sides. You find that hard to cope with, I get that, but that is what impartiality is.
Instead, you could install a puppet and open the path of greater arrogance at your own folly. Maybe you have decided you are on the slippery slope to a great election thrashing as polls are trending, so you want to do whatever you can without being held to account. Ultimately, every day Territorians are holding you to account for your actions. Take a deep breath on this one.
The member for Goyder, whether she is Speaker or not, will represent her constituents, and that is not the issue. The issue is fairness and reasonableness. Is it fair and reasonable for the government to attempt to remove the Speaker simply because it had a dummy spit today? No, it is not, and it is not in the interests of the Assembly. Take the member for Nelson’s sensible suggestion to sit around the table, but at the very least if you pursue this foolish action allow a secret ballot.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, nothing the CLP has put tonight provides any defence for these actions tomorrow. Tonight we saw an arrogant, bully boys’ government where members could not even look each other in the eye. The member for Arnhem snuck in and stood as far away from the government as possible but still provided it with her vote. The member for Daly left quickly. The question must be asked: what is this about?
We went from tweets and Facebook to some personal grievances from the member for Fong Lim. The Chief Minister tried to blame the chaos of the Northern Territory parliament on this. It is appalling. The CLP chose you as Speaker and you have acted in fairness. You have done nothing for this to happen tonight.
The Labor opposition is happy to take on board the member for Nelson’s suggestions. We are happy to be part of peace talks if that is what it takes, because right now we look pretty ridiculous. On Twitter and Facebook, if you care to look, everyone is talking about it. It is another midnight coup. This chaotic and dysfunctional government continues.
We heard today in speeches …
Mr Tollner: How did that get on there?
Ms FYLES: I pick up on the interjection and laughing from the Treasurer, the member for Fong Lim. Today in speeches it was claimed that the chaos and dysfunction was affecting the Northern Territory and our prospects, yet tonight we have seen a chaotic and dysfunctional move to remove an Independent, fair Speaker. We do not support that. The Labor opposition supported Madam Speaker when she was appointed to the role, and we continue to support her as an Independent member of parliament.
All on this side have spoken. A few of us have mentioned being asked to leave the Chamber. We do not necessarily agree with it but we get on with it. You have been firm, fair and honourable in your role, Madam Speaker. In fact, we looked at whether the Northern Territory parliament should always have an Independent Speaker to help make our parliament transparent and accountable. That is something this government hides from.
Territorians do not trust the CLP. I do not know what the government thinks this move will do or if it will somehow gain the confidence of Territorians. Our Speaker is well liked and has done a good job, yet, in an appalling move after midnight, you try to sack her. Is this because you need the Speaker’s vote to prop up your failing government?
Some serious questions need to be answered. However, right now we are trying to find a way to work through this. The member for Nelson has proposed discussing this. Attorney-General, you are always looking for ways to discuss things off the floor of the House. The elected Speaker is being sacked yet our unelected Chief Minister stays. It does not make sense.
I did not realise government members cared so much about the system of government and decisions, because members certainly do not act that way.
The member for Fong Lim feels he has been attacked and has nowhere to go. How do you think people in the community feel when you arrogantly ignore them and ram decisions through which affect them without any consultation? That is how they feel.
To say we only care what is in the newspaper is ridiculous. The Speaker has kept order in this House for three years. She has refrained from voting on a number of issues I am sure she would have liked to. She has taken her role seriously and acted with fairness.
This government does not like it when anyone holds it to account, whether it is the Speaker or the media. This motion tonight continues the arrogant record of treating members of the community with disrespect.
As the midnight bulldozer rumbles through again, the member for Port Darwin says our parliament is at grave risk. The Chief Minister tries to blame chaos, yet we have real issues which we spoke about earlier today – 36 prisoners escaping from correctional facilities, a hospital that seems to be a complete failure – we dig a hole then fill it in – which raise serious questions.
This is an outrageous attack on anyone who calls you to account. You do not like scrutiny or being held to account. We urge the government to stop and think. We do not know what the motives are behind this, but this certainly raises some questions. You are in a precarious state. You seem to have somehow gained the support of the member for Arnhem, but what is this all about? Do you realise what you are risking? It is an appalling decision.
Mr CHANDLER (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, it is with sadness that we have reached this point but I support the motion. The member for Goyder and I go back many years. Generally she and I have a good professional working relationship. The issue tonight has nothing to do with that but relates to a member’s capacity and conduct in the position of Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory.
The role of Speaker is the most important in the parliament. Judgment is a critical aspect of the role. The calibre and judgment expected of the Speaker ultimately comes down to the best interests of the parliament and the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory. Today a fatal error of judgment was made by the Speaker, and that is why the member for Goyder can no longer hold the position. Today the Speaker acted in complete contravention of all usual standards of judgment, justice, fairness and reason. The Speaker decided she would be judge and jury in consideration of her own grievances, regarding government advertising, pursuant to privilege under Standing Order 83. The Speaker considered and ruled on her own complaint, on her own allegation and on her own prosecution of a matter in which, she as member for Goyder, is the only named aggrieved party.
The Speaker then determined that her motion as the member for Goyder was so pressing that it should take precedence over all other parliamentary business. The Speaker determined it took precedence over the condolence motion for the victims and people of Paris, France, the misuse of drugs legislation and over Question Time. These miscalculations for purely personal political gain have destroyed the member for Goyder’s credibility as Speaker.
If the member had reasoned enough to pause, even for a moment during the morning’s proceedings, she might have taken notice of the numerous objections coming from the Leader of Government Business. Those objections, loud and clear, were justified because the actions of the Speaker, aided by the member for Karama, in attempting to hoodwink this parliament cannot be justified.
Today’s decisions are the equivalent of a judge in a court of law deciding to set aside a murder hearing for the day in order to hear his own complaint regarding a parking ticket he has received. The errors of judgment are threefold. First, the Speaker should not have considered her own matter moved under Standing Order 83. Indeed, this was apparently only done to ensure an outcome desirable to the member for Goyder. Second, the Speaker should not have given her own matter precedence over all other parliamentary business, because it inherently fails any reasonable measure of urgency and of detriment. Because it is her own matter it should have been raised as an ordinary motion in the course of the parliamentary program. Third, the Speaker should not have concluded in any way the prima facie merits of her own motion.
In separate correspondence to me in the September sittings of parliament, the Speaker made it clear that, unlike in the Commonwealth parliament, it is not her function to establish the prima facie evidence of a matter. Yet, in the Speaker’s correspondence to members today, she did just that. It can only be concluded that this was done to prosecute and promote her own grievance rather than being reflective of an objective consideration of the motion as Speaker.
The Speaker should show impartiality in the Chamber above all else. The Speaker should ensure standing orders are interpreted objectively. The Speaker embodies this Assembly and the office should be above the individual. Unfortunately, today the individual reigned supreme over the office. This fatal and fundamental error of judgment means that today we must say the member for Goyder, as Speaker, no longer carries the confidence of this parliament.
Madam Speaker, I support this motion to vacate the office of Speaker pursuant to the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, the member for Brennan has clearly been scripted by the member for Port Darwin with yet another angle around why you are in the wrong. It beggars belief.
It is not about you, Madam Speaker, as an individual bringing a grievance forward; it is about 13 people on this side of the House who, when this legislation was being rushed through with no consultation – I said in the debate today that when the urgency motion failed, the minister’s office instructed his people to send the second reading speech, the bill and the explanatory statement to 32 stakeholders. It had not been consulted on. We will not support legislation that is not consulted on or not evidence based from the bully boys on that side of the House.
That is not how government operates, not how this parliament operates and not how we on this side of the House operate. Losing the motion on urgency, which is what this is all about, goes to the heart of the matter. The government spent taxpayer funds on newspaper ads in the Northern Territory. It is politically driven and politically motivated by your political agenda. You are in breach of the act. You used the crest of this House. It is misinformed and wrong, and it is lies.
On the strength of lies you are now unseating the Speaker of this parliament. It is unwarranted, unprecedented and unforgivable. The member for Braitling is unelected, unlike the Speaker who was elected by members of this House, and somehow he remains in that chair. What does he have over you? Every one of you, including the two men who sit either side of him, in February – fond as they are of midnight coups, and it is now 1.45 am – led the coup. The new Chief Minister, the new Deputy Chief Minister and the member for Port Darwin have resolved that, and now here we are. They are sitting either side, supporting the unelected, unpopular Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, who, under his failed leadership, is entirely responsible for the chaos the government is in. It is through your doings that you are a minority government, and you are desperate. You cannot get laws through or things you want to do. You cannot hide things under the carpet anymore because you are a minority government.
That does not suit you so you are getting rid of yet another woman from your side. You will go to any length to ensure you retain government and have the power. Well, good on you. Go ahead, you can and will do what you want.
The polls show your electoral prospects are dismal. You are going backwards, and I bet London to a brick, member for Fong Lim, you will not be pre-selected for Spillett. If you sit in Fong Lim you will not win that seat. It is not up to us; it is up to Territorians. Territorians will decide your future. Let us hope it is sooner rather than later so we do not have to suffer under the havoc you wreak on the Northern Territory. Speaking of reek, you are on the nose.
Madam Speaker, I wish you well and hope you retain the Chair. You are a good Speaker and have served this parliament fairly and in the best interests, not of yourself, but your constituents and Territorians.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I speak on behalf of the constituents of Barkly. I agree with the member for Nelson that if the government wants to claw back any thread of credibility in this total hypocrisy – the member for Brennan gave a synopsis of hypocrisy in his scripted piece – let this be decided in a secret ballot. Let me go home and tell the constituents of Barkly it was decided in a secret ballot and showed a semblance of justice. It is a great amendment and I support it.
Mr STYLES (Business): Madam Speaker, like the member for Nhulunbuy I was not intending to speak, but I am compelled to say a couple of things ...
Ms Walker: That you support the Speaker and not the motion. Say that!
Mr STYLES: One of the reasons I feel compelled to speak is because the member for Nhulunbuy has been continually interjecting and sniping, and getting away with it a lot of the time.
This is not about a particular incident or an ad in the paper. That is a subjective view of the member for Nhulunbuy. It is about many things, not one incident. We heard before – obviously the member for Nhulunbuy did not listen – that it is about a bridge too far.
I will not go through what happened this morning because it has been articulated in the House this evening. The member for Nhulunbuy was hurling abuse at members on this side, which seems to be the way she prosecutes many of her arguments in the Chamber.
This has been happening for quite some time. Members opposite may say things under their breath and are not happy with some of your decisions. We, on this side, are not either but generally we accept it. We do not like it, they do not like it, but you are the umpire and that is what has happened. We question many decisions. There have been times when points of order have been called, but this time everyone said, ‘We have had enough’. The debate on our side is about having too much ...
Ms Fyles: Territorians have had enough of you but cannot get rid of you.
Mr STYLES: That is the problem. You try to have a rational debate but all you get is abuse from those on the other side of the Chamber. They continually interject as if they do not want to listen to what we have to say.
Ms Fyles: No.
Ms Lawrie: Unbelievable.
Mr STYLES: They laugh. The member for Karama is laughing. Maybe you do not want to hear what we have to say. I listened to what you said, but I do not get the same courtesy. You get away with it time and time again, and that is one of our problems.
I remember when Jane Aagaard was Speaker. She was pretty fair, but there have been times lately when it did not seem fair. The member for Johnston has a problem identifying what is professional and what is private. I am not surprised because that may be the way he runs his life. However, I can make a distinction between what is private and what is professional.
To answer your question, when I called a point of order because I found what you said offensive, you can have a relationship with people – I know you have good relationships with people on this side of the Chamber – but, professionally, you can have a tussle over an issue but retain a friendship. I am friends with people on that side of the Chamber, but professionally you have to make the distinction.
Member for Johnston, your sleight on what I did or did not do tonight and what decisions were and were not made at the time was offensive.
I have been friends with the member for Goyder for many years and am happy for that to continue. On a professional basis – this is not about me, you or the member for Goyder. This is about the Northern Territory government, the parliament of the Northern Territory and how people choose to run it. Everyone has a choice. You choose to run it whichever way you like, but the fact remains this is about the Northern Territory and the representation of Territorians. The Office of the Speaker has to be held in high regard …
Members interjecting.
Ms Lawrie: Go to the polls.
Mr STYLES: I try to articulate to these people. Maybe they do not want to hear what I have to say. Generally, when you extend the courtesy to them they do not return it. That is also part of what is happening in the Northern Territory parliament. No wonder people in voter land say this is like kindergarten. I try to articulate a reasonable argument and members on the other side interject. I do not know if they are listening to each another, let alone the debate in the Chamber.
Madam Speaker, I felt compelled to deal with several issues that members opposite raised this evening. I support the motion.
Ms ANDERSON (Namatjira): Madam Speaker, I do not support this motion and say you do not deserve this. I apologise for the behaviour of this House because I believe you have been fair. They want to crucify you for trying to act with integrity regarding the rights and wrongs of that advertisement.
Territorians will not cop this. Believe me, they will not cop it. People are livestreaming this now. I have been getting text messages from all over the Northern Territory about what is happening to the member for Goyder. If you boys over there have any guts, get into the street tomorrow, but be prepared to run from rotten tomatoes and eggs because that is exactly what will happen to you.
The Purich family is highly regarded in the Northern Territory, not only by non-Indigenous people but also Indigenous people. The member for Goyder’s sister worked across three jurisdictions – the Northern Territory, South Australia and Western Australia. She speaks Pitjantjatjara and Ngaatjatjarra fluently. Your candidate will go to Docker River, Imanpa and Mutitjulu, and I will ask Thisbe to tell people there, in Pitjantjatjara and Ngaatjatjarra, not to vote for you mob. She will do that. You have dug your own grave so be prepared for it.
Madam Speaker, I apologise for the government’s behaviour.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, I support you as Speaker. When your name comes into conversation in my electorate I frequently hear people say they hold you in very high regard. They think you do a very good job. You are a straight shooter and straight talker, and you treat your role in this parliament with the utmost seriousness. You show that in your conduct every day.
This has been a hasty process and another example of how desperate this government is to cling to power. The government is avoiding answering some very hard questions about the ice advert it ran, which was completely inappropriate, politically driven and paid for by taxpayers. It was misleading and untrue. This government is again showing how vengeful it can be.
We see a good Speaker with a good reputation across the Territory, who is held in high regard as a good member of this parliament. You feel the full weight of this government’s vengeance when it does not get its way and when people try to hold it to account.
I place on the record my support. I feel I am speaking on behalf of my constituents in Wanguri because the feedback I get is that people hold you in high esteem and regard. This has been a disgraceful process tonight, and I stand by you. The full impact of what the government is trying to do tonight has been well and truly underestimated.
The government has not thought this through properly, or how Territorians will react to it. It is another episode in the saga people are being subjected to by the CLP government.
Let us see what the consequences will be when people wake up and find out what has happened. There is a high possibility there will be a new Speaker. I hope not; I hope people see sense. If this goes to a secret ballot, some may think about what is happening, who is the best person for the job and who is doing a fine job in the position.
I urge members on the other side to think carefully about this because it will not go down well with people across the Territory. They will see it as another demonstration of the chaos and dysfunction of this government. People do not want to see vengeance; they want to see a functional government.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I understand the proposed amendment but will not be urging members to support it because the Opposition Leader has already indicated he will nominate the current Speaker for the position. The effect will be the same. There will be a ballot with, I suspect, only two applicants. It will be done by way of a secret ballot so it makes no difference.
The second observation I make about secret ballots is they mean the people of the Northern Territory will not know from the Parliamentary Record who voted which way. One of the great things about the Parliamentary Record is that on any contentious vote – and this will be a contentious vote – Territorians will want to know who voted which way. Some members opposite say the public has a right to know. You know what? They do. The public has a right to know who voted which way. Because of the way Standing Order 7 operates …
Mr Wood: It is not Standing Order 7 I am using.
Mr ELFERINK: I know that. When we get to the ballot – in every livelihood it will be Kezia versus our nominee – it will have exactly the same effect you are trying to achieve. It any instance, we will not be supporting the amendment to the motion. There will be an opportunity for a secret ballot later on, for the same result effectively.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment moved by the member for Nelson be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 12 Noes 13
Ms Anderson Mr Barrett
Ms Fyles Mr Chandler
Mr Gunner Mr Conlan
Mrs Lambley Mr Elferink
Ms Lawrie Mrs Finocchiaro
Ms McCarthy Mr Giles
Ms Manison Mr Higgins
Ms Moss Mr Kurrupuwu
Ms Purick Ms Lee
Mr Vowles Mrs Price
Ms Walker Mr Styles
Mr Wood Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
Amendment not agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, before we put the vote I would like to say a few words from the Chair. I thank the honourable members on the cross benches for their kind words. It is very humbling and I thank you for your support. To my local member, Gerry Wood, thank you for your support and, of course, Delia, Alison and Robyn.
Sadly I cannot say the same thing about people on the government benches. From what I have heard tonight there is clearly little understanding of the role and job of the Speaker, but if there is to be a new Speaker that person will find out very quickly what is involved. Next week there is a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference and that Speaker will be required to be here all week because they will be chairing the conference. There are also other commitments required of the Speaker.
It is disappointing, but that is the way it is. As for friendships, member for Sanderson, Peter Styles, you clearly do not understand the true meaning of the word, regrettably.
I have enjoyed the role of Speaker, there is no doubt about that, and I wish the next Speaker and Deputy Speaker the best of luck.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 13 Noes 12
Mr Barrett Ms Anderson
Mr Chandler Ms Fyles
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Mrs Lambley
Mrs Finnocchiaro Ms Lawrie
Mr Giles Ms Manison
Mr Higgins Mr McCarthy
Mr Kurrupuwu Ms Moss
Ms Lee Ms Purick
Mrs Price Mr Vowles
Mr Styles Ms Walker
Mr Tollner Mr Wood
Mr Westra van Holthe
Motion agreed to.
ELECTION OF SPEAKER
The CLERK: Honourable members, the Office of the Speaker now being vacant, does any member propose another member to take the Chair of the Assembly as Speaker?
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Clerk, I move that pursuant to Standing Order 7 the member for Greatorex do take the Chair of the Assembly as Speaker.
The CLERK: Does any other member second the motion?
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Yes.
The CLERK: Does the member for Greatorex accept the proposed motion?
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Mr Clerk, reluctantly, I do.
The CLERK: Is there any further proposal?
Mr GUNNER (Opposition Leader): I nominate the member for Goyder.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): I second the nomination.
The CLERK: Does the member for Goyder accept the nomination?
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Yes, Mr Clerk.
The CLERK: Is there any further proposal? There being no further proposals the members may now speak for up to five minutes on the proposals.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Clerk, this is a straightforward nomination. The member for Greatorex is a very experienced Deputy Speaker. He would fulfil the role admirably and bring the desired impartiality I, and members on this side, seek to the House and the Chamber.
He is a forthright and forceful entity. I have already experienced, under his role of Deputy Speaker, the lash of his tongue as an impartial decision-maker. As a consequence, I think he is well qualified and has a splendid radio voice to bring to the job to boot.
Mr GUNNER (Opposition Leader): Mr Clerk, I nominate the member for Goyder to be Speaker of this House as the most qualified and experienced person in this Chamber for the role. She has the best understanding of the gravity of the role, the standing orders, and of what is required to be a Speaker in this Chamber. She has proven she will act without fear or favour. She has proven she will be impartial. She has proven, over three-and-a-half years, she commands and deserves respect. She has earned the trust of Territorians. She has managed the people’s House well and for the true interests and welfare of Territorians. She is an exceptional candidate for the role of Speaker in this Assembly. She always acts for the best interests of Territorians, is considered and sensible, and is the most qualified and experienced person in this House for the role. She is the most logical person for this House to appoint as the Speaker, as the caretaker and custodian of the standing orders and responsibilities this House must oversee. There is no other person in this Chamber who can carry out this role as well as the member for Goyder.
If we are to be a credible parliament, which we have struggled to be for three-and-a-half years under a CLP government, we have a moment now to pause, reflect and choose the member for Goyder to be the Speaker. It is the only sensible choice if we want to be a parliament with any respect in this country. We should choose the member for Goyder as the Speaker of this Assembly.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Clerk, I support the Leader of the Opposition’s nomination for the member for Goyder to continue as the Speaker. She has provided us with good guidance and fairness, and is extremely qualified. She has a good understanding of the role and of the standing orders, something the Attorney-General lacks.
She has also done much to open this House to the people. She has been very encouraging and invitations to events have been forthcoming. She has worked with various community groups to encourage them to use parliament and our role as parliamentarians to help focus on charities and other groups across the Territory. She has also spent much time and energy with the Youth Parliament, and with the Niue delegation that is currently visiting. She goes above and beyond to make sure Parliament House is open and welcoming, and people can understand the process, something the government should focus on.
It was interesting that the member for Port Darwin did not want a secret ballot. He was quite adamant that Territorians need to see who voted for whom. To members opposite who have been doubtful of this process, this midnight coup, now is your opportunity – no one will ever know – to place on that ballot paper the name of the rightful Speaker of this House and not be led by an incompetent, unelected Chief Minister, a Treasurer who does not listen to the community and an Attorney-General who is upset by a few tweets and Facebook posts. I urge you to consider your ballot. This is a very serious motion but it is not over.
The member for Goyder has been fair. She is experienced and qualified, and can continue to lead this House. We can be the laughing stock of the nation tomorrow, but hopefully, after that, we can put it behind us.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Clerk, the choice is between the outgoing Speaker and the current Deputy Speaker. Obviously the outgoing Speaker is far more qualified in understanding the operations of parliament and the standing orders. Both have some understanding of operating agencies. The Legislative Assembly is a small agency located in its entirety – with the exception of electorate officers on contract – in Darwin. You have the choice of a Top Ender or a Centralian for a solely Darwin-based agency. I do not know if the CLP-nominated candidate for Speaker would want to follow what he did previously, which was to move public servants to Alice Springs. Wow, would we have an Alice Springs parliament? That is an interesting notion.
What on earth are you guys doing? I supported the member for Greatorex when he was nominated for Deputy Speaker. I was Opposition Leader at the time and felt it was a chance for him to step into the role. I have watched him carefully in that role. At times I felt he was fair when I did not think he would be, but he always skated very close to the edge to make sure the government’s agenda was upheld.
What I am most concerned about with the CLP choice is that the Speaker has a lot to do on the global stage representing the Northern Territory with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I do not pretend to know all the details, but I know the Speakers I have worked with over the terms of parliament have all been actively involved in the CPA. For most of us it is an annual meeting we turn up to. It is being held this Thursday, but we do not like attending it. We will not be able to wait for it to be over, and it will be done and dusted in about three to five minutes. For the Speakers of parliaments, the CPA is important. They represent us as a jurisdiction in Australia, in our region and globally.
I will mention the elephant in the room, Matt. I did not know about the Tokyo stuff when you were nominated as Deputy Speaker. Media will go there, as will the chitter chatter of parliaments. Is that what you want? Is that what you are choosing? I do not even remember the name of the girlie bar because I do not rate it. The position, however, represents us globally as a parliament and is held in high esteem. Do you really expect us to make a choice between the member for Goyder, who has operated with the utmost character in her role in parliament and her community, and someone who will be associated with a girlie bar in Tokyo? Seriously? No offence, Matt. I am saying what other people will talk about.
If you want to make a decision, make it with eyes wide open. Do not kid yourselves about that. The Speaker’s role in this parliament is incredibly important, but the Speaker also represents us on national, regional and global stages. Speakers are usually people with impeccable characters and track records in their parliamentary service. Keep your eyes wide open when you make this decision, CLP.
Ms ANDERSON (Namatjira): Mr Clerk, I thank the Opposition Leader for nominating the member for Goyder back to the Speaker’s position because it is really important. She is a female and I will always stick up for females. Looking at executive positions across the country, people are talking about promoting women to higher positions. In the Northern Territory the high office of Speaker is held by a female, yet all the governments wants to do is hang her for an offence when she was only trying to uphold the integrity of this House, trying to teach us to do the right thing and not continually misuse Territory taxpayers’ money. Is this a hanging offence? Is this something to lose your job over? I do not think so.
You will regret this come August next year. This will be like a wart on your backside when you go to the Territory election on 27 August next year.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Clerk, when I came to the 12th Assembly I was disillusioned because Labor had lost an election, but I clearly remember discussing the election of the Speaker in the Labor Caucus room and having a united consensus that we would support the member for Goyder. We would support, to be crass, the best of a bad lot, and we had a lot of discussion that day.
As that unfolded I was able to see another side of the member for Goyder because before that she sat as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I saw integrity, and I saw a true Territorian from a fine family with a great history put that stamp of the Territory on those multi-platforms. It was great to see.
We are three years in and now it is becoming completely destabilised and trashed, with a questionable agenda from a government running scared in minority and desperate to cling to the last of an election cycle.
That relates to the member for Greatorex. I commend your aspirations, but you have made it public that you are on the way out. You have had enough of politics and your heart is not in it. It is quite evident that you are not focused on this House, and therefore it makes sense to continue with the member for Goyder, the Speaker who was elected to the 12th Assembly.
If anybody aspires to be Speaker, the esteemed position the member for Port Darwin speaks about, line yourself up for the next Assembly. Put yourself in the public, get yourself elected as a community leader, lobby your school of politics for the position, stand proud and represent the Northern Territory and learn from this disgraceful episode tonight. Learn lots of lessons. Matt, no problems, but you should stand down and we should support the member for Goyder.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Clerk, it is obvious that the ex-Speaker has no hope because she does not have a good radio voice. If that is one of the considerations, the member for Port Darwin is being a little flippant. We want someone who is independent and experienced. The member for Goyder has lived in the Territory for a long time, in fact most of her life, and has an understanding of the Territory from top to bottom from her previous role as CEO of the Minerals Council.
She has experience in parts of the Territory which give her a good background for the job. The job does not require you just to read this book; you also need knowledge of all the constituencies in the Northern Territory, and she brings that experience to this House.
It is sad we have reached this stage. The Territory has many things that set it apart from the rest of Australia. I do not know what our friends from Niue must be thinking. At lunchtime today we discussed how parliament was working. They sat at the evening meal with the then Speaker. What they will think when they wake up in the morning I have no idea, but they will probably think the Territory is a strange place when it comes to how it runs its parliament.
Madam Speaker brings independence. People might argue that they did not like this or that. We have had Independent Speakers in the Northern Territory. Loraine Braham was an Independent Speaker and I was the Independent Deputy Speaker.
We need an Independent Speaker. That is the way we should go. We should not have people elected by parties. That is not the way, in this day and age, we should operate the speakership. The speakership should be independent, and the best way for that to happen is to have an Independent Speaker. The member for Goyder has the experience and a good knowledge of the standing Orders. I am not saying Matt does not have that experience, as he does a good job as Chair. Occasionally I get a little miffed when he does not give us some flexibility in the committee stage, but he knows his stuff, that is for sure. In the end, the member for Goyder should be Madam Speaker again because she is the right person for the job.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Mr Clerk, the execution process is almost complete. The government must be feeling very happy with the imminent result, but for what it is worth I would like to make some comments.
The position of Speaker of the House is one that should be held in the utmost regard and esteem. Integrity is a critical characteristic of anyone who holds that seat. I have to agree with the member for Karama; the member for Greatorex’s indiscretion puts a question in my mind as to his integrity and how that will play out nationally and internationally. You cannot escape that.
Unfortunately the government tends to wear its indiscretions like a badge of honour. I look around the ranks of government and not too many do not wear a huge badge honouring their indiscretions. I suppose for the government it is not a huge consideration, but for someone like me who is a little old-fashioned, it is of the utmost importance that the integrity of the Speaker of the House is beyond question.
The member for Goyder has integrity. I do not believe any parts of her history bring her reputation into disrepute. There is nothing I am aware of, nothing I have read in the Northern Territory News, unlike what I have read about other members of the government over the last three years.
This concerns me. We should be repairing the reputation of this Assembly not bringing it down further. We should be discerning and very careful how we move beyond this point. We are now midway through November and the election is on 27 August. There are only 10 months for the new Speaker to operate. That is a significant length of time on one hand but not on the other.
I would like to see the member for Goyder continue in the position. She has done a good job. She brings a certain amount of wisdom, maturity and femininity to the position, which I admire and value. Women are generally not respected in this parliament; they have not been by the government. Removing a woman and replacing her with a man with a questionable recent history is another big mistake of this parliament, and ultimately is the decision of government.
As everyone on this side of the Chamber has highlighted tonight, you will have to live by these mistakes. They are mighty mistakes and Territorians will not forgive you.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Mr Clerk, I cannot let those comments pass. I have said numerous times that the member for Araluen is one of the most self-righteous people I have ever come across in my life. To use this as an opportunity to attack the member for Greatorex is appalling. I put her in the same box as the member for Karama. They throw mud at the first opportunity. I have no idea what the indiscretions are that you refer to ....
Mrs Lambley: Homophobia.
Ms Walker: Red Rose.
Mr TOLLNER: Now you are at me. You are quite happy to throw mud everywhere. I have known the member for Greatorex for more than eight years and he is a decent man. I am not aware of any indiscretions. He will make a fine Speaker, without doubt. I can understand people talking up their favourite person in this, but I do not understand why people have to get into the gutter, two in particular. Members for Karama and Araluen, you are both disgraceful the way you impugn people’s character at every opportunity. It is disgusting and we have had enough of it.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Clerk, the best candidate for this job is the member for Goyder. Without a doubt she is the most qualified person for the job. She has proven she is committed to being a Speaker of high integrity and hard work, and somebody who gives you a fair hearing and frank and appropriate advice. She has also brought a real energy to the parliament, and during this term of government has opened up the Territory parliament to so many people. She has advocated strongly for this to be a place for Territorians to come into and be part of.
We are going into the final quarter of the match and it will be a full-on last 10 months. I would like to think our Speaker is the most qualified person who knows how to do the job and handles themselves well.
I also point out to the member for Fong Lim that what the members for Araluen and Karama were referring to is fact. It has been reported on and clearly you do not …
Mr Tollner: Because it has been reported on does not mean it is fact.
Ms MANISON: I pick up on the interjection. There have been adjournments, there have been questions in estimates and there have been freedom of information requests. It is fact, and to not realise that you have clearly had your head in the sand, member for Fong Lim.
I support the member for Goyder.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Clerk, I support the nomination of the member for Goyder. We have just spent several hours going through a flawed process triggered by incredibly poor judgment on the part of the government, which was bullying behaviour towards the Speaker. We have pretty much become accustomed to that in this House, particularly towards women.
Members of the government have one window of opportunity left to turn this around. I know some of you on that side, in your heart of hearts, know this is the wrong thing to do. In the event you now get to cast a vote, you cannot go past the experience and integrity of the member for Goyder. She has been in the job for three years and does more than just chair parliament. She is responsible for the running of the Legislative Assembly, the electorate offices and the many duties that go with that, including, as the member for Karama explained, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.
With all due respect to the member for Greatorex, who I think does an okay job as the Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees, he stated his reason for resigning from Cabinet was because he needed to spend more time with his family in Alice Springs. He has young children. Like me, he travels to this parliament, but he would have to spend a lot more time in Darwin and away from his family. It would involve CPA travel around the country and some overseas travel. It would involve being in Darwin when there are dignitaries or events the Speaker would normally look after and host. I wonder if the member for Greatorex has thought about that, or even had an opportunity to advise his partner of his potential new job.
Again, with no disrespect to the member for Greatorex, he has a history, unfortunately, that has been tainted by some episodes that have made quite significant media. It is a matter of fact, member for Fong Lim. It is small wonder your colleagues keep you out of the media these days, and it is only when you are here on the microphone you just go blah. It is not a good look for our parliament for the head of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory to not be a person with a good, strong history and strong integrity. What I am saying effectively is to be a cleanskin.
Members opposite have one last chance to do the right thing and I hope they take that opportunity. I endorse the member for Goyder to return as Speaker.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Mr Clerk, I support the nomination of the member for Goyder. We are all knackered. It is nearly 2.40 am, but I am happy to stay here all night if it means we come to the right decision, and that is re-electing the member for Goyder as the Speaker of this House and bringing some respect back to this House.
As the member for Nhulunbuy said, there is one last opportunity to do the right thing and not ridicule our parliament, which is all of us, in front of the rest of the nation and across the Pacific. We have a delegation here at the moment and a South Pacific conference next week. We will look amateurish and ridiculous. We will look like a joke, and we are, because at 2.40 am we are debating removing our Speaker. We can change leaders, can change Chief Ministers, but do not change the Speaker. This is the wrong thing to do.
The member for Goyder is a Territorian and loves the Territory. She is the Territory. She epitomises being a Territorian. Her way – smashing the gavel down too hard sometimes – is unique, and that is what the Territory is about. It is about having somebody who understands the Territory. It is about having somebody in this parliament who has been respected by both sides of the House for a number of years, somebody who knows her values due to her strong family links to the Territory, who is accountable to her electorate, does the right thing by her electorate and stands up for people.
Even this side says, ‘Kezia has said something against her own party’, but we respect that. We respect that she is doing the job she was elected to: look after her constituents. That is what we are supposed to do. I will stand here all night if it means the member for Goyder is re-elected as Speaker. We need to do the right thing.
I would have supported it if the government said it wanted to change the fixed-term legislation on urgency and go to an election. I doubt anybody on this side would have said, ‘No, let’s not do that’. I would support the Leader of Government Business introducing changes to the fixed-term legislation on urgency so we can give Territorians the option of an election now. That would be the right thing to do as well.
I support the member for Goyder, and I hope everybody in this Chamber, in this last opportunity to do so, does the same thing.
Ms MOSS (Casuarina): Mr Clerk, I support the member for Goyder’s nomination to fill the role of Speaker. We have already heard a range of reasons why we should. I remind members on the other side of the House that they have an opportunity to do the right thing this evening and the right thing by their constituents.
If you want minimal disruption for Territorians tomorrow and when we are debating important issues like education over the next few days and into the next sittings, I urge you to consider sticking with a Speaker who has demonstrated her experience and commitment, and who can fulfil the role with integrity.
I have no doubt the member for Greatorex is a decent bloke. We have all had the opportunity to see the member for Greatorex in action as Deputy Speaker. It is unfortunate that all colleagues had to say tonight was that he is a decent bloke with a great radio voice, whereas we have heard many reasons why this House should support the member for Goyder. She has experience and knowledge in this House, and has demonstrated that she can represent us well both here and abroad. We have commitments over the next few weeks. Let us make the right decision.
I urge you to throw your support behind the member for Goyder and let us move on and debate things in this House that are important to our constituents.
Mr CLERK: There being no further speakers, I will outline the procedure for the ballot.
Before the Assembly proceeds to the ballot the division bells shall be rung, as for a division, for three minutes, pursuant to Standing Order 7. When two members are proposed, as they are today, and seconded, each member present will deliver to the Clerk a ballot paper in writing containing the name of the candidate for whom the member votes. The votes will be counted by the Clerks at the Table, and the candidate who has the greater number of votes shall be the Speaker and shall be conducted to the Chair.
Having been conducted to the Chair, the member elected gives their acknowledgements to the Assembly for the honour conferred, and thereupon sits in the Chair. Then the mace, which is now under the Table, shall be laid upon the Table.
I will now ring the division bells, and during the division bells being rung the ballot papers will be distributed. At the conclusion of the division bells being rung, the ballot papers will be collected by the two Clerk Assistants.
The Assembly balloted.
Mr CLERK: The results of the ballot are: Matt Conlan 12, Kezia Purick 13.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business: Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016