2013-02-19
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 2 pm.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise that on 23 January 2013 the resignation of the former member for Wanguri, Mr Paul Henderson, was submitted to me by letter pursuant to section 18 of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the Speaker’s gallery of family and friends of the new member for Wanguri, including Mr Scott McNeill; parents, Gary and Rose Manison; family members, James Herraman, Jess Herraman and Alice Herraman. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to our visitors here today.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise I have given approval to ABC TV, Sky News, Channel 9, AAP and the NT News to take film and photographs and to record sound during the swearing-in of the new member for Wanguri.
CLERK: Honourable members, I lay on the table the return to the writ issued by Her Honour the Administrator, Ms Sally Thomas AM, on 18 February 2013 for the election of a member for the electoral division of Wanguri on 16 February 2013, certifying the election of Nicole Susan Manison.
Nicole Susan Manison made and subscribed the oaths of allegiance and office required by law.
Madam SPEAKER: On behalf of all honourable members, I extend congratulations to you and best wishes as the new member for Wanguri in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I advise the Assembly of the new opposition portfolio responsibilities.
Ms Delia Lawrie, Leader of the Opposition – Treasurer; Major Projects; and Economic Development.
Mr Michael Gunner - Government Accountability; Statehood; Police Fire and Emergency Services; Education and Training; Business and Employment; Racing Gaming and Licensing; Alcohol Policy.
Ms Natasha Fyles - Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage; Climate Change; Parks and Wildlife; Child Protection; Children and Families; Women’s Policy.
Mr Kenneth Vowles - Tourism, Sport and Recreation; Senior Territorians; Multicultural Affairs; Young Territorians.
Ms Nicole Manison - Public and Affordable Housing; Public Employment.
Mr Gerry McCarthy, Deputy Leader of the Opposition - Regional Development; Infrastructure and Construction; Lands and Planning; Transport; Essential Services; Arts and Museums.
Ms Lynne Walker - Attorney-General and Justice; Corrections; Indigenous Policy, Local Government.
PETITIONS
Cutting of Government Funding for Freds Pass Reserve and Litchfield Swimming Pool
Mr WOOD (Nelson)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 2103 petitioners relating to cutting all the NT government funding for Freds Pass Reserve and the Litchfield Swimming Pool. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw to your attention the presence in the gallery of a previous Leader of Government Business, Dr Chris Burns. Welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Continued from 5 December 2012.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, the opposition supports this bill which seeks to amend four acts, the Director of Public Prosecutions Act, the Law Officers Act, the Magistrates Act and the Supreme Court Act. We will be brief in the second reading debate, essentially because we do support it.
These amendments seek to raise the retirement age from 65 to 70 for the roles of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Master of the Supreme Court, the Solicitor-General, as well as magistrates.
I thank the Attorney-General’s office for the briefing on this bill as well as the follow-up comparison overview with other jurisdictions which was provided to me by Mr Burke from the Attorney-General’s office.
While the Northern Territory becomes the last jurisdiction to raise the retirement age to 70 for the Master of the Supreme Court role, there is a range of different scenarios which play out in other jurisdictions with the Director of Public Prosecutions’ role, and the Solicitor-General’s role. However, raising the retirement age for magistrates sees the Northern Territory join Victoria, Queensland, New South Wales, Tasmania, and the Commonwealth which have a retirement age of 70, or 72 as is the case in New South Wales and Tasmania. Some of those jurisdictions do not have a mandatory retirement age.
For magistrates in the Territory, this also aligns with their counterparts in the Supreme Court who have had a mandatory retirement age of 70 for some time. Just shy of his 70th birthday, I was very honoured to be part of the very special ceremony last Friday in the Supreme Court to farewell Justice Dean Mildren who has served the Northern Territory for decades in his various roles in the legal fraternity, including Supreme Court Judge since 1991. At that ceremony in Court Room No One there were some very fitting tributes to his enormous service and contribution, and his incredible knowledge.
There is certainly much to be said for retaining the cumulative knowledge and skills, which is why, as the Attorney-General noted in his second reading speech, and I quote:
No doubt that will continue to occur, and that is all very good.
The issue of valuing people’s contribution through the public service, whether it be in the courts or the public service, is not new to Labor. Nearly 10 years ago, the former member for Nhulunbuy, Mr Syd Stirling, sponsored amendments before the House to the Public Sector Employment and Management Act. These amendments were about removing the compulsory retirement provisions within that act. I will quote from the then minister’s media release when he said on 12 August 2003:
Whilst this bill does not allow magistrates and other officers to retire when it suits them, it does extend their service to the age of 70 years.
While many of us long for the day when retirement comes, some will seek it sooner than others and I do hope to be enjoying retirement before 70, but time will tell. Then there are those who retire - and I am not referring to members of the judiciary here nor the roles covered in this bill - only to be lured back by the promise of a new job and a very lucrative employment package, such as we have seen since the August general election with the CLP employing all their old mates in very senior and well-paid advisory positions. But, I digress.
The opposition has no issues with this bill and recognises the need for the Northern Territory to be in step with what is happening in other jurisdictions, which includes valuing the wealth of knowledge and experience and allowing those who may choose to, to continue on until the age of 70.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I cannot say I am particularly surprised by the support of the members opposite but, nevertheless, I am grateful.
One of the things I have noticed over the years is that the Northern Territory’s age of retirement for masters, magistrates, the DPP and the Solicitor-General is reflected in some jurisdictions, but not, quite frankly, in most jurisdictions, but that is not the motive behind this. The motive is simpler than that. We live in an age where the average person lives a longer and healthier life. If you track the average age of people over the last 100 years, average ages have crept up. It is no secret that in the Australian Constitution there is a handbrake on being a High Court judge, which means you retire at the age of 70. The Australian Constitution, being drafted in the late 1800s, was reflective of a time when that would not have been an appropriate age to retire if, indeed, you lived that long. Today, people regularly live to the age of 70 and it is surprising how fit and healthy so many 70-year-olds are. You occasionally hear the expression ‘60 is the new middle age’, and I understand that.
I note the member for Nhulunbuy is planning to retire before she is 70. I have no idea when I will retire, suffice to say I quite like the idea of living a long and productive life. One of the reasons I studied law was so I could continue to be productive long after some of the physical faculties started to fail. As long as you have a brain in your head you are able to practice law. There is no shortage of examples in the modern world where lawyers are quadriplegics and still practice by virtue of the fact they can manage with their cerebellums intact.
The bill before this House is designed to recognise that and, if it were possible or convenient without major legislative change, it would almost be tempting, as a government, to say we will go to an age where the person chooses to retire. Unfortunately, that raises another difficulty inasmuch as a person who sits on the bench is very hard to retire. It is a principle of the separation between this House and the houses of justice in our community that we cannot forcibly retire judges or magistrates and to do so would require a special resolution of this House. I cannot, in living memory, think of a single example of it occurring. I am sure it may have, but I am not familiar with it. However, 65 for many people is not old age. For many magistrates, masters and judges it is a time when they are at the peak of their profession. I can well imagine they would like to continue doing their job because they relish it, enjoy it, and because they have much experience and another five years of practice would suit them as they would see themselves as being at the peak of their profession.
As a consequence, one of the first things I determined to do when becoming Attorney-General was address this issue. I am proud to have brought it into this House. There has been no push-back from any quarter I am aware of, and I am pleased to have navigated this bill through the House. I am grateful to those people who have had input, those people who have given me advice on it, and I believe it is ready to pass.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Mr TOLLNER (Alcohol Rehabilitation and Policy): Madam Speaker, I outline the Northern Territory government’s response to alcohol-related harm in the Northern Territory. This harm is felt by all of us: the dedicated clinicians working in the emergency departments of our hospitals, police on the streets tipping out alcohol night after night, residents of Darwin enjoying a stroll on the Nightcliff foreshore or the Esplanade, and the small business owners in Katherine, Alice Springs, and Tennant Creek.
However, the people feeling the most harm from the impacts of alcohol-related harm are the families for whom alcohol-fuelled violence is an everyday part of their life. The high levels of domestic and family violence in the Northern Territory are unacceptable. We, in the Northern Territory government, like everyone else who lives in the Northern Territory, know the misuse of alcohol causes considerable harm to individuals and to our community as a whole.
A study commissioned by the Menzies School of Health Research found the harm from alcohol misuse costs the Northern Territory community $642m per year. This equates to $4197 for every adult Territorian compared to $944 nationally, and includes the cost of hospitalisations for chronic health problems and injuries, alcohol-related violence, victims and ambulatory costs, road accidents, policing alcohol-related crime and antisocial behaviour, courts and the correctional system, and the impacts on the workforce such as absenteeism.
It is clear, from both the Territory experience and the national and international evidence that a range of responses are required which deal with the supply and harm. A number of measures to reduce supply are in place in the Northern Territory. Activities undertaken to deal with the supply include regulation, for example, via the Northern Territory licensing community and through community self-regulation such as the work that communities do as part of developing alcohol management plans.
Local communities determine solutions to alcohol harm in their communities. Examples include the establishment of locally designed permit schemes such as in Groote Eylandt and East Arnhem, and the three strikes ID system proposed by the Elliott community. These work because they are locally developed and managed. There have been major and sustained reductions in alcohol-related harm since these systems were put in place in Groote Eylandt and East Arnhem.
Other examples include communities offering land use for police stations and for outstation rehabilitation services at such places as Jilkminggan and, as I said during Question Time in relation to the member for Arafura, on the Tiwi Islands.
This government stood fast by its election commitment and abolished the Banned Drinker Register framework. Those opposite - specifically the Leader of the Opposition - declared the streets are awash with grog, anarchy is rife, crime is rampant, and there has been a dark cloud hanging over the Territory since the government abolished the BDR. This is what the opposition would want the public to believe.
In fact, this is the scenario this opposition falsely represented to the Prime Minister of this great nation, and it presented a brief to the Prime Minister which was spurious and false in fact. The brief to Julia Gillard, which attacked this government, was based upon manipulated and misleading data concocted by a desperate Territory Labor government in its death throes, attempting to justify the Banned Drinker Register. Not only did they manipulate the data, they also deliberately omitted alcohol-related domestic violence data, a shameful and hypocritical act admitted to by the Opposition Leader.
Now is the time to review other falsehoods which are being espoused by the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition stated on 7 February 2013 during a radio interview that there was a 15% drop in Territory-wide alcohol-related assaults under the Banned Drinker Register, comparing the 2011-12 year to the 2010-11 year. The figure is incorrect, as it simply related to antisocial behaviour. However, in respect to assault, and based on the last published statistics from the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice comparing 2011, the year of the operation of the BDR, with the previous year, there was, across the Territory, an increase in assaults by 6% during 2011-12 from the previous year. There were 2.9% more alcohol-related assault offences across the Territory during 2011-12 than there were in 2010-11, despite the Banned Drinker Register being in place throughout the whole of 2011-12.
During this interview, the Leader of the Opposition wrongly inferred that the standards for reporting have changed since this government was elected, meaning that statistics could not be compared. In fact, the statistics recording and counting has not changed at all. On the contrary, the only change has been that we have moved to ensure crime statistics are again released publicly every quarter.
It is a sad state of affairs that the Leader of the Opposition has declared that when she was in government she spent a year designing the BDR policy and a year implementing it - a failed system. What a waste of time and Territorians’ taxes. This is a sad indictment of a government which ignored the advice of experienced public servants who said the BDR would not work for the simple reason there is no way third-party or secondary supply could be counted. It is as simple as that.
To make matters worse, the Banned Drinker Register was supported by legislation which was highly bureaucratic, ineffective and lacked any sanction. By way of example, if a person was caught supplying grog to someone on the BDR, that person would be placed on the BDR. This was a total joke.
Finally, the previous government put in place a tribunal which encouraged people subject to a banning notice to attend. The pointlessness of this was that the legislation was supposed to facilitate compulsory assessment and treatment. It did not. The former Labor government’s policy was demonstrably a complete, but expensive, farce.
The Northern Territory government made and stood by our election commitment to rescind the Banned Drinker Register. In its place, the Northern Territory government has committed $15m per annum to the development of a comprehensive alcohol rehabilitation policy, including mandatory treatment.
This, coupled with the existing investment of approximately $20m in alcohol and other drug treatment and rehabilitation, means an investment of $35m per annum to support Territorians to access services to break the pattern of alcohol and substance addiction.
This government is aware that mandatory treatment may not be affective for all. I am not declaring it is a panacea to cure all ills. The fact is, to direct a person to a place to simply provide them some respite from a life of alcohol abyss is a positive. To provide him or her with greater opportunities is a positive. To strengthen that person’s capacity to make decisions and attempt to turn his or her life around is a positive.
I am aware that there are those who declare that mandatory rehabilitation is a framework of doom and despair, based upon a Chicken Little scenario. I am also aware there is evidence available showing that coerced alcohol treatment can be as effective as voluntary treatment. In fact, a note detailed in a recent New Zealand paper regarding compulsory treatment of substance dependence said, and I quote:
This paper noted that many experts working in the alcohol and drug treatment sector consider that compulsory treatment can be effective in some situations for some people. It stated that:
It is intended to implement a mandatory treatment response that provides for assessment by a clinician, oversight by a tribunal, and aftercare arrangements. In addition to being able to refer the person to mandatory treatment, the clinicians will also be able to refer a range of other options already available in the system, for example, existing non-residential treatment such as a program provided by Amity Community Services based in Darwin, or residential services at Vendale in Katherine or KARPU in Alice Springs.
I expect implementation of the legislation to support mandatory treatment to be ready by mid-2013. This government is about providing balance and hope, which includes addressing alcohol abuse, providing pathways to education and employment, and growing private enterprise in remote areas demonstrating that life is not about government cheques in the mail. However, our policy response is not just about treatment. We are taking a system-wide approach, enhancing the response to those impacted upon by alcohol by supporting the prevention of alcohol misuse and intervening early when people are at risk.
A review of sobering-up shelters has commenced. These shelters are seen to be an integral component in support of the mandatory rehabilitation policy. However, their role in minimising harm to drunks has not changed since the mid-1980s. I envisage there may be a need to increase bed numbers and expand opening hours. Similarly, there are opportunities to improve interventions and outreach services within shelters. We want to encourage greater use of the shelters and ensure people who are picked up drunk are provided with a referral pathway to a rehabilitation provider. We want to change the philosophy of the shelters and get out of that spin-dry mentality.
We will be ensuring those working in the alcohol and other drugs field in our NGO sector have opportunity to access certificate level training for their workers. In addition to our commitment to invest further in treatment and rehabilitation services, the Northern Territory government will improve its current service model. This will mean evidence-based therapeutic interventions to tackle the causes and results of addiction. After all, alcohol addiction is a chronic, relapsing condition and requires long-term management. It is rarely cured in a one-off intervention such as the hapless lot opposite investing almost solely in their failed Banned Drinker Register.
In addition, those going through the treatment will be provided with a range of skills development to support job readiness. I am committed to ensuring that with treatment comes post-treatment support. This will make the difference in success or failure of the treatment. People cannot return to the same circumstances without support to continue the new skills and behaviours learnt through treatment, and after-care through planned transition from treatment to the community is critical. As I have repeatedly said, the best incentive for anyone to get off the grog is to have to get up in the morning and go to work.
The Northern Territory will be developing two secure services in the Top End and the Centre. I have directed the Department of Health to work with existing service providers to ensure the existing treatment provides a therapeutic intervention rather than a place for people to sit down. In addition to this, treatment will include the provision of skills and other training to support job readiness. The trigger for mandatory rehabilitation will be repeated episodes of public drunkenness eventuating in protective custody. Individuals will be accessed by a clinician and, if required, undergo medically supervised detoxification prior to appearing before a tribunal which will then determine if their situation is so hopeless they require mandatory rehabilitation.
The Northern Territory government has also invested funding of nearly $1m per annum ongoing to Bush Mob, the youth alcohol and other drugs service provider in Alice Springs. In January 2011, the failed Labor government announced that the Bush Mob service would be relocated and its capacity expanded to 20 clients but, true to form and typically, no funding was provided for either the capital elements or service expansion elements of this move. There expansion stalled although there has been a significant waitlist for their services. Bush Mob provides critical youth residential alcohol and other treatment services in Alice Springs, and is widely acknowledged for its approach in working with high-risk young people in Alice Springs.
A focus on supporting the development and enhancement of treatment services with a track record of reducing alcohol-related harm will mean the Northern Territory government’s approach to mandatory treatment will result in increased service quality and service capacity. It will provide a range of options which respond to the complexity of alcohol-related harm in the Northern Territory, and will provide the best opportunity to reduce alcohol-related harm. It will also, consequently, take the drunks off the street.
Dealing with alcohol-related harm is far more complex than one black and white solution. If the issue was this simple a solution would have been in place long before now. Sadly, it is a fact that Indigenous Territorians, particularly those from remote communities disenfranchised from family, will disproportionately be referred or directed to mandatory rehabilitation and will be subjected to rehabilitation programs. Whilst this is not acceptable, it is the end result of significant dysfunction, unemployment, poor or fragmented educational outcomes, and a general sense of hopelessness that is the reality of life for many Indigenous people in remote communities.
This is a blight not just on the Northern Territory, but our entire nation. We will only ever be tackling symptoms like poor health, drug and alcohol abuse and crime if we do not, as a whole society, confront the entirety of the problem. We can easily mouth the rhetoric of self-determination for Indigenous Australians; however, unless we start treating them with respect and dignity as equals and create real jobs in partnership with the private sector, improve school attendance, stop treating them as a curiosity to be studied from afar and break the cycle of dysfunction, nothing will change. It is a challenge this government will tackle and drive. It is acknowledged this will take time and cannot be done in isolation. We will work with communities, Indigenous leaders, non-government organisations and the private sector to facilitate jobs, build industry and provide real employment opportunities, not simply another government-funded program.
In dealing with people who access a rehabilitation program, the policy of this government is to facilitate opportunity, improve lives, provide job opportunities, and reintegrate individuals into society. When all is said and done, developing self-worth and building hope and aspiration is the only way we can give individuals a real future and create a community in which we are all content to live.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, this is an issue we have debated in this House a significant number of times both last term - in my first term in government as a backbencher and the member for Fannie Bay - and now in a new term with a new government where I carry portfolio responsibility for alcohol policy in opposition.
It is an issue in this House where we are both united and divided. We have had debate in this Chamber about the nature of alcohol-fuelled violence in the Territory and we always agree. We agree there is a significant issue in the Northern Territory with alcohol, alcohol-fuelled violence and binge drinking, which occur in our towns and in our communities. We have, in many ways, a common cause as parliamentarians to try to tackle alcohol and alcohol-fuelled violence.
As a government, we had a range of plans working together to try to tackle alcohol because, as the current minister said, there is no one single solution. You have to have a number of programs and work together to make a difference. We were doing that as a government. Also, as a local member, you have responsibilities to your area and you work with people to try to make a difference in your local area.
Last term, as a backbencher in government, I worked with the government trying to put things in place in my area. Now, in opposition, I am still the local member for Fannie Bay and will work with the current government doing anything we can in my local area to make a difference.
I will do that with the member for Fong Lim, who is also the Minister for Housing. Recently, there have been articles in the paper about Kurringal and things we can do there. I will be very happy to work with the member for Fong Lim in doing what we can.
The comments he has made so far on the public record are similar to the previous government’s prior to the last election. We can find common ground on how to tackle some of the problems in areas and spaces like that. As the local member, I worked with the government around the Parap Police Beat and met with local police then - and still meet with them now – to talk about the issues in our local area. Also, I receive feedback from constituents and people who travel through my area who talk to me about the intelligence they receive and what they are doing. You constantly work together to try to ensure you are tackling problems in those hot spots.
We had our public housing reform program which started at Wirrina, and we have seen a massive difference there, opposite the Parap shops. That has had a flow-on effect in a large number of directions, as have the CCTV cameras through the local Parap shopping precinct.
We also had other plans of turning barren spaces, which encouraged antisocial behaviour, into vibrant, actively used spaces, which is an important part of our planning principles of taking a space that is not being used and using it proactively and positively. One example of that is the community garden behind Framed in Stuart Park, which is in the process of happening. I understand it has been delayed, which is a little frustrating to many local residents, but it is fully booked, every garden plot has been taken, and there is a waitlist longer than the number of plots available in the first place. People want to be able to use their open spaces positively; I talk specifically about Darwin now, although it is true for the whole the Territory. We live in a beautiful green city with open spaces which, often, we do not use positively. The community garden is an example of how you can use an open space positively, and it is important we, as parliamentarians, are constantly working to try to tackle these issues either in our local area, as part of government, or in opposition holding government to account.
We agree there is a problem. However, from there we disagree because we go on two divergent paths about how to tackle that problem. We had plans in place; the CLP did not like them, and they scrapped them. In many ways, people respect the authority of a new government to come in and do their thing, but what has frustrated people is they scrapped the plans without actually putting anything else in their place. They scrapped the Banned Drinker Register, the Night Patrol, the Alcohol Court, the Return to Country program, and put nothing else in their place.
Fine, the new government does not like the plans we had to make a difference and they scrapped them, but they did it prematurely. They did it before they had any of their own plans in place. What was the impact of that? For example, from October last year, the Alcohol Courts were going to be in a position to do targeted income management through the orders those courts could make. They were going to be able to use leverage off the Commonwealth powers to make income management decisions targeted at problem repeat drunks. But, now, they cannot do that because the CLP scrapped them. The CLP came into government and scrapped the things we had in place, which they did not like, and they replaced them with nothing.
There is a great deal of frustration out there, people on the street who have seen things we all felt were making a difference. People with 20 years’ experience at the Fannie Bay shops, people with similar experience at the Parap shops, and Stuart Park shops, saw programs that were making a difference scrapped without anything else put in their place. These are practical people. They may have come on board behind the Banned Drinker Register but they were not early converts, they were converts after they saw it in practice. But they are practical people, and when they saw the CLP scrap it they could not believe nothing else was put in its place – they were shocked at that.
So, what do we have? We have our plans scrapped by the CLP and, on the other side, we have a statement. That is where we are after six months - we have a statement from the government about what they intend to do. That is what we have in this Chamber. That is where we have come after six months; to a statement from the Alcohol minister. This is the person who has been placed in charge by the Chief Minister to deliver on the CLP’s promise to immediately remove all drunks from our streets and, six months in, we have an alcohol statement. We had a promise to immediately remove all the drunks from our streets, to crack down on antisocial behaviour and, six months in, we get a statement from the Minister for Alcohol Rehabilitation and Policy.
He made some reasonable points in it, he had some rhetoric, and he talked about many things, but it is a statement - it is not immediate action, which is what the CLP promised going into the last election. This is part of what has fuelled Territorians’ anger. The CLP made promises going into the last election and they are not honouring them. They promised to immediately remove all drunks from the streets and to crack down on antisocial behaviour. Six months in, the Chief Minister’s interpretation of that policy is to ask drunks, nicely, to stop drinking. That is where we have come to in this debate.
People are frustrated the CLP basically said and did anything to get elected and it turns out they had no plans. Maybe they were not expecting the last election result, but they promised to immediately remove all drunks from our streets, and that is now a broken promise. We are six months in, and we have a statement from the Minister for Alcohol Rehabilitation and Policy.
We want to see the bill. You promised us immediate action. You talked about a plan. It turns out you only have the promise of a plan and, six months in, we still do not have the detail. Instead, we are debating in this Chamber - we continually debate alcohol - a statement from the member for the Fong Lim full of things he might like to do one day. We have a statement with good intentions. Page 9 says:
This is the promise of a plan. We have a statement from the minister full of good intentions. What else do we have? A review of sobering-up shelters has commenced. So, six months in we have good intentions and a review. That is all we have come to in debating alcohol in the Northern Territory following the Country Liberal Party’s promise to immediately remove all drunks from our streets. That is the promise they made going into the last election, and it turns out they only had the promise of a plan to maybe do that.
You can understand why Territorians are frustrated to the point of being angry, why they turned out the way they did in Wanguri - a result of the CLP continually breaking their promises to them: the promise to cut the cost of living and to immediately remove drunks from our streets.
Page 1 of the 100-day action plan - not page 2 or 3 – said, ‘… immediately remove drunks from our streets’.
The Chief Minister’s photo is on that, not the member for Fong Lim’s. Maybe the member for Fong Lim would have been a little smarter about how he worded some of the promises the CLP made going to the last election. Unfortunately, he is now the one who has to carry the can as the minister for Alcohol Policy.
It started off as a bit of a roundabout in the first couple of weeks of government. The Attorney-General seemed to be taking over responsibility for the mandatory rehabilitation of problem drunks, but it has now distinctly shifted to the minister for Alcohol Policy, who I assume will be working for the minister for Business, who has the licensing portfolio, and the member for Araluen who was leading the negotiations with the providers in Alice Springs. The member for Fong Lim has been given the responsibility for ensuring the CLP’s promise comes true, and it has not happened. We are six months - 177 days today - into the term of the new government and we still have not seen them deliver on their promise to immediately remove problem drunks from the streets.
This is the statement you give when you promised to immediately remove drunks from the streets, and six months later you have done nothing. It is the wedge statement. You give it in the hope no one notices you have not brought the bill forward. ‘We should make a statement on alcohol so no one notices we do not have the bill ready yet.’ This is a wedge statement. You make it to try to get some debate happening and cover up the fact you do not have any of the detail yet of how you will crack down on antisocial behaviour. Front page election promise: 100-day plan to crack down on antisocial behaviour, but six months later it has escalated out of control and the minister has resorted to blaming police for taking drunks to the emergency department at the hospital. This is the statement you make when you promised to immediately send drunks to mandatory rehabilitation and six months later you have to admit you have done nothing.
It is noticeable that in this statement the minister does not even discuss the current Chief Minister’s claim that people should just tell drunks to stop. In this statement the minister does not acknowledge or address why his good mate, Tony Abbott, does not even agree with him. The incompetence of the CLP is in the extraordinary unity of Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott.
The opening of this ministerial statement says:
We do not have that. We have the same detail we had before the election: that they have intentions to do something.
We are now 177 days into their 100-day plan and they still have not immediately removed drunks from the street; they still have not cracked down on antisocial behaviour as promised before the last election.
These are broken promises and this is what is fuelling the anger of Territorians, which we saw on Saturday at the Wanguri by-election with many voters there speaking on behalf of all Territorians and saying you cannot break your promises so blatantly. It is extraordinary. To come in on such a clear, simple promise and break it so brazenly shocks people. They are angry. They cannot believe you would be so blatant as to say one thing and then do the opposite after you are elected. It bewilders people to the point we saw in the result of the Wanguri by-election on Saturday, people expressing their anger at the lack of action from the CLP in honouring their own promise to immediately remove drunks from our streets.
We are now 177 days into the term of the new government and they still have not done one of the fundamental items on the front page of their 100-day action plan. What is their plan?
Well, we do not know too much more than what they said before the last election. It is quite extraordinary that we still have:
It is quite extraordinary that where we have come to after 177 days is good intentions.
We know they want to take a drunk from the street, from the park, from the pub, from behind the wheel, from within their home - a problem drunk - and put them in a facility where they cannot escape, because it will be a correctional facility, essentially. It will have a wall or fence and essentially be a prison so those people cannot leave. They will want to leave, they have an addiction to alcohol, so you have to build a facility where they cannot leave, essentially a prison.
But at the same time, you will be providing rehabilitation within that facility; it will need to have a medical component, essentially a hospital or hospice. It will be a medical precinct so you will have nurses, doctors, medical staff, allied health professionals. You will have a combination of a prison and a hospital staffed by guards and nurses, and it is going to be expensive.
They have an incredibly expensive promise of a plan. We do not have all the details yet, but we know it will be incredibly expensive and there is no evidence it will work. We have what I believe is one of the most extraordinary quotes within a statement. It is quite brilliant in many respects if you are in government. It is an extraordinary way to defend a policy. It was a very ‘Yes Minister’ moment. I could not believe it when I read it, and I quote:
We know this has no evidence base, the CLP admitted it has no evidence base, and in this ministerial statement they confirm it has no evidence base. But now they are saying, ‘Do not worry about the fact that there is no evidence that this incredibly expensive option of mandatory rehabilitation works’. Move on, the fact that there is no evidence that supports this plan should not be taken as any guide that it will not work. The fact there is no evidence anywhere in the world does not, or should not, be seen as a reason for this not working.
So, we have this incredibly expensive option on the table where we are still waiting for some critical detail from the government about how they will make this work. We know it will cost a great deal of money, and they themselves admit they have no evidence, and there is nowhere in the world where this works. There is no evidence to support this model, but do not worry about that, it does not mean it will not work; the fact that there is no evidence anywhere does not mean this will not work. An extraordinary quote.
An extraordinary quote and we still have no detail about how they will take the drunks from the street, the park, behind the wheel, from the pub, from their home into this care. Page 12 of the statement says:
That is what we have always known, that is what they have said repeatedly, but we need to see the detail of how this will work. That is what we are all waiting for. We thought they would be ready to go with it after they were elected, they promised it. We are six months in and see no more detail, no bill before this House.
We understand there is a level of political debate and departmental debate about how to make this happen, that there is a great deal of division internally about how to make this work in practice. We see a government paralysed and no detail before this House. Instead, we get the statement you give when you have nothing else to say, a wedge statement to try to hide the fact that no action has been taken on this.
We are six months in with no detail of how they will make this work. It is extraordinary that we are in the House debating a statement which confirms there is no evidence to their plan, and no evidence is not a problem. Forget the fact there is no evidence, that does not mean it will not work; nothing to see here, move on. It is extraordinary.
What is the importance of evidence? The CLP says in its own statement - I could not believe it – they followed that quote up by admitting evidence is important. The minister said in his statement:
That is excellent. Governments should always look to improve their service model. As you go each year you receive constant feedback and learn practical ways to improve how you do business. Great. You should improve your current service model. That is what they are doing. Brilliant!
How are they doing it?
After all, alcohol addiction is a chronic relapsing condition and requires long-term management. It is rarely cured in a one-off intervention. They are saying the evidence base is important and a one-off intervention, like the mandatory rehabilitation they are proposing, does not work. There is an extraordinary section in the statement where they admit that evidence-based therapeutic interventions are important; that is how they are going to improve their service model.
It is extraordinary that we are six months into the term of a new government, following their promise to immediately remove all drunks from the streets, and we have a statement which gives us nothing. It confirms they have no evidence base to their incredibly expensive plan. They say, ‘Do not worry about that. No, evidence does not matter.’ Then, ‘We are going to improve some service models and use evidence base to do that’. It is quite extraordinary this is where we have come to when debating alcohol in this Chamber.
We want to see the bill. We were promised a bill. We are six months in and we still have not seen the bill. We want to see the detail of how you will immediately remove all drunks from our streets. This is one of your big promises. This is one of the big things you took to the last election. We are six months in and still have no detail, and the earliest the member for Fong Lim says we might see it is the middle of this year. A year into their 100-day action plan we might see the bill. That is what we want to see. That is the debate we are waiting to have in this Chamber, the detail of your alcohol policy.
We on this side are frustrated; most Territorians are frustrated because a simple, clear promise was made and we are still in this Chamber debating good intentions and a review.
From our side, and maybe some of the parliamentarians on the other side depending on how they vote in the leadership challenge, are frustrated by these broken promises. We are six months in and still have no detail on their plan to immediately remove all drunks from the streets. We get the statement you have when you have nothing else to say: the wedge statement. The statement you give to cover up the fact you are not ready to come forward with any detail.
The bill probably should be in the Chamber today if they had their act together. Instead, we have a statement about the fact they might have a bill. It is an incredible disappointment to many Territorians that the CLP has so blatantly and brazenly broken an election promise and, instead, we still have the promise of a plan. We have good intentions and a review and, from our side, we are looking forward to the debate around the detail. That is what we want to see. Instead, we are stuck in the same rhetorical loop about the fact you have scrapped all our plans and put nothing else in place. We are still waiting to see the detail of your bill and how you are going to immediately remove all drunks from our streets.
We are a little lost on what the CLP is doing. We have no extra information. It is all very frustrating. We saw that frustration expressed on the weekend in a clear message from the voters of Wanguri who said, ‘We are disappointed with your broken promises to cut the cost of living, to immediately remove drunks from the streets, to sack nobody’, etcetera. Instead, we are here today, three days after the by-election, talking about the fact the CLP has broken a promise and made a statement confessing they have broken a promise. This is the dog ate my homework statement. This is the, ‘I have not done it yet’. It is extraordinary to come into this House and say, ‘You are right, we have not kept our promise. We are 177 days into a 100-day action plan and still have not immediately removed all drunks from our streets. We still have not cracked down on antisocial behaviour’.
The Chief Minister said, ‘When I said crack down on antisocial behaviour what I meant was go up to problem drunks drinking in our parks and streets and ask them politely to stop’. That is where we have come to in this Chamber. It is incredibly disappointing, incredibly frustrating.
We are looking forward to a bill coming into this House with some detail on what the CLP’s plans actually are. It will be disappointing when it comes forward because it will signal a broken promise. We need to be debating it now. By the time they finally get around to doing it, it will almost be too little too late. We want to see the detail of your plan; that is the debate we want to have in this Chamber. All we see are broken promises, the dog ate your homework statement. ‘We have not done it yet, we have some good intentions, we have a review, we will get there eventually. Sorry about that’. They do not say sorry; they probably should say sorry. ‘Sorry about that, we have not honoured our promise to immediately remove all drunks from our streets’. Page 1 of the 100-day action plan. We are 177 days into it and still have not seen any sign of this plan happening’.
We will note the statement, but we are not ...
Mr McCarthy: And we are going somewhere.
Mr GUNNER: Oh, we are going somewhere. According to the Chief Minister, ‘We are going somewhere. We do not know where that is, but we are going somewhere’.
From this side, we note the statement but we look forward to the debate about the detail of the election promises they have already blatantly and brazenly broken. When they finally get around to doing what they said they would do, we look forward to debating the detail of that.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I remember when the government was in opposition they used to say, ‘Oh, these puff pieces that have been put forward by the government’. Well, this is a little puff piece because it does not have any guts to it. It is certainly a good statement to debate, but there is no real vision.
The beginning of this statement says, and I quote:
I must mention that, somehow, Mitchell Street was left out of that.
I totally agree with you, minister. However, the Attorney-General, in debate last Wednesday said:
That, to me, signifies there is not a common vision in relation to the problems related to alcohol. Drunkenness is the main reason people get into fights. Drunkenness is the main reason people bash up their missus. Drunkenness is the reason people crash into a tree in their car.
I am disappointed that is the attitude because I have said, time and time again, while we might silently sit back and think drunkenness is okay, we are deliberately avoiding the real problem; that we have allowed drunkenness to be okay in our society. I say again, this is not about prohibition or about me because I do not drink, it is simply because drunkenness has now become an acceptable way of behaviour, theoretically, as long as you do not do any harm to someone else.
However, the point is many of the crimes are committed by people who are drunk. I honestly feel the government has not stated its vision clearly as to what it thinks in relation to appropriate behaviour for people who have been drinking.
I will go through some of the issues in here, and I note that seven pages out of the 16 can the previous government for the BDR. Only nine of these pages deal with the issue before us. I will say again, the BDR, to me, needed to be trialled for longer than one year. For the government to can the federal government and the Territory opposition, saying there were no statistics to prove it was working, is irrelevant in your argument because the decision about getting rid of the BDR was made before the statistics were available. You opposed it when it was introduced into parliament, you set it up as an election promise and you got rid of it the day after you were elected. Then you quote statistics from after you were elected. I criticised the now Opposition Leader for saying the BDR was working after three months of statistics. You could not make a proper intelligent decision about the Banned Drinker Register with three months’ statistics, nor could you do it with 12 months of statistics. But you people decided against it before any decent statistics came out.
I have said in parliament that I had my doubts about it working because of secondary and tertiary supply. But - this is the problem with party politics - let it run, there was a fair bit of money spent on it. Many people became used to showing their identification. Let it run for three years, have a look at it statistically and see if it had an effect. There is no way the Banned Drinker Register would solve all the drink problems in the Northern Territory. You would be foolish to say that because this issue is so complicated you need different ways to tackle it. This was one approach, and I have never knocked any government for at least trying something.
I have been on record to say I support mandatory rehabilitation, and I will get to that later. How it is done and who does it should be debated, but to spend seven of the 16 pages of this statement canning the BDR, based on a select version of events, while canning the other side is a little hypocritical.
In relation to the issue before us, mandatory rehabilitation has some benefits. I have said before, many people in Darwin get sick of people in their front yard, or lying on the road, and all sorts of things; they disturb peoples’ peace and people have the right to live in their homes and walk the streets without drunks or people humbugging them for money or defecating or whatever. I have seen it many times. I have been to St Mary’s Cathedral and seen a person defecate while Mass was on. It is a bit hard to take. That is not appropriate behaviour. My wife, and I am talking now from her perspective, would think that was not an Aboriginal way of doing things. The problem is, alcohol is destroying what they would normally themselves say was inappropriate behaviour.
We have a problem there which mandatory rehabilitation may assist, but we have to be very careful. The one area, first of all, we have not cleared up is whether it will go through the Attorney-General’s model - I know he has been looking at other models - which is, if you are picked up three times and told to go to rehabilitation and you do not go, that will be a crime and you will go to gaol. That is a long way from saying if you are drunk you commit an offence. I prefer to see it as a health problem because the people we are talking about simply cannot help themselves anymore because alcohol is controlling their lives. If we come from the health perspective, and I have mentioned this before in parliament, if you take the example used in the Mental Health and Related Services Act, section 15(a) is involuntary admission on grounds of complex cognitive impairment. I am not a doctor so I am not saying whether people affected badly by alcohol fit into the category of complex cognitive impairment, but in that section of the act there are many checks and balances because one of the issues that is so serious in this is you are taking someone off the streets against their will. That is not something we should do without a great deal of thought and a great deal of protection in our legislation.
If you go through the act you will find, under section 44A a series of requirements, such as, the setting out of a plan for that person. It has to go to a tribunal; a person cannot be taken off the streets willy nilly. There has to be some safeguards for their rights as a human being and a citizen in the Territory before you do that. If we are going to take people off the streets then we need to do it through the Mental Health and Related Services Act because the protection for the individual is far greater, and it does not make the person a criminal. That is the direction we should be going in.
The minister did make some reference to mandatory rehabilitation working, and he did mention some New Zealand figures.
It would be worthy of a minister bringing out a statement to try to prove mandatory or, as he said, ‘coerced alcohol treatment’, can be as effective as voluntary treatment. When he mentions a recent New Zealand paper regarding compulsory treatment it should be a requirement of the minister to quote exactly what that New Zealand paper is, because I could say I have another paper from Western Australia and it says something else. There is a requirement to at least refer so we can check the evidence the minister is putting before us to see whether it is correct, whether it is in the right context, and to find out whether that is the case.
I did Google quite a bit on mandatory rehabilitation for alcohol and there are many opinions on its benefits. That is why I asked the question which got two very small words in answer today. I hope the minister will give us longer than that when he comes to respond to this. I asked if the minister had spoken to AA, CAAPS, FORWAARD and Amity, because they are the people who deal regularly - there are other groups too, I am not trying to leave them out - who deal regularly with people who have substance abuse, day in, day out. They are the people who run the rehabilitation courses day in, day out.
I have been to FORWAARD and I have talked to Matthew Bonson about what he does. It is pretty impressive, the work they do. All I am saying is that before we become the experts about how we should set up these mandatory rehabilitation centres, we should be talking to those experts. I am not an expert in this field and would rely on those people to give me advice before I went down the path of a $15m project.
Because the jury is out as to whether this will work - it certainly will take people off the street and that is part of the argument we should not forget – perhaps we need to run a trial first using some of the people involved in CAAPS, FORWAARD and Amity Community Services. That way would be much better.
Minister, in your statement you mentioned the high number of Aboriginal people who are, unfortunately, requiring treatment. They are the people who will probably end up in the mandatory rehabilitation centres. I would like to know what the Aboriginal solution is to this. In other words, how are we going to involve Aboriginal people in the solution? Maybe people at FORWAARD and CAAPS could give advice to ensure options and ideas coming from families and groups of people throughout the Northern Territory on this really important problem are considered.
I hope they are brought into the discussions about how this will occur. If they are left out, I do not believe the future of these mandatory rehabilitation centres will be positive.
The other area we forget in this debate is the many people in prison for reasons which caused them to commit a criminal act, and many of those people have a substance abuse problem while they are in prison. So, whilst we are looking at mandatory rehabilitation centres outside of prison, I would be interested in the Minister for Health saying what type of programs he would be looking at, whether they need revitalising, whether they are okay at the present time. Are they working? What programs already exist in prison for people with substance abuse issues? There are many people in gaol who have that problem and, if you look at many of the sites in relation to this, you will see much of the work that has been done has been done with people in gaol.
I am interested to know if anyone has done an analysis over the last few years of the effectiveness of any treatments in prison for people who have substance abuse. Can that be related back to recidivism? Has there been successful treatment? Did people have jobs when they left? I do not know, but that is certainly part of the debate we need to have today.
I was disappointed when I heard the Attorney-General earlier in Question Time talk about youth justice. I find it very sad that an Aboriginal group who run Balunu, which is an intervention program for young people with alcohol and drug problems who are at risk of suicide, have lost their funding. I am not going to say whether Balunu was the best or the worst, but they lost their funding four days before Christmas and eight people lost their jobs. They do a great deal of work with young people, especially those at risk of suicide, and they do a great deal of good work with people with alcohol and drug problems. They tackle it from an Aboriginal perspective; if you talk to David Cole you will understand that.
What I find disappointing is later this year the government will look for tenders for new programs but, unfortunately, there was no gap funding for Balunu and without gap funding they have had to close down, which is very disappointing. When the government puts out tenders later in the year for these services they will obviously have to put their bid in like anyone else but, in the meantime, so you do not have a gap and put children at risk, I would have thought you would keep that funding going until you had another program in place. We should be doing as much as possible to intervene before we have to bring in these rather draconian methods of alcohol rehabilitation facilities because they are, more or less, the last resort.
The other area where I hope the government does not make a hasty decision is the SMART Courts. Before it looks at removing the SMART Courts it needs to undertake a cost benefit analysis. SMART Courts need to be given a thorough investigation before the government decides to scrap them. I will read from the Department of Justice website which says:
You have an option before you are put in gaol. You have an option before you might end up in a mandatory alcohol rehabilitation centre.
This method is giving people the free will to decide if they would like to try this option. What is the SMART Court? It stands for Substance Misuse Assessment and Referral for Treatment Court. It can:
You will be eligible if:
An action plan would be drawn up which would include:
This system has a carrot-and-stick approach. It gives people the opportunity to turn their lives around or, if they do not, take up their prison sentence. I believe that before governments make the decision they need to fully assess the benefits of this court because this keeps people out of prison. It allows people to continue to work. Keeping people out of prison, simply from a financial point of view, saves money.
It is really important the government does not throw this out until there is a thorough investigation into its effectiveness ...
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request the member be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Barkly. The reason I am putting forward a case for the SMART Court is what I said before. It would be pie in the sky if I said it would ever solve the alcohol problem, but it will require programs, policies, many of those things. It will not be a simple panacea, ‘Here is a tablet. This will fix the problem’. It is complex; it is different for different cultures; it is different for different parts of the Territory. There are many reasons why people abuse alcohol and drugs.
I hope the government has a vision that is not stuck on just one thing. Mandatory rehabilitation, for me, may have a use. I see it more of a use to get people off the streets and an opportunity, as the minister has said, for people to have a bit of fresh air, dry out, and have a think about things. We would be kidding ourselves to say people are going to get off the grog with three months’ mandatory rehabilitation but at least we give them a bit of clear space in their life, and at least the public has a bit of clear space in their lives as well. From that point of view, it is good.
However, as I said, because it is a process which removes people, takes their freedom away, then it has to be done properly and carefully, respecting the rights we all have in society. That is why I say to the government look at the legislation that is already in the Mental Health and Related Services Act. We cannot just look at that on its own; we have to look at the broader perspective. The early intervention, the Balunu stuff, is trying to break down the issues before they become worse.
As I have said before in this House, I visited the West Central Therapeutic Community in Ohio some years ago and I sat with six prisoners; they do not call them prisoners, they call them residents. This is a self-help prison and most people are there because they had drug and alcohol problems. Six men sat in front of me and said they consumed alcohol or drugs from about the age of 10, and they all came from broken homes. You have a certainty that if you start off your life that way, you will end up in prison.
We need an early intervention program. Of course, it is broader than that. You can send people to school; if they have no job, they get bored, they get into trouble. We have all these broader issues, some of which are bigger than this government can fix and that is why the Commonwealth has to be part of the solution. If you do not have jobs and education, then you get boredom and, if you get boredom, then you get on the grog and you cause problems; you drift into town and have nothing else to do. Whilst we are talking about a small portion of the problem, it is much bigger than that and that is why it requires many policies. If we are ever to put a dint in the problems we have in our society, we certainly need a multipronged approach.
I say, time and time again - and I know people will laugh at me –we are kidding ourselves that trying to reduce alcohol consumption in the Northern Territory will be easy, because there are vested interests. You do not have to go far to look at sport. You do not have to go far to look at the cricket, the football, and the television ads. Sport and alcohol go together, and one of the biggest things people like in the Northern Territory is sport.
If you are an advertiser, where would you advertise? You would advertise where there is sport on, whether it is at the football ground or on television. Why? Because the big people, the people who run the breweries and the hotel people, know that is the most effective way to get their message across and sell their product. Their product can be enjoyed by many people but, as we know in the Northern Territory, it is also a product that has destroyed many lives and has put many people in gaol.
The industry has to put its hand up and say, ‘We sell a product which we know people enjoy, but we know, especially in the Northern Territory, it causes so much pain and suffering’. They have to be part of the solution. The promotion of alcohol is one thing that should be looked at because it is subtle, many times it is funny, and people believe it is okay but, in fact, it is all about making bigger sales and that is about it.
It is not about drinking less; that would go against the grain of the big companies. It is not even about responsible drinking. They might state right down the bottom in small print on an advertisement, ‘We ask you to drink responsibly’, after they have promoted umpteen specials at Liquorland and Thirsty Camel.
We are fooling ourselves if we do not believe there are other people in this equation that make it very hard. I remember when I was on Bathurst Island years ago Mr Tuxworth, who was the Chief Minister, gave us some money and we brought out some advertisements for television. At the time Carlton United had an advertisement which said, ‘You have to be a man amongst the men’.
That really appealed to many Tiwi men. ‘You have to be a man amongst the men. You have to have a VB in your hand’. That is the type of advertising that is irresponsible. You do not see that in such a direct way now. Now, you have to sweat, you have to have a bit of sawdust in your mouth, you have to be drilling a hole in a piece of steel or digging a hole; you have to earn that beer. No one says that is a bad thing, there is no problem with people having a cold beer at home or at the pub, but it is the continual promotion by these companies that, eventually, becomes part of the psyche. Unfortunately, whilst many people have no problem with alcohol, there is a fair percentage who do and many of them are in gaol because of the abuse of alcohol.
There are many other issues. I mentioned the Newcastle experiment of working a different approach to closing hours in pubs; that made a difference there but you run into hostility from the AHA, and even governments. Neither Labor nor Liberal in New South Wales liked it. However, the New South Wales Police Association, the nurses at the hospitals in Newcastle, the doctors in Newcastle hospitals, the paramedics and all those people who dealt with those drunks at night were pleased to see that change in the closing hours of pubs in the Newcastle CBD. But the effort to bring in those changes was fought constantly by big business and big government.
There are solutions to changing matters around. I am not sure government is brave enough to do all those things and this is just a very small part of what needs to happen but, on its own, it will not make much difference. It might make a difference to people in the CBD, or the people who are humbugged, but the question really is, what part will this play in turning people’s lives around who are affected by alcohol and drugs? I am not sure.
I remind myself, and I have said it many times: I looked after a dormitory of 30 boys; half of those boys died under the age of 21. I never forget it and it always hurts. It was because of grog. So, sometimes I get passionate; I have good reason to be passionate, because I remember those kids. Because alcohol destroyed them, they never got to grow up to be men. Generations of young blokes were never able to pass on the knowledge of their parents to the younger people
This debate should move out of party politics if it can because it is such an important debate. It is about the future of so many people. It is about the welfare of the Northern Territory. We should do our best to join together and try to find solutions, as one, to a problem that if we do not get on top of, from an economic point of view, will cost us a fortune, and we will still be locking up people, still have people in hospital, still have broken families, and still have court orders for domestic violence. As well as that, the social fabric of our life will always be damaged until we work out good, practical ways to deal with this issue.
I thank the minister for his statement; there should have been a bit more teeth to it. I understand where he is coming from. I hope in his reply he will tell me what discussions he has had with Amity, CAR, CAAPS and FORWAARD and any other groups because I would be interested to hear what they have to say. I do not suggest that in a silly way. I am interested because they are the people who deal with this issue on a day-to-day basis. They know what goes on out there more than I do.
I thank the minister for his statement and am certainly interested in his response later.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I wish to speak on the minister’s statement as I have very deep and sincere concern and interest in what is an area of major concern right across the board, not only to people in my electorate but to all Australians. We are all in this together.
Many years ago I was a drinker and I am very happy to say that I have not touched a drop in about 30 years. That was my choice, and I am a person. I am here today because I made that choice.
I am not saying I am against drinking, I am saying it is up to the individual. Unfortunately, some individuals have fallen into a trap of alcohol abuse and its catastrophic effects which trail right across the spectrum, in both town and bush communities. While many people in this situation need to be held responsible for their own actions, there are those who need a great deal of help to get themselves off the alcohol induced merry-go-round they are on, a merry-go-round that is spinning out of control.
What the minister is talking about today is a way to get that merry-go-round under control so we can start addressing a massive social and health issue. There is no doubt in my mind that the Banned Drinker Register did not work. I witnessed many times people who were on the register, who had no identification, simply getting someone else to buy alcohol for them.
The figures given by the minister today are positive proof that the Banned Drinker Register was a failed exercise. It was poorly thought out and even more poorly managed by the previous government who left a legacy this government has had to redress and sort out. I am very pleased with this news that there is the intention to implement a mandatory treatment response which includes assessment and is overseen by a tribunal. This is a positive step, but I am particularly happy that after-hours care arrangements are included and follow-up and ongoing care would be a key factor in the rehabilitation process.
It is important to note that this measure is aimed fairly and squarely at repeat offenders who are regularly taken into protective custody for proven episodes of public drunkenness. Often we see the drunk on the street or in a park causing disturbance and engaging in behaviour that is totally unacceptable. The measures being discussed today will take many of these repeat offenders out of that situation and not only give them a better chance at life, but also give the rest of the public a break from this antisocial behaviour.
I will continue to lobby the minister for as early as possible establishment of rehabilitation centres on the mainland and the Tiwi Islands. We have spoken about possible sites near Nguiu, or Wurrumiyanga, but I am also keen to see where it can be best situated on the mainland.
I have previously talked to, and will continue to talk to, families and communities affected by alcohol abuse in my area. I will be working with them to find the best way to set up this rehabilitation centre to suit the local people and the community. There should not be a one set formula; there is no one-size-fits-all. Indigenous communities and regions across the Territory vary in many different ways. There are different languages, different ceremonies, and different country. One of the keys to success of any program is input and support from the local people. This will go a long way to ensuring positive outcomes.
Madam Speaker, I commend the minister on this very positive statement and look forward to the future. We are on the right track.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I welcome the statement from the Minister for Alcohol Rehabilitation and Policy. It is seen, as intended, very much as a motherhood statement. It does not contain the detail we have being looking for since the CLP gained government: the detail around the legislation to support mandatory rehabilitation, the type of facilities, the location of facilities, the number of beds, and exactly what staff will go into these centres. It was a repeat of what we have heard from the CLP since coming to government.
In that sense, we will continue to put the questions out there as you have heard the member for Nelson do. Questions about the legislative tools around mandatory rehabilitation, the nature of the centres, where will they be, how will they be staffed, and what this new regime of mandatory rehabilitation will cost the taxpayer.
However, the point missed – and I do not doubt it continues to be missed by the government - is the community has seen more drunks on the streets since they came to government. You can spin the statistics whichever way you want and say the BDR did not work, yet if you sit down with the statisticians whose job it was to compile the statistics in the Department of Justice, and sit down with the police who can explain what the statistics mean - they were very clear in their briefings, we spoke about it on the record – there was a dramatic trend down in the first quarter: a 22% reduction in crime across Darwin, and similar figures in Palmerston. As the quarters went on the amount of crime was reducing, which was the cumulative effect flowing through. It was police initiatives that were increasing crime figures and chasing them around. The police would talk about how, when there was an increase in the statistics in Tennant Creek, they would explain the domestic violence policies they initiated in Tennant Creek and what that meant in police resources. That is what you want. You want to see police going in hard on that horrible subject of domestic violence and ensuring the perpetrators are brought to account.
You can play politics with the data all you like, but Territorians will not be fooled; you can literally see the difference. As I was fond of saying, it took a year to create the policy based on evidence coming out of the alcohol management plans which worked, particularly in Groote Eylandt and Nhulunbuy, and the tools we saw being effective in Alice Springs and Katherine, bringing all that work together and road testing it across several months with industry. When I say industry, critical stakeholders in the rehabilitation sector: lawyers, doctors and police, of course, as main stakeholders. All of them were highly supportive of the system that was introduced. The Enough is Enough system was not just the BDR. Yes, it was a frontline tool at point of sale at bottle shops, but there was far more to it with the tribunal and the SMART Court. You have heard the member for Nelson talk about the importance of the SMART Court.
Any incoming government will have its own set of policies and views. This government has a very different set of policies and views on alcohol, so they have scrapped the previous government’s ideas. However, we are still waiting to see any rubber hit the road on their policies. Thank you for the motherhood statements, but the community is asking you to actually get on with the job of getting the drunks off the streets because you said in your 100-day plan you would immediately remove them and you have not.
There are many people pouring grog and misery into their lives and they are harming themselves and society. That harm to the individual is so disturbing when they could have been getting access to help and assistance through the tribunal. Bearing in mind, of course, the CLP did not want that tribunal to work, which is why they chopped it off in its infancy before the income management powers conferred on it by the Commonwealth came into effect in October. It was a big stick that would have got people into the rehabilitation system. But, that is okay, we can only talk about that in theory because it was never allowed to occur in practice.
What did occur in practice was the SMART Court. Have a look at that data and see how we were diverting people away from the gaol system. These are people who are not violent offenders because the SMART Court was not available to violent offenders. These are people who had not committed a violent offence but had been found guilty of an offence and were diverted into a therapeutic system, not gaol, which was rehabilitation. The CLP stopped that. They said, ‘No, that cost too much and we did not think it was value for money’. They put nothing in its place, and now those offenders are going to gaol; they lock them up.
If you look at the Territory’s recidivism rates, locking them up does not cause someone to change the course of their drinking behaviour. Yes, they are off the grog while they are locked up, but when they come out, they are back onto the grog and back into the problems associated with that, and you have that cycle of recidivism which is legendary in the Territory and has been written about in studies. Again, let us not confuse your thoughts with any fact or evidence you can obtain from reading these studies because you would rather stay within the safety of your own ideology, and so be it.
Your ideology is a lock-them-up approach. I do not know how much you explained that to people when you were campaigning in the 2012 election. When you have created mandatory rehabilitation centres - maybe it is the model in Texas you are very keen on, one of the harshest prison models we have heard of - whatever approach you take you are locking people up, and opposition will explain it was the CLP and what you choose to do. It will be interesting to see what people think about that.
The member for Stuart pointed out that people will want to go to gaol. We do not agree with that comment, but each to their own. To say that people want to go to gaol is extraordinary. There are certainly many people around the Territory and our nation who would beg to differ; who would say they do not agree with your comments. I know if you say anything in debate questioning their policy or their views it is seen as a personal attack. Well, this is not; this is a debate in this, a house of debate, on alcohol policy and what people comment on.
I go to comments the member for Braitling made previously in parliament in 2011. It was a debate on grog, and we have had many in this Chamber. He was talking about the opening and closing times of takeaway outlets. He said, and I quote:
On 5 May 2011, the member for Braitling went on to talk about the supply of grog and he said, and I quote:
It was not just the member for Braitling who held those views and said it was CLP policy. There are many members of the CLP in this House who are on the record talking about the opening hours of licensees in Alice Springs. Yet, here we are, six months into government and there was been no change to the opening hours of the licensees in Alice Springs. You have to wonder if it is still their policy or, now that they are in government, have they torn up that hard core policy?
I look forward to hearing a response from the relevant minister regarding the opening hours of trade in Alice Springs. Currently, it is a two o’clock opening for takeaway and whether or not, as is stated by members opposite - the members Braitling, Araluen and Greatorex are on the record. I am not sure whether the member for Namatjira has contributed to the opening hours debate for licensees, but three of them are very clearly on the record as saying they believe it should be 10 am.
Six months later, the Licensing Commission has not held any hearings in Alice Springs to my knowledge – again, I would be happy if the minister could tell me otherwise - to alter the trading hours of licensees in Alice Springs back to 10 am opening for takeaways. Is that no longer CLP policy? I would have thought some clarity around that would have been contained in the statement by the minister. I look forward to that answer.
At the moment, you have some motherhood statements from the CLP about what their wish and intention is. There is no detail, certainly no identification of resources, and no timelines. We still have unfettered access to alcohol and the harm that is causing our society. We can quote the information; it is all there on the record: $642m a year is what the harm associated with alcohol costs the Northern Territory. I know that the CLP rail against the cost of the SMART Court, but when you stack that up against $642m you ask, ‘Is it worth investing in? Are preventative systems and rehabilitation systems worth investing in?’
I look forward to you explaining the detail of yours, because it is still missing, and I look forward to you explaining just how much you will invest in that. I look forward to hearing, if you ever do get around to putting the detail of the alternative in the public domain, the views of others - the legal fraternity, the police, the rehabilitation providers, the medical association - because all these stakeholders embraced the Enough is Enough reforms and are on the public record supporting them, which included the tribunal and the SMART Court, not just the BDR.
It will be interesting what people say about it when you finally do put some rubber on the road. Will you go out with a discussion paper? Will you go out with draft legislation? Will the first time we see the legislation be when you bring it into the Chamber and introduce it? These are genuine questions and I would like, in the minister’s response, to hear these answers because they are questions that key stakeholders are asking us. I am sure they are asking the government if they are asking the opposition.
Thanks very much, minister, for the motherhood statement. I look forward to any skerrick of detail in your response.
Ms ANDERSON (Regional Development): What utter nonsense from the bridesmaid: never to be the bride, always the bridesmaid.
I thank the Minister for Alcohol Rehabilitation and Policy for bringing this document forward. I would like to pick up on something, before I get into the groove of talking about this policy statement, that the bridesmaid said to my colleague, the member for Stuart.
The context in which the member for Stuart spoke last week was very emotional and only understood by Aboriginal people - what our people need. I will reiterate and hope, member for Stuart, that I can put it as emotionally as you did last week.
When we talk to our families, our brothers, nephews, nieces, aunties, uncles, mums and dads we try and counsel them on the problem they have with alcohol and other substances. The answer is - and we tell them these are the laws that the government of the day has for anyone who consumes alcohol and uses alcohol to the extent our people do - you might go to gaol. They say is, ‘Gaol is our home. We get three meals a day and a warm bed and we get looked after. It gives us time to rehabilitate, to make sure we think about the things we need to do for ourselves, our families and our community’.
That is the context in which the member for Stuart, my colleague, used that. You on the other side will never know, because you do not go through the pain and hurt we go through with our families, having to bury someone who dies from alcohol misuse and overuse literally on a daily basis.
For the bridesmaid to take that comment out of context is not warranted because she would never understand. She does not come from an Aboriginal community; she does not have her brothers and sisters, aunties and uncles dying on a daily basis. She does not have to go to the funerals like we do to bury our loved ones: those who commit suicide, overdose, or die of alcoholism. Yes, this Chamber is about open debate, but you need to understand where we stand and how we understand our culture and live and breathe our culture.
This is what we go through. We go through it with our nephews all the time. We tell them, ‘Please do not drink and drive, you will get caught by the cops. Do not do that again, please. We need you at home looking after your grandmother and being part of this family. We want you to grow up as a good individual’. They say, ‘It is okay, we have family in prison. We are going to prison’.
In winter you get people committing crimes just to get to a warm bed inside, because they do not have a warm bed in the creek, if you are looking at the Todd River when it is minus1o in Alice Springs.
The bridesmaid has never had Aboriginal people knock on her door and say, ‘Can I have a bed in your lounge for a couple of days until I find somewhere to go?’ Does she go around to the town camps to feed her family like we do? We pick up our families who are in the Todd River or struggling to find somewhere to camp because the police are moving them on. We bring them home and we look after them. That is exactly the context my colleague, the member for Stuart, put it in, and it has been misused because people do not understand.
A lawyer has spoken on ABC radio condemning the member for Stuart for saying people like going to gaol. It is obvious even this lawyer does not understand Aboriginal people. That is because they do not speak the Aboriginal language, are not part of the culture and do not understand what we are talking about and what we are going through. We are trying to educate you in this very important debate to understand what we struggle with, with our families and alcoholism.
We want you to understand that they tell us they like going to gaol because they get fed three meals a day and are looked after better than outside, or it gives them an opportunity to visit their family. Like the member for Stuart said, there are beds for Warlpiri people, Luritja people, Arrentre people so they are there with their brothers, sisters, and clans. That is what you need to understand. You can only understand that in this debate from we who struggle to get our children, nephews and nieces to understand how important it is that they are part of a society that is active, that they are involved in it economically and socially and engage with people from all walks of life, not just us.
It is through all this interaction, we, as politicians, learn so many things because we live in a multicultural society now, not just in the Northern Territory, but across Australia. We learn from the friends we get on with. I have friends who are Sudanese, South African and Chinese and I learn so much from those people. Interacting with those people makes us grow and understand the problems we debate in this House. Alcoholism is just a symptom of many things for Aboriginal people. It is a symptom because people have a poor quality of education, appalling standards of health, and live in overcrowded conditions.
We have to fix the underlying problems of housing, health and education and get people educated properly in order to fix the symptom.
If we do not do that, we, and others after us in this Chamber, will talk about and read in Hansard what we said in the past. These are future politicians who will stand in this Chamber like us and talk about the same problems. Our debate in this Chamber about alcoholism and Aboriginal people is really in the hope we can educate you as our colleagues, as debaters in this House, to understand where we come from.
We talk about reconciliation. How can we reconcile our differences when reconciliation starts from an equal playing field? If we are coming from a background of poor education, health and housing that is not reconciliation. Alcoholism is only a symptom of many things,
I have to congratulate the minister because I heard him on radio talking about that very thing. You will have doubters in this debate: people who believe a floor price is right, people who believe the BDR is right. My colleague, the member for Arafura, said the BDR did not work because our people use all the smartness for all the wrong reasons. They are smart, but they use it for all the wrong reasons.
They will give their ID to anyone to buy alcohol for them. How can you put a BDR and a floor price on all the houses that sell alcohol 24 hours a day, seven days a week? I ask that question of anyone entering this debate. These people enter the debate naively not knowing; they work in their own realm of statistics turning them to suit themselves at the risk of women who are vulnerable. We need to question ourselves in the debates we have in this House.
I thank the minister for bringing this statement to this House. Minister, I am sure, as your colleague, you will be the best educated on the journey we will take on a rehabilitation method, as the Country Liberals, to please everyone. It is about taking our people back to country. It is about healing them back on their country. The minister has spoken to many people, and I have spoken to many people on behalf of the minister. We have looked at outstations where we can take these people.
Again, Madam Speaker, I congratulate the minister. This is an honest statement, and I hope we can have honesty in the debate in this House and stop misquoting people who know what they are taking about.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I am very disappointed. The rampaging front row forward for the Liberals gets sold a pup! Dave, I am really disappointed in that dysfunctional team over there. How dare they sell you a pup, of all members? You must be really taking it to heart, because this is a pup. The speakers on our side have really outlined the nature of what that means. It means: no policy, no bill, no legislation, and no teeth. It is cuddly; it is no Pit Bull - it is a Maltese Terrier - God love it. It is a bit disappointing.
I am sure you are extremely disappointed this is all you have because it puts you in a position that, by the time any legislation is framed and worked through and comes to this House, we will be 12 months out from the Liberal win in the Northern Territory.
Twelve months out is the exact rhetoric you use with the BDR, except the BDR is the opposite. The Banned Drinker Register was not given any time to work. It had its legs cut out from under it due to a populist, economic rationalist, Liberal election promise. It had its legs cut out from under it to try to appeal to the populist vote.
As the member for Namatjira constantly reminds us, there is not a white way and a black way, there is only a right way. As members of this House, as elected community members, we should have the courage to tell Territorians we are all in this together. The BDR was but one tool in the Enough is Enough alcohol reform package. It asked for seven seconds of disadvantage at the point of sale and together, as Territorians, we were going to continue to address the problem drinker.
The member for Karama, the Leader of the Opposition, gave a very good summary of the process the previous Labor government went through. I was in the Caucus debates, I was in the Cabinet room, I followed the Enough is Enough alcohol reform package. It was worked through thoroughly with stakeholders. It was extremely demanding legislation and it came online only to be cut down in its infancy by the Liberals with a populist appeal to the general public. Then, of course, ‘Oh, shock horror, we have made promises we have to deliver’.
It is interesting to watch the media flow about the number of Territorians who are saying, ‘We are populists, we are Liberals, but we reckon it should have been given a go’. There is a constant stream of mainstream Territorians saying it should have been given a go for a very specific reason; there is nothing in its place. It was an election promise to get rid of it. Now, we have a minister - a hard-hitting front row player who likes to roll his sleeves up and get involved - having to deliver what has been coined ‘a motherhood statement’ to this House six months into a new government about changing the Northern Territory and making our community safer.
The Banned Drinker Register, as the Leader of the Opposition outlined, very clearly was one tool in a reform package. I have said in this House before, I have lived in Tennant Creek for a long time and we were the experimental crash dummies for alcohol reform in the Northern Territory over 10 years. People who have lived in Tennant Creek really can contribute to the debate. In 10 years, an alcohol reform package missed the target when it never addressed the point of sale. The Banned Drinker Register went to the point of sale.
In terms of the member for Namatjira’s comments, I was in the electorate from day one when the Enough is Enough package hit the streets, and I continue to talk about the alcohol debate. It was about education and awareness, about using the tools - the Enough is Enough alcohol reform - that were given to us as community members.
One thing that was clearly resonating in the bush was that your ID is important. If you treat it flippantly, share it around and become a secondary supplier of alcohol, ask yourself a few basic questions. Who are you supplying to? You are obviously supplying to a person who is banned because they have not got ID. If you are supplying to a person who is banned, they are banned for good reason; they are trouble. That trouble will follow you and you will lose your ID; you will become another statistic on the Banned Drinker Register and it will continue to roll through. The reaction I have been getting is, ‘We understand. We want to protect our ID. This is part of normalising our lives for all sorts of reasons and, therefore, we do not want any trouble’.
That was an education and awareness process going on in a small block, one-and-a-half times the size of Victoria, in the Northern Territory. People were starting to understand a real and pragmatic intervention into alcohol abuse.
On the weekend, I stayed around in Darwin to look at how an urban polling place operates to support my new colleague, the member for Wanguri. That engaged me in a number of visits to shopping centres. I had reason to buy a bottle of Scotch for a family member’s birthday. When I went to the bottle shop an old sign on the door hit me like a ton of bricks, it stated, ‘No shirt, no shoes, no service’. I had all these images of the good old days when that was the only tool there was to address the problem drinker.
Now, we are back to that good old rule and it is a furphy for anyone to argue that the BDR did not totally frustrate the problem drinker, that it did not give the responsible drinker some real tools to work with. To say the BDR did not start to alienate the person with the problem is a joke, because they do not know what is going on in the electorate. I often hear members opposite from bush electorates touting this liberal tripe and I wonder how connected they are in their electorates? I saw in the Barkly the Banned Drinker Register resonating among responsible people who were alienating themselves from the problems. Secondary supply, of course, was a challenge.
The member for Namatjira continually reminds me not to speak on Aboriginal issues because I am not an Aborigine. What a joke. I see the challenge of kinship was able to exploit the Banned Drinker Register and secondary supply. That is why I used the basic principle of education and awareness on how to use these tools properly, how to apply these tools in the correct sense.
As the Leader of the Opposition outlined, the process was rolling through so the responsible drinker alienated the problem drinker and then had some recourse to show there are ramifications because of the referral from the BDR to tribunal, the tribunal mandating an outcome, a consequence of your behaviour. No comply? Then income quarantining, not only hitting the point of sale, but real income quarantining of up to 80%. Take away the rights at the point of sale, take away the income and you have a serious conversation going on in the community.
However, it was not allowed to happen; it was taken away. It was cut out within 12 months of its growth and development and we will experience 12 months under the Country Liberal Party with nothing in its place. That is a fair debate. That is a fair comment. If we had a game changer, if we had a bill in this House, if we had the building of rehabilitation centres, the recruiting of highly skilled clinicians, the recruiting of staff and setup of these mandatory facilities then we would not have much to debate about except let us see what it does. But at this stage we still have nothing, and that has been pointed out very clearly.
I listened with interest when the minister said in his statement that he is interested in locally developed ideas and initiatives. I encourage him to look at alcohol management plans and acknowledge the work that has gone on behind the scenes on alcohol management plans. Elliott was mentioned, and Jilkminggan was mentioned. I have had a great deal of correspondence to government, being a member of government and an MLA, about issues associated with alcohol, alcohol consumption, and alcohol-related harm in communities and in town. One local initiative rolling out was alcohol management plans.
In essence, they are the responsibility of, and sit with, the federal minister. I encourage the Territory minister, the member for Fong Lim, to look at these plans and what was decided at a local level. As I travel the Barkly, people are telling me they want to get started. They do not care if these plans are not the panacea, are not the total solution, they need something to work from. These alcohol management plans were designed and included comprehensive stakeholder engagement, community engagement, revisits, huge amounts of talk, community meetings and forums and they basically give a roadmap designed by locals for locals. We need to get these back into the Territory and give them a go.
One of the things, minister, people are telling me in the Barkly is that they want to look at a permit system. They want to look at normalising behaviour with consequences that already exist in the Northern Territory. If you muck up you are dealt with according to the laws of the Northern Territory, but at the moment they still have that uncertainty from the Australian government. We are continuing to lobby in that space and I encourage the Northern Territory government and the new minister in this area to continue that lobbying because the people in the Barkly want to get these plans back on the ground. They want to have the guidelines to operate under, and then we will go through a process of seeing what works and what does not.
The member for Nelson always adds very important elements to the debate and one element I picked up was where he said to the minister, ’What about the Aboriginal solution? What is in this statement that represents a solution coming from Aboriginal people throughout the Northern Territory?’ I draw the minister’s attention to the media release from the Aboriginal peak organisations of the Northern Territory, an alliance of the CLC, NLC, CAALAS, NAAJA and AMSANT. It was a communique, ‘Grog in the Territory: Summit Outcomes’. It was in response to the debate that was initiated in this House. It was directly in response to statements and hints at policy positions - no real substance other than these clauses or concepts about what the new government was going to do - but it gives you a good running sheet on what these respected Aboriginal organisations have put together in terms of their communique.
On page 2, and I quote from this media release:
Local examples of where alcohol management has worked, local examples of where alcohol management has failed.
Before we mandatorily lock people up, we have the obligation to explore what Aboriginal people have been telling me, what the peak Aboriginal organisations of the Northern Territory are telling government, and what would be innovative and new. That would be to have the solutions incorporate this healing process and it would be very innovative for the Northern Territory. There are many examples of this type of rehabilitative strategy operating in North America and Canada with Indigenous people.
It sets a very clear benchmark that we do not lock people up first. We go down a process which is premised on education and awareness and start to build it from the ground up.
What the member of Namatjira was trying to say in defending the member for Stuart’s comments is the bottom line is many Aboriginal people support people going to gaol. That is a negative in its sense because, first of all, there is offending which leads them to go to gaol, and second, it says gaol is not a real outcome: the mandatory incarceration of a person is not a real outcome.
There is also the culture the member for Stuart did not talk about. What I really struggled with in Corrections when I was minister was that culture of gaol. If we go back in the Northern Territory there was that really strong feeling that you were not a man unless you had done time in Berrimah. I went in headlong to change that and Corrections have done a great deal of work around that.
The issue of locking people up, mandatory sentencing, and the way this government is going is not supported by the wider view of stakeholders in delivering rehabilitation. It is questioned right across the board from academics, and many community people as well, who do not like their young people, their family members or their friends locked up in gaol. They see it as a shame process, as isolating and as alienating. In relation to any alcohol rehabilitation, mandatory sentencing has the possibility of creating further problems. One of the aspects I had to deal with, with prisoners, was jealousy. When people were incarcerated and alienated from their families and their clans, or from their friends - whoever they are - then it caused a lot of jealousy, ill-feeling and suspicion and, when people returned to the community, in my mind, I had no doubt it affected further offending behaviour.
I am nearly out of time in this debate, once again ...
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I ask that the member be given time to finish his comments.
Motion agreed to.
Mr Tollner: It is okay because I am bored.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I thank the member for Fong Lim for granting me that extension of time. I will pick up on his interjection, ‘It is okay because I am bored’. Well, bring it on, and I will take the positives and the negatives. This is a very serious debate and I will continue on and thank members for the opportunity.
The next point in this communiqu was:
To ensure our communities get access to relevant data and evidence regarding alcohol impacts and policies;
Once again, in my words, real feedback that relates to consultation and trust:
Harm reduction, once again, goes back to the point I was making that people who are taken out of a societal context and incarcerated, put into this alien environment, can really suffer with suspicion, superstition, and paranoia if they are getting mixed messages.
This was a good example for the minister for Corrections about the walkaways from the cottages in Alice Springs. The majority of walkaways from the cottages I had to deal with all relayed stories that they were told something was happening at home with the wives or the girlfriends or whatever, and they were going to deal with it. I continually tried to get the message through not to live off innuendo, gossip, rumour or suspicion, that they have a responsibility to complete their sentence, be rehabilitated and then go home and take up those important duties, whether it be as a father, brother, ceremonial leader, or a carer of senior Territorians.
This suspicion, innuendo and rumour was always a part of the problem in integrating a person back into the community when they had been taken out, incarcerated, locked up. Let us face it.
There is still much more debate around the member for Stuart’s comments. To lead off that and go into a new area, I also recommend that the member for Stuart talks to the Minister for Correctional Services and tours the Berrimah prison. Have a look in B Block, see those men who are locked up in clan groups and talk to them. I did, and they gave me a great deal of information as to why it was not a good place to be, why they really did not want to be there, and how they would change when they got home.
The member for Stuart might want to pick up on my three questions, because when I visited the prisons regularly and met many of my ex-students - both in the female and male blocks – the number of Aboriginal people in our prison system who recognised Mr McCarthy became quite legendary. It did not say too much about my teaching abilities, member for Fong Lim, but it certainly had an impact on me as a decision-maker, law-maker, and a person working with the public sector to address offending behaviour within our community.
I used to ask the question, ‘How are you?’ and I always had to modify that to, ‘Are you okay?’ Are you all right?’ The answers, generally, came back in a physical sense, ‘Yes’. In a mental sense, there were always qualifying statements. I used to say, ‘What are you doing in here?’ Invariably the answer was offending behaviour. I used to cut it short because I did not want to know about that stuff. I used to qualify that question with, ‘Are you enrolled in courses? Are you doing education? Are you involved in any work?’ Are you working in the kitchen, or do you work in the laundry? Get yourself a job in here. Make this place work’. The old crims, the hard boys, used to tell me, ‘Time goes quicker if you are working in here, minister’. The old boys gave me a lot of advice, but that was one that resonated with me, coming from hardened criminals: time goes quicker if you have a job.
The second question was, ‘What are you doing in here? Are you doing something?’ That was in the positive. The last question I always asked was, ‘What is your plan? What are you going to do when you get home?’ Invariably, there were not many answers and there was not much forthcoming. So, I started to think: this is obviously the really critical, important link: the re-integration back into the community.
The member for Fong Lim, the minister, has said in his statement, ‘It is not the panacea’. We know it is not the panacea. We cannot say it will provide all the answers, but he really needs to critically look at the reintegration process for these recovering alcoholics because, unfortunately, one of the real challenges that I discovered in Northern Territory Corrections is that we were releasing rehabilitated people back into environments that supported their offending behaviour.
That is the reality of what was happening to a large degree in cases right across the Territory. So, that is where we started to explore ways of trying to support the reintegration process. The reintegration process for the recovering alcoholic, or the person addicted to illegal drugs, is going to be very important in this plan. Not only will it involve considerable capital expense, it will also involve budgets. You have two choices: you re-create the wheel or you start to invest in the stakeholders that provide these services. Whichever way it goes, none of this stuff is cheap, but if you do not invest in it then the good work you are trying to do will be undone very quickly with no strong reintegration plans and reintegration processes.
Once again I am on my feet debating alcohol in this House, and am looking forward to the minister bringing a bill into this House where he can roll up his sleeves and get stuck into debate and committee stage amendments. This minister will relish committee stage. There are a few fragile egos on that side, member for Fong Lim; they do not like this committee stage. I had a good crack at the Chief Minister, Minister for Lands Planning and the Environment. He flicked the ball so fast it was better than Benji Marshall. He threw it out the back so quickly. He did not fool me for a minute. I was trained as a hooker; I knew the ball was going to move and I was straight on to where that ball landed.
Today, in Question Time, I could not understand whether the Chief Minister, when talking about land release said, ‘craft’ or ‘graft’. I was not sure. There was a small phonetic misinterpretation by me, I accept all responsibility, but I did not quite hear whether he said, ‘We are going to craft land release’, or, ‘We are going to graft land release’. Whichever way it goes, I will be there. I am following that ball, and I will seriously look at this delivery.
I bet the member for Fong Lim is keen on getting his sleeves rolled up. It looks like the game ain’t on for at least 12 months into government, which is very disappointing. We want to get into more of this debate because it is hard to nail down the story for Territorians if you still have these statements about maybe somewhere, we are going somewhere, we are going to do something. It is not tangible, it is not laid down and I suppose, at the end of the day, I will take another leaf out of the member for Port Darwin’s book, and that is, it will be in the budget books. It will be in the budget papers, and we will see it spelled out, each line entry itemised. Then, of course, we will get to debate it in terms of legislation, and we will see the new Liberals’ approach to addressing alcohol abuse within our community.
Mrs PRICE (Stuart): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Minister for Alcohol Rehabilitation and Policy. I would like to start by saying how many family members I have lost because of alcoholism. I lost three brothers, a niece who was 21-years old, five cousins, nephews and nieces, uncles and aunts, and I can go on all afternoon about who they were. During the time they drank, Labor was in government.
Could the opposition tell us exactly how many of their relatives they have lost to alcoholism? We have to put up with this, as I have always said, every day of our lives. We have people ringing us, knocking on our doors, screaming at us. I do not believe the member for Karama would have that type of behaviour or reaction in her electorate of Karama, nor would the other opposition members who want to lecture me and tell me I should consult with my families when they are never in the vicinity of these people we are talking about who drink alcohol every day.
As for the member for Barkly, I know Tennant Creek has very strong women who will stand up and fight for their rights. For your information, I am going to talk to them on the weekend. I will make sure I talk to Rosemary Plumber, Valda Shannon, and many more I know who are related to me, and find out from them exactly where they stand on this. I will be talking to Geoffrey Shannon and Mr Jones. I will ensure I get hold of them to talk to our minister for Alcohol Policy.
I will ensure their voices are heard by our government. I will do that whilst I am Tennant Creek on the weekend.
I want to go back to the previous statement I made on Thursday about how young people are much better off locked up. By saying young men or young people, that is how we classify our young men. It could be a 30-year-old, it could be a 40-year-old, it could be a 50-year-old because of the relationship we have with them. That is the appropriate way I would refer to these young blokes. There are young men in youth detention who are close to me, and that is close to my heart as well. We, as Aboriginal people, try our best. As the member for Namatjira mentioned earlier, we try our best to encourage our young people and young women not to get into trouble, not to drink, because they will go to gaol. As the member for Namatjira said, they tell us, ‘Oh, it’s all right aunty, gaol is all right because we are only in there for a little while’.
Sometimes during December and January gaols have a huge influx of young people who deliberately smash a window so they can be locked up between December and February. Do you know why? Because it is Christmas and they are looked after. Every inmate in the gaol knows each other, they even know the prison officers. They are all mates in there. Why would they want to be in 45 heat outside whilst they could be in an air-conditioned room surrounded by family?
Alcohol will always be around. White people were used to it 5000 years ago. We are still getting used to it. We have not been able to sort the alcohol problem out. We are still challenged by it and our people are still trying to get used to the idea of drinking alcohol not to get drunk. This is the message we need to get out there as well, you can drink alcohol but not all in one go. You can have a couple of beers. You can do it. Do not make excuses because I am a blackfella and can drink whatever I want. Only (inaudible) drink like that and everyone wants to make excuses for our people and alcohol.
Everybody wants to make excuses, and they encourage it. Do you know how they encourage it? ‘Something was happening to family so I had to drink this bottle’ of whatever. ‘Something was happening to my wife, my uncle, my sister’, or, ‘He made me do it, that is why I did it. That is why I am in gaol’. I am sure the member for Barkly would have had conversations with inmates who said, ‘Hello, Japangardi, how are you today?’ He would have said, ‘Yes, I’m good. How are you today?’ ‘Yes, I am good’. Because that is what they want you to hear. That has been going on for a long time and has always been the case.
Mr McCarthy: That is sad, Bess.
Mrs PRICE: That is reality.
Mr McCarthy: Are you trying it on me?
Mrs PRICE: That is reality. They do it to me too, not only you.
Mr McCarthy: I do not do anything to you. That is sad.
Mrs PRICE: They do it to me too. They tell me, ‘I am all right, I am okay’. That is what they want me to hear.
Mr McCarthy: Yes, but you are talking about me, not you.
Mrs PRICE: I am talking about you and I am talking about me …
Mr McCarthy: Making assumptions about me.
Mrs PRICE: But this is the case ...
Ms ANDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker. The Member for Barkly was heard in silence, so I expect the member for Stuart to be heard in silence.
Madam SPEAKER: Please continue, member for Stuart.
Mrs PRICE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is reality. It has hit something sensitive, and that is the message I want to get out there.
To go back to what the member for Nhulunbuy said about her Yapa in Nhulunbuy, the Gurruwiwi family. I am a Yapa, but that is me because I am a Yapa in Warlpiri, which describes me as an Aboriginal person. I have many friends who are white people as well, and I do not stand up and talk about them.
If we are fair dinkum about helping people control alcohol, we have to be straight with each other. We have to be honest with each other and talk about how we can help each other. It has to come from our people on the ground, and this is where I respect the women of Tennant Creek because they know what they want for their young people. They see it every day in the streets of Tennant Creek. I want to support them, because this alcohol issue is not going to go away. As I said, Rome was not built in a day.
I say to the member for Karama, I look forward to taking her with me to go for a drive in my electorate so she can sleep on the verandahs of all the houses that have been neglected, sleep with the dogs, and talk to everyone about their alcohol problems. We can talk freely. The statement being directed at me is, consult your people. I have been consulting since day one with my relatives. We should all think about what has happened so far. Who worries? We will be debating this alcohol problem for years to come.
I want to work with our government to set up rehabilitation centres and get genuine programs in the prisons, in the rehabilitation centres. I can talk about the Mount Theo program which was set up for petrol sniffing in Yuendumu where I am from. That worked. It was an initiative from the old people who decided enough was enough. That is where we need to focus. We can make these things happen instead of accusing each other of not knowing what we are talking about. These are serious problems we have in the community which we need to address.
I am pleased our Minister for Rehabilitation and Alcohol Policy has stood up and ensured this mandatory alcohol treatment is heard and, hopefully, people may help and join in and make these changes. I thank the minister for bringing this important issue for us to debate.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I wish to offer a small input to this debate. Yes, we could manipulate the statistics as the opposition did when it was in government. However, we would prefer, as a government, to be more open and transparent.
Much to the disappointment of the proponents of the BDR, the statistics show there was an increase in alcohol-related assaults. As the minister pointed out, that increase was 2.9%. I want to make those points first.
The funding outlined by the minister of $35m per annum supporting Territorians in accessing services to break the pattern is great. This initiative will go some way to reducing - I do not know whether people picked up on the $4197 we spend for every adult on hospitalisation, victims of violence, road accidents, police in courts, and workforce absenteeism.
I have previously raised my view that locally developed and managed permit systems are the best way to work. I have spoken about the success of such clubs as the Peppimenarti Club and its impact on the people of Wadeye. It creates employment for the people of Peppimenarti and has some very strict rules. Those rules seem to be stricter than some of the rules at the Humpty Doo pub.
This is not a takeaway venue and the BDR had nothing to do with it. It was not part of the controls. So I am not sure how the removal of the BDR has made the streets awash with grog. I have yet to see any anarchy or massive boost to crime, and I live in the bush. As the minister alluded to, this anarchy forecast and touted by the opposition has lead to further threats of intervention by the federal government, another impost on the rights of Territorians. She cannot keep the BDR, so let us bring in some other impost.
As a party, we see rehabilitation as only one of the solutions and, as my colleagues have said, Indigenous people see incarceration, at the moment, as a saviour. Maybe this forced rehabilitation will soon replace the poor perception that imprisonment is their only option. Coerced alcohol treatment is always an ongoing option as are other less intrusive approaches, such as non-residential treatments through places such as Amity and others The planned review of sobering-up shelters is welcome and far overdue, having had little done with them since the mid-1980s. We can get away from the ‘spin dry’ approach and lead to some type of evidence-based approach with trained staff, not just a job for someone to pick up the drunks. I note that the legislation will be ready by mid-2013, an excellent outcome for such a shift in addressing alcohol problems, and I applaud the minister for that.
As a party we are about implementing a full team solution, not a front row forward approach of crash and burn anything in our way, as was highlighted by the member for Tennant Creek. As we all know, routine such as getting up each day to attend work gives people a purpose and this needs to be a key part of any rehabilitation to get away from the ‘sit down money’ boredom. However, this habit needs to be instilled in our youths, so I am pleased to see this area also gets some attention with an increase in funding of $1m to Bush Mob, which is only in Alice Springs - I will speak to the minister later about some closer to my electorate - another commitment of the Labor government best described as a casualty of the GFC - get further credit - another unfunded announcement by the previous failed government.
I will finish with a quote from the minister’s statement which I found very good in dealing with these people, that we do access a rehabilitation program:
It was a very good statement, minister.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): I want to pick up on a couple of the comments that were made during the course of the debate, particularly by the member for Barkly, who gave us a nice dissertation about his trip to gaols as the minister. I was curious to hear him tell us about his little trip to B Block.
If the former minister is to be believed, gaols work and locking people up works. During his debate he said, after saying locking them up does not work, that prisoners in B Block do not like being there and when they go back to their communities they change their behaviours.
That, from a retributive point of view, is the idea of how a gaol is supposed to work. But I do agree with him, when he is not bumbling around with his words, that gaols have a limited capacity to achieve social outcomes and that is largely because they are a concentration, in many respects, of the worst of humanity. The people are not in there because they have done good deeds; they have broken the law. The law exists for a number of reasons, not least of which is to protect people from the criminal offences of other people, which means if you break the law you may have created a victim - some of the reasons you end up in gaol.
Putting all of that aside, there is a much bigger picture in operation here and what is of particular concern to me is this apprehension, amongst the members opposite particularly, that if you get a person to question themselves and explore themselves then you will get an improved behaviour. That is true; I have no doubt that is entirely true, but let us put that into the context we get from the picture drawn by the members for Namatjira and Stuart. Think about it; a person does the requisite navel gazing required by the members opposite and as a result of that finds themselves a new and wonderful purpose in life. There is only one problem; that person lives in Papunya or Mount Liebig or Kintore or one of those communities. They decide to get themselves cleaned up, they are sober, and they are heading for a new life. But what does the new life entail? It is a remote Aboriginal community, welfare dependent, no jobs, often with a lack of inspiration amongst the people who live there and, to compound that, you have passive welfare being poured into the place.
We heard from members earlier that nothing will get you in more trouble than being bored. There is nothing more that will create boredom than passive welfare in a remote Aboriginal community. So what do you do? You either commit offences when you get bored in that community, and often that means buying grog which has been smuggled in by grog runners or you head into town, town being Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine, or Darwin. So when you get to town, what do you do? Do you get a job? No, you are not in the mood for getting a job by this stage; you are in the mood for getting on the turps and getting into mischief. Consequently, that is why these people end up in gaol.
I listened to the member for Stuart the other day when she made her statement about gaols being a place that people actually want to go to, and if you understand what these remote communities are like you can understand why she would say that. These communities have, in the past, been called all types of things including ‘hellholes’ by some members in this House. That may not always necessarily be true but, in many instances, you can understand when you see these communities why they are not great places to be. Housing is overcrowded; where housing exists it is often damaged by the people who live in it. There is a multitude of indifference in many of the people who live there and, unfortunately, there is nothing to occupy people’s minds, and that is very frustrating. People say alcohol is a curse in its own right. Yes and no. It is certainly a substantial presence. I see alcohol in our community primarily as a symptom, and it is a symptom of a much larger thing, idleness.
Idleness in Aboriginal communities is encouraged, in part, by a non-productive environment.
I find it fascinating that people can own so much land – more than half the Northern Territory – have an interest in the other half in terms of native title, yet are unable to, on the land they own outright, generate income. This is what we call asset rich, dirt poor. It is extremely frustrating that the land owned by these people - we are talking hundreds of thousands of square kilometres, in many instances very good, high quality land - does not do what land has always done for Aboriginal people, provide them with a living.
Prior to the arrival of Europeans, the living made off Aboriginal lands was sufficient for survival and basic shelter. I would not suggest the cure for Aboriginal ills at the moment is to run off into the bush and live as you did 230 years ago; many of those songs and stories have been lost anyhow. However, that land, as a source of survival, can be achieved not only in a spiritual sense, but in a very real economic sense. One of the things I would like to see on Aboriginal land is much more development.
Historically, I have been critical of the Land Rights Act and, for that matter, land councils. I am more critical now of the act than the councils themselves. The councils, to their enormous credit over the last 15 years, have moved from a defensive posture to a posture more inviting towards investment. However, that then runs into problems because the structures of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act are such that it is investment averse.
By way of example, picture a person who has $10m. They wonder what they can do with $10m. ‘I can invest it in Sydney or I can invest it on Aboriginal land to build a hotel’, for arguments sake. This person then says, ‘Oh, I would like to do something good - build a hotel on some Aboriginal land and see if we can create one or two jobs’. To achieve that, you have to approach a land council. This is required by the act, so I am not blaming the land councils. The land councils then have to set up a meeting with the various traditional owners who are on the land trust. You then have a couple of meetings, you go back and forth and, as the potential investor, you are supposed to be the person who does the job of paying for all the meetings. Alternatively, you can buy a block of land in Sydney and do whatever development you like.
That is why you will find many investors are shy of going into Aboriginal investment. Not only is it legally difficult in the sense you have to go to leases, subleases and all that nonsense, it is also difficult in the sense it is very hard to break into that land. So, you find a situation where you have a cattle station on one side of the fence, productive at making money and employing numerous people; step over to the other side of the fence and you have stepped into the Third World. That means there is nothing different about the land or the country or what is potentially available on that land, what it means is you have stepped from one land management system to another. You have crossed the border from South Korea into North Korea, and the results could not be more startling.
What has all this got to do with grog? If people cannot get investment and that type of thing happening on their land, ultimately, they are without work and passive welfare happens. One of the manifestations of passive welfare is alcohol abuse. If we want to talk about a broad range of policies to protect Aboriginal people from alcohol abuse, I am happy to start talking about a broad range of policies. Let us do some restructuring of how we can create investment and advance investment in Aboriginal lands so we can create jobs, get rid of the idleness, get rid the passive welfare, make people proud of themselves and, before you know it, alcoholism rates in a community like that start to reflect alcoholism rates in other communities.
I heard the member for Namatjira say Europeans have been living with alcohol for 5000 years. That is true, but guess what? Alcoholism is still a problem in European communities. There is a class of people - I suppose you call them a class of people - with addictive personalities who have a predisposition to alcohol addiction. That class of person, if they are genuinely addicted, will not be bashful or shy about pursuing their addiction. That is why things like the Banned Drinker Register do not work. If you are dealing with someone who has a genuine addiction, like the platinum cardholder and the frequent flyer club from the Banned Drinker Register list, then they will obtain alcohol. The case in point is Mr 117 arrests for intoxication ...
Mr Tollner: One hundred and fourteen BAT notices!
Mr ELFERINK: That is right. He then gets served 114 BAT notices saying he has to front the tribunal so he will be taken off the Banned Drinker Register in due course. Of course, without any penalty attached to that, they never bother to front; those notices can be thrown in the bin and they can go and procure alcohol by whatever nefarious means they determine to do so, which includes drinking things like Listerine, vanilla essence, and those types of things.
Let us not kid ourselves that we, through some magical potion or process, are able to deal with these problems, no matter what flavour of government we are. What we on this side of the House are prepared to say is that you have to intervene, and that is what the minister is talking about: creating an intervention system. I am delighted we can do it on a health model, because the model I had always described when drafting these policies used a hybrid of criminal justice to get a health outcome. The health outcome was always the target. If we can do it with a direct health model, so much the better.
I know the minister is working very hard rolling this package out. We made it abundantly clear in August that this policy would take 12 months to roll out. I remember giving various media interviews on it. The minister, by bringing the legislation into the House by July, is doing well; he is ahead of schedule. I heard the members opposite screaming about it, but guess what? It is happening and it is coming.
I support the minister’s statement; I support the policy very much, and I look forward to the implementation of this policy for the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory.
Mr TOLLNER (Alcohol Rehabilitation and Policy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank all the speakers who spoke on this statement. I value the way everyone spoke passionately on the topic. It is clear to me – and it has always been clear to me - this is an important issue that is recognised by the entirety of members in this House. We all recognise the problems caused by alcohol abuse. That is abundantly clear. It does not matter what electorate you are from, people feel this is an issue. It reinforces to me again that this is a Territory-wide matter.
At the end of the day, it is our philosophy, our ideas, our point of view, on which we differ in a few areas. Last week, I believe it was on ABC, someone said, ‘We have to take the politics out of this issue’. That is not my view. My view is politics is about the battle of ideas, and it is through politics that the best ideas bubble to the surface and, ultimately, we as a people, as a race, as humankind, benefit from the best ideas being aired and picked up. So, I am never afraid of politics. That is why I have entered this most honourable profession because I believe in the power of debate, the power of fresh ideas and the like. In that regard, I am truly thankful to everyone who has commented.
I thank the member for Port Darwin, the last speaker, for his comments in relation to some of the problems we are dealing with. Alcohol abuse, in the main, is a symptom of a much greater problem. I believe the member for Port Darwin did more than scratch the surface and identify some of those problems. It has been my long-held belief, too, that the framing of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, whilst well-intentioned, has not positively impacted on most Indigenous Territorians.
The fact is, as the member for Port Darwin pointed out, the whole idea of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 was about keeping people out, keeping western culture out, and basically locking up country for people to be hunters and gatherers to forage and live on that land as they have for 40 000 years or more. It was the brainchild of a Labor government, put in place by a Liberal government. Ian Viner was the federal minister who brought in the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. The Northern Territory jumped up and down about it at the time, and quite rightly so. Canberra did not trust the Northern Territory government; they did not trust business, they did not trust western civilisation. So, they created an act of parliament which aimed at keeping everyone out of that land, and some of the problems we have today are symptoms of those problems put in place over 30 years ago. I thank the member for Port Darwin for raising that. We could talk about that all afternoon.
The member for Stuart spoke incredibly passionately. It is difficult for many of us in this House to understand the real impact alcohol abuse has had on the lives of people, but to listen to an impassioned presentation like we heard from the member for Stuart is a wonderful thing.
Similarly, my thanks go to the members for Arafura and Namatjira. Both spoke extraordinarily well. I am very thankful that the member for Barkly put in his two cents’ worth. There are some matters I will respond to which he and the opposition raised.
I thank the member for Nelson for his contribution. There are some matters in his contribution which I will attempt to address; similarly, the members for Karama and Fannie Bay.
I thank the member for Fannie Bay, the shadow minister for Alcohol Policy, for the way he has taken this statement. They say this is a motherhood statement or a ‘puff piece’. It is far from that, but I will explain that.
The comment that goes through the whole opposition argument - it started off with the member for Fannie Bay saying we scrapped everything, we scrapped this, we scrapped that, we scrapped the BDR, and put nothing is in place. I heard the member for Barkly say, ‘You have gotten rid of the Banned Drinker Register; you are going to get rid of the SMART Court. What are we left with? We have nothing’. They were his words, ‘We have nothing!’ I do not know what his concept of ‘nothing’ is, but I remind the member for Barkly, and members opposite, the Northern Territory probably has the most highly regulated alcohol laws in the western world. There is no place I have visited where I have seen stricter rules around the serving of alcohol. We have an incredibly regulated area; there are enormous numbers of restrictions in place.
Putting politics to one side for a second, to be very clear about it, we have an opposition which supported the Banned Drinker Register; that is fine, good on them. We have a government which does not. In fact, we have a government which went to an election with a key platform of getting rid of the Banned Drinker Register. Why did we do that? Because it was not working; it was having no effect and was very expensive.
If the opposition believes we should have kept it, fine, but put yourself in our shoes understanding we do not believe it was working and we do believe it was very costly. Why would we keep it? Irrespective of whether we have anything to replace it with, which we do not, we do not believe that measure worked.
Why would we continue that very expensive waste of government funds when we have a view that one of the best things we can do for all Territorians, is get the drunks off the streets and into rehabilitation? This is the difference between the rhetoric of the former government and the rhetoric of this government. The former government kept saying they ‘turned off the tap’, which meant nothing. Everyone knows it was a ban on takeaway alcohol and, the fact is, taps are inside the pub and anyone can walk into a pub; it did not matter whether you were on the Banned Drinker Register or not.
Setting that aside, the fact was it did not work and the greatest sanction anyone got under that legislation was their name added to a list. That was it. That was the big hit. That was a wallop on the back of the head. The single biggest punishment the previous system could mete out was they would put your name on a list, a Banned Drinker Register. Even if it worked, that was the biggest penalty.
We have a different view. Our view is that putting your name on a list will not get you off the alcohol, off the street, or stop you accessing alcohol. We have a view that whether it works or not, we need to give people the opportunity to get treatment, to give them that break in order to dry out, collect their thoughts, and make a value judgment based on their circumstances and where they might want to head in the future. We are dead keen to do that. We are dead keen to give people that break from alcohol abuse. We are dead keen to give the policemen that break so they are not picking up the same person night after night, day after day. We will put people into a mandatory treatment model.
It is questionable whether mandatory treatment or even voluntary treatment works. Many people say it does not matter if you do it voluntarily or it is mandatory, it is like quitting cigarettes: some people will quit, others will not. To me, that is a simplistic argument. The greater argument is the fact we are giving people a break from alcohol simply by putting them into mandatory rehabilitation. We are giving them some breathing space to dry out and start making some real decisions. If we get in there at the same time as providing a dry-out service and try to engender people with a work ethic similar to what the Attorney-General is doing in Corrections, where he has prisoners leaving prison with full-time jobs to walk into, that will have a major impact on the number of drunks on our streets.
Another concern I heard from the other side is it will be 12 months out before we have anything. This, again, came from the member for Barkly. I like the guy, he is talking about me being the front row forward of the parliament. If that little terrier was chasing me no one in this House would run faster, because that little joker could pack a decent wallop. Enough of the football analogies.
However, he says 12 months before we have done anything. I understand, as an opposition, you try to call into question the work ethic of the government. We certainly did it when in opposition but, for the benefit of the member for Barkly and members on the other side, you need to understand something has happened. In fact, a great deal has been happening. These things do not materialise out of nowhere. We do not have major rehabilitation facilities in place; they will need to be constructed. We need to work with the existing sector, which was one of the things the member for Nelson raised, have we consulted? I can assure the member for Nelson we have consulted. The organisations he mentioned have all been spoken to by government. Some want to be part of the mandatory rehabilitation regime, others say, ‘We have this area of work we operate in and are happy to continue that. We do not really want to go into the mandatory treatment side of things’. That is fine, because we need a range of different solutions.
People will be given the option of voluntary rehabilitation and we need places where people can voluntarily check themselves in. We need sobering-up shelters, we need drying out locations, we need places where clinically trained people can ensure detoxification and all those things go well. A wide range of services will be required to do this.
Additionally, we need to look at staff, infrastructure, and all those matters are being negotiated at the moment. As the member for Barkly knows, you just cannot click your fingers and have legislation instantly in the Chamber. It has to be drafted, there are processes of the parliament, and these things take time.
I am not reluctant to say it is taking some time either, because we want to get it right. We want to ensure we have a system that works for all people in the Northern Territory who need this assistance and we want to ensure whatever we do really relieves the community of much of the worry related to alcohol, antisocial behaviour and all those other things we are all so upset about.
I have no problem with the time this is taking. To suggest this is a motherhood statement or filibuster is a little cute. The statement has been given to encourage debate on this issue and to give an update on exactly where we are at.
The member for Barkly need not worry; by the middle of this year we will have legislation in place, and I am hoping we will be very close to completion of some major facilities. Of course, I am certain the Alcohol and Other Drugs sector will be fully on board.
One of the things we committed to as part of the election was funding a peak body of Alcohol and Other Drug operators in that sector. We have done that. AADANT, Association of Alcohol and other Drug Agencies NT, has been funded, they are operating quite well; we have a dialogue with them. I am very keen to see that sector utilised. I would much prefer to utilise the people we already have in the Northern Territory before bringing others in from interstate. The program we are embarking on is big, comprehensive and will be quite expensive.
This is an area which we have made no bones about. We said, prior to the election, we understood this would be expensive. We said we understand we are in a great deal of debt at the moment - the legacy left by the previous government. However, we have put a ring around the alcohol issue because it is so important to the community; we have to deal with it. As such, we will throw everything at this policy to ensure it works, that we get the drunks off the streets. Not only that we get them off the streets, but we make every effort to keep them off the streets, get them rehabilitated, get them into meaningful lives, and get them working and doing the best they can for the community.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I again say thank you very much to all those members, both government and opposition members, and the Independent Labor member for Nelson. Thank you everyone for the wonderful contributions. I have heard what everyone had to say. There are some things I am more than happy to answer. Other things have challenged my thinking. Thank you for taking this statement in the manner in which it was presented.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Women’s Policy
Ms ANDERSON (Women’s Policy): Mr Deputy Speaker, today I outline the government’s approach to women’s policy. This is my first speech in my role as Minister for Women’s Policy. I have spent much of my life thinking about what we mean by women’s rights and it is good to have the chance to think about it more as minister; to reflect on where we have come from and where we still strive to make progress.
The place of women in the Northern Territory is difficult. It is different to just about anywhere else in the First World. If I had been appointed to this portfolio in any other Australian government, we all know the speech I would be giving now. It would be a pretty positive story of how women have almost achieved equality in society and culture - equality under the law. There is still some way to go in that story, but the achievements of the past 40 years have been enormous and the journey seems to be almost over.
I cannot give that speech in the Northern Territory. That story describes the lives of some women here; you have only to look around this Chamber to see that. However, for many Indigenous women it is almost as though the great battle for equality had never been fought. If you look at teenage pregnancy, education levels, unemployment and, particularly, at violence, thousands of women in the Territory are no better off than they were 40 years ago. In fact, often they are worse off, partly because they are Indigenous. They share many problems with Indigenous men but, in large part, it is because they are women.
I am thinking especially of violence. Violence goes to the heart of women’s inequality in any society. Today, Indigenous women are far more likely to be its victim than anyone else in the country. I have lived with that brutal fact all my life, and it continues to distress me. It continues to anger me.
Women are being bashed and abused, women are dying. Safety is not just women’s business; it is everyone’s business, and everyone has failed. Because the Territory has such a high proportion of Indigenous people in its population, this prevalence of violence, of women’s pain and suffering, makes the challenge of women’s policies here more urgent and more pressing than in any other place. It also makes it appropriate; sadly, that the Minister for Indigenous Advancement is also the Minister for Women’s Policy. Having said that, I acknowledge that the story of women in the Northern Territory is much bigger than that. It is a story with many positives starting with stories about the unique contributions made in all the traditional societies from which the people of the Territory come. For Indigenous women, it is the story of tremendous resilience, of all they have done to hold families and communities together during times of enormous change and stress.
It is also, as I have acknowledged, partly the story of progress as experienced by women in other parts of Australia, and the world, where most women have achieved education and jobs and the freedom to do things women have never done before in the history of the world. I want to celebrate that story of progress for two reasons, first, because it is relevant to many women in the Territory and, second, because even for those women who are still behind and still suffering oppression and violence it is inspiring. I want all girls and young women to know their rights and to see the possibilities available in their own lives.
I want the men to see it too. History shows that achieving women’s equality, just like racial equality, is a job for everyone. I want men to know that if they do not help in that job, they are condemning many of our women to continue to suffer in a way that is almost unique in so-called developed nations. They are condemning our women to an historical and national backwater. As Minister for Women’s Policy, I will do my best to tell all those stories and ensure everyone is aware of them. I will do all I can to ensure women here have the chance to achieve the possibilities, the stories revealed to us.
The solution to women’s problems does not lie just with government. We know from advances achieved for women in other places that they can only be achieved if everyone pitches in: NGOs, voluntary organisations, churches and philanthropists. We know that many women who have been successful need to turn around and lend a hand to younger women; many are doing this already. I hope we can develop some ways of encouraging even more of this type of inspiration and help.
I want to acknowledge that there are two broad groups: the Indigenous women I have mentioned, and the many others who have benefited from the reforms of the past 40 years. Just like women all around Australia, I want to celebrate the progress of that group. The progress has been impressive. To draw on some recent New South Wales figures, typical of most of Australia, these days 70% of girls complete Year 12, compared with 63% of boys. Girls are still less likely than boys to do an apprenticeship or traineeship; however, even that gap is narrowing. In admissions to university, women have charged ahead with 57% of university students now women.
How things have changed in less than a lifetime. Today, most Australian women can do just about anything they want. This was not always so. Not only were there all types of prejudice, there were laws and regulations which made women second class human beings. Women were simply excluded from many places, jobs and positions. There were unequal rates of pay, and there were rules like the one in the Commonwealth public service that said female employees had to resign if they got married. If you looked at the public face of society then, outside of entertainment, women were almost invisible. There were almost no female politicians or business leaders. The only female leaders of any kind were in those all-female careers or institutions such as nursing and schools. It had been like that for all of history, so when you think of how much has changed in those 50 years, which, in historical terms is just a blink of an eye, it is amazing.
One of the things that strikes me, looking around this Chamber, is we have one of the highest proportions of women in parliament in Australia. In most other Chambers it is much lower. It is puzzling that while women have progressed in all kinds of ways in the past half century, they have not managed to move into all the many positions of leadership. Of course, there have been some successes. Look at the gender of the Governor General, the Prime Minister and several recent premiers and chief ministers around the country, but politics in most places is still very male dominated.
If the feminists of the 1970s had been told that, they would have been surprised. They would have thought that in politics, at least, you could have expected women to achieve parity. I believe they would also be surprised by the even greater absence of women at the top level of business. Maybe they would not have expected women to achieve parity with men at the CEO level, but they would have expected to see more women up there than we have now. There are hardly any women running major companies here or anywhere else.
One reason for this is women tend to avoid careers from which highly-paid corporate managers and leaders emerge, such as engineering. In New South Wales, only 12% of engineering students are women. We tend to work in lower paid areas such as healthcare, education, community services, retail and administration. This explains why there are more women on the boards of government committees: 37%. In not-for-profit organisations there are 29%, and in public companies just 17%. We tend to find far more women managers in schools, where 50% of all principals are women, and more in the public sector than in the corporate world. But in every area the number of women drops right away the higher up an organisation you go and the closer you get to the real seats of power. This is a problem for all of us, men and women.
Every woman in a group raises its group IQ. Shelley Penn is the National President of the Australian Institute of Architects and she has pointed to statistics which show women make up approximately 45% of university architecture students, but they comprise less than 2% of directors of architectural practices. This is despite the fact that research shows the more women there are on company boards the more successful that company will be. Other studies have found the same thing in communities and group decision-making. The experts are telling us we need men and women to make the best decisions.
Society still has an enormous deficit in what we might call female intelligence, and one of my aims in this portfolio is to publicise the fact and get people thinking about how we might harness that extra intelligence for the good of everyone.
Another development I believe would have surprised the feminists of the 1970s is the situation today where we are looking after the children. Many feminists 40 years ago believed that before long men would share not just half the university positions and the good jobs, but half the effort of looking after children. That has not happened. We would have done well in education, and I was reading the other day that over half the number of law students are now women. Women are also well represented in good jobs, but despite these advances, women are still doing most of the childcare in their families. What is the reason for that?
Some people blame it on men not wanting to surrender their privileges, but that does not quite fit. Men have been prepared to go a long way with feminism in many ways, from doing more housework and changing language and manners, to education and jobs. So why would they have put their foot down when it comes to childcare? Maybe it is biological. I know many people believe men and women are fundamentally different, emotionally, and even intellectually. You often hear boys are better at maths, girls at language. You often hear men are better at map reading while women have more empathy. Dozens of books have been written about this, such as Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus, and there is no doubt they are based on a great deal of academic research.
We need to be cautious about accepting that. We need to be cautious about accepting any claims women are naturally different to men in how we think and feel. Once you look closely at the so-called evidence it does not really stack up. Recently, there was an article in the Sydney Morning Herald which referred to Janet Hyde, one of America’s leading academic psychologist. Dr Hyde looked at 5000 academic studies on gender differences involving seven million people and found almost 80% of so-called gender differences are small or close to zero.
Let me give you some examples. Many people believe women talk more than men, but when a researcher tested this by putting small recorders on 400 men and women, he found each sex talks, on average, the same 16 000 words a day. It is also not true that women disclose much more about themselves in conversations than men do, or that men interrupt much more than women. We need to be very cautious where we make any assumptions about differences between men and women. Academic research is telling us there is still plenty of unconscious prejudice out there shaping the way we think about the sexes.
If we expect people to act in certain ways maybe they will, but that does not make it natural. My guess is it is possible women’s behaviour will change in the future. I admit the jury is still out on childcare and I will be watching with real interest to see if men become more involved. That is important because I suspect that is the only way we will see a big increase in the number of women in top positions. A high proportion of top female executives either do not have children or, if they do, they have nannies, and have had them pretty well from the time their children were born. Obviously, that is not something many women can afford to do.
As I mentioned earlier, the problems of many Indigenous women in the Territory are worlds away from problems of leadership. I would like to say a few more words about the terrible effect of violence on many women. Although it is a problem for many Indigenous people, girls and women are more likely to be its victims. It is well-known they are five, 10, even 20 times more likely to be abused or bashed than any other Australia women. The exact figure depends on the type of crime and the research you read, but the general situation is clear, and it is tragic.
As the Minister for Women’s Policy, it is the single most important problem facing women in the Northern Territory. For years we simply denied it. In the 1990s it was not politically correct to talk about violence against Indigenous women committed by Indigenous men. Feminists who were mainly white did not want to talk about it in case they offended Indigenous men, which I always thought was strange. I remember the fight we had to get ATSIC to recognise the problem.
One breakthrough came in 1999 with the report of Queensland academic, Bonnie Robinson, who led a large group of Indigenous women who produced a ground-breaking report. After that it became harder to cover-up the shocking level of violence against women in Indigenous communities.
I was involved in the struggle to form an ATSIC Women’s Advisory Board; it did not occur until 2003, which was pretty late in the day for ATSIC. Sadly, the violence of those days is still with us. Around the world people agree the fundamental job of governments is to protect the security of their people. It is a job successive governments of the Northern Territory have failed to do well; it is a job that has frustrated most of the decent and well-intentioned people who attempted to tackle it. The problem is the violence is so common you simply cannot hope to stop it all.
In some communities you need a police station on every corner. What has to be done is to attack it at its roots. Violence is the fruit of a tree of masculine idleness that grows in the soil of welfare dependency. To stop the violence you have to destroy that tree. To do this we need to cut off the welfare so the tree of idleness dies and a new tree can take its place: the tree of employment planted in the soil of improved education.
These are big solutions for a big problem. It is the tragedy of the Territory and the tragedy of its women that no one at the Commonwealth level is talking about them. Many people said the intervention was unnecessary, challenging. In fact, it was only a bandaid, which was why it has had little impact.
I commend the many good people who work tirelessly to feed children, and arrest and punish men who beat and rape women. But these are all bandaids. Until we get a federal government that is prepared to initiate profound welfare reforms, men will not take jobs and, until men take jobs and get self-respect, they will keep drinking, and beating and abusing women.
As the new Minister for Women’s Policy, everything else I will have to deal with in the portfolio shrinks into insignificance in comparison to this. It is a puzzle why federal governments of both parties have not given us these welfare reforms. There is nothing difficult about them. As I have said before in this House, all that is required is that Indigenous people be treated the same as other Australians. Not to do so is racist. Although the federal government makes the laws, I suppose it will be the last one to recognise that. I say to people in Canberra, we are not children, treat us like adults and we will start to behave like adults.
In conclusion, I observe that the battle of equality between the sexes is, in many ways, the same as the battle for equality between races and cultures. Women used to be treated like children and told what was best for them. Only when that stopped could they take their place in the broader society. We are living in a fortunate time in history because so many advances have occurred, but there is still much to be done - much for Indigenous people and for women, and even more for Indigenous women. As the minister for both Indigenous Advancement and Women’s Policy in this government, I embrace that challenge and acknowledge its immensity.
I also acknowledge that although many women in the Territory are still suffering, many others have benefited from the advances of the past 40 years. They have completed school, gone to university, taken interesting and well-paid jobs, travelled, and done amazing things. I celebrate their achievements and invite any of them, or anyone else who has ideas on how we can improve the lot of women in the Territory, to get in touch with me. Your experience is valuable and you are an inspiration for girls growing up here and wondering what their place in the world might be, and how high they should aim.
I finish with the observation that although women should be able to do anything, we should resist the temptation to define success solely in male terms. Career and public success is not the only way to be a fulfilled and valuable human being. Success for most women is more likely to be a mixture of private and public achievements. One of the important things female leaders can do is stand up for different forms of success. We want a society where women can succeed in the same way men do, but we still want to be a society that values other forms of success too. Thank you for the opportunity to make this general observation of my new portfolio. As I said earlier, I will be making another statement with more specific policy proposals at the United Nations International Women’s Day reception on 8 March.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement, and I table the documents I have quoted in this statement.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, as the shadow Minister for Women’s Policy I have a special obligation to keep the government to account in its commitment and delivery of services to Territory women, no matter where they live. As a young female parliamentarian, I feel special empathy to support women, particularly young women of the Territory, and to work as hard as I can to ensure they enjoy the same opportunities I have had available to me.
I have had remarkable support in my life and, as a parliament, we must ensure our policies and goals support all Territorians, especially those who are disadvantaged in so many areas, including lack of access to services and opportunities. In listening to this ministerial statement today, I was very mindful of another debate we had earlier relating to the impact of alcohol abuse on our community, especially towards women and children. I am bewildered how the minister can deliver a statement which includes reference to domestic violence but not discuss alcohol abuse beyond one passing reference, ‘drinking and beating and abusing women’. To me, that is incredible.
As Territorians, we must also address the issues that are making men so unhappy, leading them to drink, creating anger and too often leaving women and children as victims of violence. It is for these reasons I am again left bewildered as to why your government has cut support to men’s services. I cannot help but be deeply concerned about how this ever-present cloak of alcohol abuse in our community impacts right across our community. So many young people, so many women, are achieving amazing things every day in the Territory, but so many opportunities and choices are at risk from this overwhelming problem of alcohol abuse associated with family dysfunction.
We must also acknowledge and support the strong women in many of our communities across a range of areas, including supporting young mothers, supporting access to education and work opportunities, and providing safe places and proper support for people to deal with and conquer their substance abuse problems. We need to learn from and support the leaders in our community who are already working in this area and know what needs to be done. We need to learn from their kindness, generosity and strength of spirit. We need to learn from them and support them in what works and what does not. We have so many young women being heard on the national level; there are young Territorian women, who have done things like the National Indigenous Youth Parliament, the Australian Youth Round Forum, and the National Roundtable that existed for a little while. More could be done to promote these opportunities.
Minister, your government, the Cabinet you sit in, the decisions you make so far, have not sent a strong signal to Territory women that you have a plan and you are committed. I seek leave to table the CLP’s Women’s Policy document which was circulated leading up to the 2012 Territory Election.
Leave granted.
Ms FYLES: As a government, you have not referred to this policy and, minister, I did not hear in your speech that you even acknowledged it.
This document was circulated and developed with stakeholders so their support and knowledge were placed in it, but as far as your speech was concerned, it does not exist. In your statement you said:
Minister, it is your government that is failing Territory women. The majority of bashings are alcohol-related and with the CLP government deciding to allow domestic violence offenders to start buying alcohol again, the number of women in our emergency departments will only increase. Tragically, hundreds of women are admitted to hospital every year having been violently assaulted. Only today, the Health minister told us that the long waiting times in the emergency room were due to the reluctance of police to hold drunks in cells. Why did he not talk about the victims of alcohol-related assaults filling our emergency rooms? It is your government that has cut the domestic violence teams in our hospital emergency departments. You talk of conversations you and your colleagues have, but what conversations have you had about cutting this critical service? Where is this support for these vital teams?
Providing support to victims of domestic violence in our hospitals is vital and the scrapping of these important teams puts more women at risk. The Labor government started this program to provide support to victims of domestic violence. It worked, and it would have been continued under Labor. The removal of these teams has put more pressure on medical staff in our hospitals and, under the CLP government, we are continuing to see job cuts, funding cuts and service cuts in critical areas of children and families. We know of at least 47 staff who lost their jobs in the Office of Children and Families since August. This is putting pressure on frontline services and domestic violence victims.
Minister, you talk of the prevalence of this violence making the issue more urgent and pressing, yet it is only the second time we have seen you formally raise the matter of women’s policy as a minister. You put out a half-baked press release four days before Christmas seeming to hope that no one would notice the lack of detail. Then you bring this ministerial statement to the House, but again you promise more information in a few weeks in a speech. Minister, given the urgency you state compared to other subjects, why only one press release? Why wait two more weeks? Why no reference to the CLP’s policy before the election?
All governments should develop policy that encourages women to achieve and follow their dreams. You talk about increased employment opportunities for women, and we may see women with careers but these are largely positions in education, childcare, positions that have been traditional employment domains for women. We must broaden this.
Our parliament has a high representation of women, something that makes me proud, and something that makes Territorians proud. I especially would like to welcome our new member for Wanguri.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms FYLES: But we no longer see any female CEOs of departments in the Territory. That concerns me. Minister, you talk about feminists from 40 years ago who would be surprised about our modern world and, again, I quote from your statement to the House tonight,
Yes, minister, they certainly would be surprised, especially here in the Northern Territory with not one female chief executive. Your government sacked the last remaining female chief executive earlier this month after sacking the female Under Treasurer. Minister, what example does this set to females within our Northern Territory public service? As the shadow, can I suggest you look at policies such as those leadership policies from the federal Treasury department?
It has a policy where, by the year 2016, 35% of its senior employees will be female. This is not just an ideological policy; it is backed up by clear documented policies of how this will be achieved, including statements on leadership, governance, accountability, workplace policies, training and networks, performance assessment and career development. It is something of substance, so vastly different from what we are seeing in the Territory.
Your statement indicates you expect business to have women in leadership positions but you do not have that same expectation of your own public service. Letting women know their rights is vital, but encouraging them with good practical policy and role models is just as important, something we have yet to see from the new NT government.
Minister, I find your comments about encouraging non-government organisations to be involved in finding solutions odd to say the least, considering the cuts your government has placed on Territory non-government organisations. I quote from your statement:
We know from advances achieved for women in other places that they can only be achieved if everyone pitches in: NGOs, voluntary organisations, churches and philanthropists.
It is your government that has slashed funding to the NGO sector, and we are yet to see a real commitment to the Fair Work Australia decision to boost pay for community workers. As a government, Labor had committed to funding the NT government’s share of this pay rise and the CLP should step up and provide detail and the same. There are approximately 5000 people working in the Northern Territory community sector and most of them are women. More than 50% work remotely in a variety of fields including social and disability work, child protection and counselling. These are stressful jobs. The decision is a great step forward, and will mean a fairer wage in the pockets of some of the Territory’s lowest paid workers.
I welcome your statement, quote:
We know that many women who have been successful need to turn around and lend a hand to younger women; many are doing this already. I hope we can develop some ways of encouraging even more of this type of inspiration and help.
But I would like to see some substance, policy and action behind this statement for your government to deliver on.
Minister, you are correct, you are in a very unique position as the Minister for Women’s Policy and the Minister for Indigenous Advancement. Your government was elected by the people of the bush and now it is your chance to shape and implement a policy that is vital to equal opportunity and the recognition of women.
You say that women still do more than half their share of raising children. As a mother, I adore any time spent with my children, and many in this House have heard my stories and seen pictures of the children. As a family, like many families around the Territory, I choose not just to work to help the family budget, but for me as a person to grow, to have challenges and the independence that employment offers. I enjoy working. Women’s policy needs to encourage family-friendly workplaces so women do not feel they are leaving their children by returning to employment, but more, that they are enriching their lives, enriching their children’s lives, and enriching their community. Their children will grow up with good role models if their parents are working people.
Modern technology allows us to work from home, so a mixture of government policy that encourages family-friendly work hours for mothers and fathers is vital. The NT government, thanks to the previous Labor government, as I understand, is the only state or territory in Australia to offer a childcare subsidy to help with the cost of care at a state level. This is paid directly to childcare centres and is vital. With all the cuts your government is inflicting, I hope this support is not cut. It directly supports parents by reducing the fees they pay up-front each week for childcare.
As shadow minister for Women’s Policy, one policy I will advocate is childcare centres located within workplace precincts. This would support families greatly. Many other capital cities have this model and it has many benefits, such as less time for children away from their parents because they can travel together to commute to work, access during the day for breast-feeding of younger children, easy contact with children who may become sick or just the opportunity for parents and children to see each other when parents have a break. The working day can be based around a child.
Encouraging the private sector to look at this policy in the development of building precincts is also important. You said, and I quote:
It is about policies that support mothers and fathers. As a society, we need to support female talent in the workplace.
The roll-out of early childhood centres across the Territory, especially in our regional areas, is not only vital in allowing women to work but also provides an opportunity for respite. Many mothers in this Chamber would acknowledge that. Sometimes people say to me, ‘I do not khow you do it, working and having two children’. I do not know how mums who stay at home with their children do it. It is good to have that balance, and we need to provide policy to achieve that.
Research shows one of the key areas in the workplace for women which needs to be addressed is meaningful part-time employment. We need a shift where high-level positions can be part-time. Often women returning to employment after maternity leave or time off to care for their children - or fathers if that is what the family chooses - when they request part-time work are offered positions which are not at an equal level to those available full-time. They are offered positions which are not at high managerial level. We need to accept people can work two or three days and still make a significant contribution. We do not need to see people trying to do in three or four days a five-day-a-week job; we need to have balance.
As a society, we need to embrace mothers. We need to set an example to younger generations that you can be a parent and have a successful career. It should not be a choice for women to take a lower paid part-time position or a higher paid full-time position. High level responsibility should be available part-time and we need to see a cultural shift in this. The federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Elizabeth Broderick, refers to this as ‘a wastage of female talent’.
I note your comments about violence towards women and quote from your statement:
Minister, as a female leader and member of Cabinet you need to make decisions in the Cabinet room when they are being discussed. Do not let domestic violence services be cut, or non-government organisations funding be slashed, or programs dumped without proper review.
The document I sought leave to table earlier had a number of practical ideas to be implemented within six months, yet we have seen no mention of them: a women’s services directory and a women’s information service. I believe your media release just before Christmas mentioned a mandatory reporting of domestic violence register, but we have not seen anything within the first six months to finalise the review into mandatory reporting of domestic violence. That legislation has not come before the House. There has been no mention of the women’s health policy, of which was said, and I quote:
I have tabled that document and look forward in your response to any updates on that I might have missed. I apologise if I have.
In conclusion, minister, I again quote from your statement:
I am unsure what you meant by your comment, and I quote:
Perhaps in your response you could elaborate on this statement.
Minister, you say you will do all you can, you tell stories, but so far you have not followed these through with words and actions. I felt this was a motherhood statement.
I look forward to your speech on International Women’s Day, which is only in two weeks away, to deliver this guiding document. This ministerial statement is not the road map I was expecting.
Ms LEE (Arnhem): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support my esteemed colleague, the Minister for Women’s Policy, in her statement on the Mills government approach to women’s policy.
In not so many words, this is one of the most emotional speeches an Aboriginal politician would make. I am a mother of three beautiful girls who look up to me, not just as their mother but as a role model. I hope the things I do in life reflect positively on them and they will grow up to be the next generation of leaders. Growing up with two strong women in my life - my mother and my grandmother - who shaped me, disciplined me, and taught me all the right ways has made me the person I am today. I remain forever grateful to them.
I hope in my journey as a young woman, I, in turn shape and influence other women - Indigenous and non-Indigenous - it is everyone’s business that, in some small way, we influence our brothers and sisters.
I have been thinking about what we mean by ‘women’s rights’. For much of my life I have been busy living those rights, so it is good to have the chance to think about them more, to reflect on my own struggle to build a public career while bringing up three children.
The fact that we have a Minister for Women’s Policy, and not for men’s policy, is an acknowledgement that women still face more problems than men, and government can help do something about those problems. There are many problems government cannot solve, but it does have budgets and does pass laws, and that can help women a great deal.
Government also strives to control violence within boundaries, which is very important to women because we are so often the victims of violence. If violence is so out of control, government is failing, and that is something I will return to later.
I have also been thinking about the history of women’s rights, which really developed in the 1960s and 1970s. It struck me this was around the same time as the Indigenous rights movement, and both of them were very successful.
With women’s rights, the idea was women should be able to do anything men can. We had to overcome what you could call some of the obstacles of biology. The first of those was childbirth, the only area one can argue women are different from men and always will be. Women used to have babies young and they used to have many of them. If you think about women who were famous for anything before the 1960s, you usually find they were childless, often because they never married. But for the vast majority of women, being pregnant so often and raising those kids made it very difficult to be involved in higher education, well-paid jobs, or leadership programs and positions.
As I said before, I have three children, all under the age of six, and being a mother and MLA is a challenge. Some days I am not sure just how I manage it, but for most women who had families throughout history it has been possible. What changed is most women have fewer children and they start their families later, and there is government assistance with childcare. If you are lucky, you can find a partner like mine who is supportive and understanding, and will even change the occasionally nappy and do some of the cooking. Thanks to all this, women now can enter the public world, take on higher education, jobs, and political careers, or even work in voluntary organisations and do things men said for thousands of years we were incapable of doing. Some of us can even do better than men. This has been the biggest change that women have experienced.
The other big change involving biology is violence. In most relationships, the man is physically stronger than the woman - that is a simple fact - and some men abuse that by hitting and abusing women. This has not affected so many women as having children has, but for those women it has affected the results have been devastating. That is why the feminists of the 1970s put so much effort into setting up women’s refuges and publicising domestic violence. Thanks to those efforts and the support that eventually came from charitable organisations, churches and government, women in most of Australia are much safer than in the past.
In those two areas we have been successful in overcoming the effects of biology on the place of women in society, but that success has not occurred everywhere. I am sure some of you have been thinking in the past few minutes there is one group of women in Australia who have not experienced that success nearly as much as others. They are Indigenous women living in their own communities, and the majority of them live in the Northern Territory.
Many of that group continue to suffer. They have children far too early. They do not finish school or go on to higher education. They are victims of assaults by men; they live with it. It is a sad fact in this regard that Indigenous women of the Territory are probably the worst off of any group of women in the western world. I am not talking about all of us, I want to stress. I am talking about our average rates of teenage pregnancy, literacy and violence. Unfortunately, when you look at this statistical picture you see a group of women who are not only no better off than they were 40 years ago but, in many ways, they are worse off - less educated and less safe.
Last year, Hillary Clinton said:
I believe she was talking about the Third World but, unfortunately, it also applies to many Indigenous women of the Northern Territory.
Not many have opportunity in life; life is hard. Then again, there are impressive stories about achievements and milestones all women have made in our society, but there is still much to be done: equality in our culture, society and under the law. In our society, women always had a role to play, always carried the burden from one to another.
Like minister Anderson, I agree it is through leadership that we may find our way forward. To date, women have got on with the task unsung and, now, these women need to be recognised and supported for their contribution. However, the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women in positions of leadership is small and not representative of the Territory population, but this mirrors women in the Northern Territory in general, and, therefore, we must be cautious to understand there is a right way not a white or black way.
Focusing on developing and educating women to be leaders is not the only answer, but it is the best place to start. We need to look at the young girls in communities, particularly those who are vulnerable and, more than ever, we need female role models to empower the leaders of our future.
I want to end on a positive note that shows how far we have come. Look around you here in this parliament: 10 members out of 25 are women. A few are misfires on the wrong side of the House, but at least they have the courage to stand up and have a go.
I thank the Minister for Women’s Policy for her bravery, and the Mills government for its maturity and understanding that this is more than just some politically correct stunt, and is a genuine, heartfelt effort to advance the course of women.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this statement before the House, and I have enjoyed listening to the contributions that have come before the House since she delivered her statement. I hope there will be a gentleman somewhere along the way who will participate in the debate; so far it is the women who are leading on this.
It is an interesting statement, touching on many issues affecting women’s lives. It is a fine testimony to the challenges women face, the challenges Indigenous women face and how some of those challenges - including violence, which she describes as going to the heart of women’s equality in any society - have been overcome in the last 40 years and the real barriers and prejudices which still exist have done for years, and some of them will for years to come.
There was an important acknowledgement that the solution to problems facing women does not just lie with the government. While she did not mention this in her statement, I have heard her speak on other occasions about communities and leaders, and the need to step up to the plate to address the issues they face, like violence, at a grass roots level. I could not agree more with that.
In her statement, the minister shared stories and talked about the importance of sharing stories. This seems to be a feature of the statements she delivers in this House. Without diminishing those stories for a moment, because I recognise them as true, it is her endless capacity to identify and highlight what is wrong, but she is less prepared or equipped to address the issues in terms of working towards finding the solutions and getting to the heart of those problems.
As the minister, it is her responsibility to go beyond delivering motherhood statements and to develop and deliver policy which will drive real, lasting and sustainable change. I can certainly see the connection highlighted between being the Minister for Indigenous Advancement and Minister for Women’s Policy, but it is a whole-of-government approach needed to address some of the entrenched issues which we are dealing with, like violence against women. She is absolutely right about dealing with welfare reforms, but I fear she seriously underestimates the tasks ahead when she says there is nothing difficult about them.
There are many reasons why I joined the Labor Party all those years ago, but the strong stand for women’s rights and equality was one of them. Knowing what we all know about the federal Leader of the Opposition, I am a little fearful of how far backwards he will take women’s issues, and the gains which have been so hard fought for for women, should he become the Prime Minister in September.
Under a Labor government in the Territory, I welcomed the first female Chief Minister, Clare Martin, and her hands-on approach to women’s matters, and I especially welcomed her enormous capacity to engage with the community. I remember, in particular, when I first met her and her female colleagues, the member for Karama, the former members for Arnhem and Arafura, at one of the women’s forums prior to my days of becoming a member here. One was held in Nhulunbuy and one at Galiwinku and were enormously well-attended, and we had the eyes and ears of the female members of the Labor Caucus, and very valuable sessions they were.
The minister makes reference to female members of parliament. Just today we have welcomed the new member for Wanguri - I also welcome my new colleague from the August election, the member for Nightcliff - which brings our Caucus numbers to 50% being women. I remember when the minister was elected in 2005, I was holding the election party, as I have done most years at my home, with Labor supporters gathering around watching the results unfold, and it was phenomenal to see the landslide for Labor in 2005. Whilst I certainly did not know her or a great deal about her, I was delighted to see the current minister win what was then the seat of Macdonnell; it was good news for the new member and bad news for the member for Port Darwin, who eventually made his way back here. But there is no doubt that having female representation in parliaments is critical in representing the constituency which is approximately 50% men and 50% women.
I have revisited the ministerial statement delivered by the former Minister for Women’s Policy, Malarndirri McCarthy in 2010, titled Achievements in Developing and Progressing Women’s Policy in the Northern Territory. It gave a report card as to where we were up to at that time following the launch in 2008 of a policy for Northern Territory women titled Building on Our Strengths, a Framework for Action for Women in the Northern Territory 2008–2012. It was the Labor government’s road map for progressing issues important to women in the Northern Territory. In fact, it was important to women everywhere, but it focused specifically on the unique issues Territory women face. It was policy which had the vision that every Territory woman will have equal opportunity to reach her full potential.
This plan was built on information collated from those Community Cabinet women’s forums held from 2003 to 2007 in urban, rural and remote communities right around the Territory, including the ones I attended in Northeast Arnhem Land. It set out key actions in five key priority areas: health and wellbeing; safety; economic security; leadership and participation; and life balance.
I acknowledge the comments of the member for Nightcliff in her contribution about being the young mum she is with two small children and that juggling act between work and family. My children are a little older, but I can certainly relate to the juggling act we go through as women who raise families and choose to pursue jobs and careers. Going back to that report, there were two reports outlining the progress and ongoing work on emerging issues in relation to the key areas identified in building on our strengths.
I spoke in support of that ministerial statement. Many members of this House did, both male and female, and the member for Namatjira spoke at length during that debate in 2010 raising many very valid issues. However, the minister now needs to go a step further. She needs to deliver sound and robust policy which addresses the issues she raises now and the ones she raised in the debate on women’s policy in 2010 - policy which will translate into reforms or legislation which will advance the interest of all women in the Territory whether they be first Australians, migrant women or otherwise, and whether they live on the Stuart Highway or in the far flung remote regions, and whether they be young girls, teenagers, mums, working women, elderly grandmothers or, young grandmothers for that matter.
I have seen the CLP’s pre-election women’s policy document titled ‘Territory Women Do Matter’ and note the member for Nightcliff has tabled that document. I encourage the minister to pick up this policy and run with it as an excellent starting point for developing further women’s policy in the Northern Territory. This should be beyond politics and have bipartisan support in delivering the very best outcomes for women in the Northern Territory. The current document makes some very valuable and astute suggestions dealing with the protection of women, in particular, on page 2 of that document, addressing deaths associated with domestic violence. I will read a few paragraphs from it.
Clearly, this document is on a very good path with suggestions dealing with domestic violence and a clear process about reviewing those deaths as a result of domestic violence. I commend the Minister for Women’s Policy for the document and commend you, Madam Speaker, as the member for Goyder who had Women’s Policy as a shadow responsibility when you sat on this side.
Dealing with domestic violence is critical. As the minister highlighted in her statement:
The minister has backflipped on the alcohol reforms introduced by Labor which she stridently supported in 2011 when a member of the opposition bench as an Independent. She gave her full support to the bill in the House on 5 May 2011. I quote from the Parliamentary Record:
She went on:
She has gone from that strident support to supporting the axing of the Banned Drinker Register – an election commitment of the CLP - and other reforms without evaluation or any proper assessment, and in the face of so many harsh critics of the CLP’s actions from police to Indigenous organisations, health workers, hospitals, and normal everyday people who have inundated online forums and talkback radio, as I said previously. Worse, they have axed it with absolutely nothing to take its place.
I know only too well the devastating effects of alcohol which I see around the Territory. The minister is quite right - I hark back to her comments from that debate in 2011. It is an issue which impacts Indigenous as well as non-Indigenous people.
Following the election, when I visited the Tiwi Islands with the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Barkly, people were deeply concerned about the prospect of the election promise of the member for Arafura which would see the return of full-strength beer to the local social club at Wurrumiyanga. This ignited an ill-conceived debate about opening up the ‘conversation’ - as the Chief Minister termed it - about allowing alcohol to return to communities, including those who battled to ban it, and the possibility of reopening the rivers of grog and, with it, all the misery that accompanies it, especially domestic violence.
How returning alcohol to communities can support a reduction in domestic violence is simply beyond me. The Nhulunbuy electorate and its people fiercely protect the highly-effective alcohol management plan we have had in place since March 2008, which is, in fact, a tougher version of the Banned Drinker Register. It is not a silver bullet for reducing alcohol abuse and protecting innocent people from violence, but it does make a significant impact. I was pleased to hear the Health Minister, the Alcohol Policy minister, in the earlier statement about alcohol, make an acknowledgement about the success in northeast Arnhem Land.
The minister is all too quick to dismiss Labor’s efforts and achievements around women’s policy. As the shadow for Indigenous Policy, I will highlight some of the achievements in addressing Indigenous women’s health and other issues which affect women who live remotely. This included the mandatory reporting of family and domestic violence, a milestone for the Territory. I recall a lengthy and very emotional debate on the floor of this Chamber, and a bill I proudly supported, as did the member for Namatjira when she was the member for Macdonnell.
It was a Labor government priority to work in partnership with the federal government to improve the health of Indigenous women. This has included: a four-and-a-half year improvement in life expectancy for Aboriginal women from 65.2 years in the year 2000 to 69.8 years in 2006; the Indigenous infant mortality rate has fallen by 37%, from 25 deaths per 1000 births in 2000 to 15.7 per 1000 in 2006, recognising that rate is still too high but is closing; and a dramatic decline in mortality from cervical cancer, falling by 64% in non-Aboriginal women and by 92% for Aboriginal women between 1991 and 2003. I suspect there are more recent figures than those I have quoted today, and I will make it my business to track down those figures.
Employing community-based workers in our community health centres and improving access to health promotion programs and community engagement has also been critical, and Labor made good progress in this area when it was in government. These professional workers are at the coalface so often between modern medicine and Indigenous people. They are, in some ways, cultural brokers and their role in overcoming the barriers of culture, communication and primary healthcare cannot be underestimated or undervalued.
This is true not just for those who work in health. There is also a need to understand Indigenous women face disproportionately higher barriers to accessing formal education, often leading to vulnerability and exposure of Indigenous women and girls to poverty and violence. Education is the passport out of poverty. It is what puts girls and, for that matter boys, on the pathway to a future and choices in life. The principle remains the same, be they Indigenous or non-Indigenous.
I note the minister is continuing with Labor’s initiative to provide scholarships for women who wish to study. I saw that media release the other day and I see that as an incredibly positive initiative to continue which allows access to, should they be successful, a scholarship for those pursuing courses through higher education or through VET. I commend the minister for the continuation of those scholarships.
Under a Labor government, we delivered support for young mums out bush through family support workers through the successful Families as First Teachers program, and worked with the Australian government to establish early childhood centres so women can return to work to earn an income and know their little ones are well cared for in a place which is not about providing a babysitting service but engaging children at the start of the pathway to a life of learning. It is also about recognising and understanding that the focus on women’s economic security helps to underpin our work to reduce violence against women.
Our strategic directions for women’s policy in the Northern Territory included the development of a women’s safe strategy to be progressed as a whole-of-government response, building on and linking with our initiatives such as our alcohol management strategy, the now defunct BDR, and mandatory reporting of domestic and family violence.
I turn to the involvement of and the promotion of women into leadership roles in the Northern Territory. During Labor’s term of government, the Northern Territory had the highest percentage of female elected representatives in comparison to other jurisdictions, and that is be proud of ...
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time for the member for Nhulunbuy to complete her remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms WALKER: I will not be too much longer. Thirty-seven per cent of elected representatives were women, 20% of chief executives were women - I am talking about in the public sector - a figure which is pretty good, but can always be higher. Sadly, that current figure of women in chief executive roles in the public sector in the Territory is zero. It is zero for women amongst the CEOs of our government agencies thanks to a few people who have seen fit to sack those people, beginning with our female Deputy Chief Minister who sacked Clare Gardiner-Barnes, who I pay tribute to for the incredibly hard work she did in the downgraded Office of Children and Families.
We can add to the Deputy Chief Minister’s hit list the sacking of the Chair of the Power and Water Corporation, who also served on the EPA when it was first established. Not to be outdone, the Minister for Women’s Policy has claimed a scalp as well with the sacking of Olga Havnen who dared to provide frank and fearless advice as the Northern Territory Coordinator-General for Remote Services and for simply doing her job which, interestingly, was created by the minister when she was the Labor minister in that role. It is nothing short of ironic that in the minister’s statement she acknowledged the absence of women at the top level of business in CEO roles and the imbalance there, but did not recognise the terrible state of female CEOs in the public sector of the Northern Territory.
Under Labor, 25% of mayors and presidents were women - again a figure that could always be higher, but definitely on the right path. Quickly continuing in the vein of women in local government, I mention that in 2010 the Tiwi Islands Shire Council and Darwin City Council received national recognition for their participation in the 5050 Vision - Councils for Gender Equity Program, which was designed to bring about cultural and organisational change in councils in order to increase the number of women in leadership roles in local government. We must continue to fight for and promote women being engaged in local government, as well as other sectors within their communities.
I am acutely aware of the challenges to local government reforms and look forward to seeing the options paper from the Local Government Minister’s office following the anticipated deliberations of the current working group. One thing I do know is the reforms have engaged a greater number of women than ever before in working as part of local advisory boards and, as I mentioned, as elected shire councillors.
I am coming to my close now, and I acknowledge that in Question Time today the Minister for Women’s Policy invited me on what she described as the ‘beautiful journey ahead’ with women’s policy. I am sure there are elements of the journey that will be beautiful as we celebrate the wins and the successes of women across the Territory. However, let us keep in mind that for many women their journey through the Territory is a painful, hard journey and one where obstacles are incredibly difficult to overcome. We need to see Territory women and the issues they face. The minister needs to recognise, as we all do, that as long as we have a government which is failing women and fails to address alcohol issues, we are doing nothing to advance the interests of women.
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing her statement before the House. I look forward to the promised policy document which she says she will be delivering, and hope it contains tangible direction and solutions which can work towards advancing the interests and the welfare of women in the Northern Territory
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister for Women’s Policy for bringing this statement on today. I would have been much more gracious in my support of her statement but I was completely disappointed by my colleagues, the members for Nightcliff and Nhulunbuy, politicising this issue. We wonder why women continue to be our own worst enemy.
If you want to talk about failures, I can tell you I was very entrenched in women’s issues before my time in politics and I can list an arm’s length of failures of Labor policies and practices that were, frankly, absolutely appalling. But, I will not. If you want to talk about federal Labor, look what they have done to the childcare system. Now you need to have an education degree and be a 12th grade teacher to look after one-year-olds. It is ridiculous. We wonder why prices are increasing …
Ms Walker: Oh, so you see child carers as babysitters. That might change when you become …
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms FINOCCHIARO: Member for Nhulunbuy, you have had your chance. Get over it.
The other thing that makes me furious, is that for some reason - and this is pre-politics and today I am talking of - Labor cannot ever acknowledge the contribution women from a different side of politics make. It is unbelievable that the member for Nhulunbuy referred to the member for Nightcliff, which is great, but failed to even cast her eye over to this side of the House to see what we are doing as well. With women’s issues you need to cut the line on politics. We all believe we can deliver women’s policy in a different way but, at the end of the day we are all women, and this is a joint journey. If we do not do it together, no wonder we have not come very far in 30 or 40 years.
On the point of CEOs, it also upsets me that there are no female CEOs. But, do you know what? It is about merit. We are not here to have an argument about quotas, but if we want to go down that road then, perhaps, minister, we can have the argument about quotas and employment on merit some other time.
Women’s Policy is an area I am passionate about. As a young woman in a public position as humbling as this one, it is my personal obligation to make a valuable contribution to the advancement of Territory women. This is about the advancement of all Territory women, not Labor women, Liberal women, or Green women - all women.
Madam Speaker, you are a staunch advocate of women’s equality and, like the Minister for Women’s Policy, have strong views on the direction in which our government must pave the way for all women to be free from the tyranny of domestic violence and subordination, inequality in pay and superannuation, scant access to maternity leave and related entitlements, inflexible working arrangements, childcare shortages, glass ceilings, quotas - you name it, the list goes on.
I have said before I am proud to be a member of the Terry Mills Country Liberals government, the composition of which is rich and diverse in age, race, religion and, importantly, gender. I am proud to be a young woman in the Northern Territory.
In my maiden speech I informed the House that I am one of the youngest, if not the youngest, member of parliament in the Northern Territory at the age of 27. Whilst this is a milestone in the Territory, I join a strong group of female parliamentarians who have broken age barriers across the country such as Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, elected to the Senate for South Australia in 2007 at the age of 25, and the youngest women to enter Commonwealth parliament. Natasha Stott Despoja was previously the youngest following her election to the Senate in 1995 at the age of 26. Note I am speaking about women from all parties …
Ms Walker: I spoke of women from all parties.
Ms FINOCCHIARO: You had your turn, member for Nhulunbuy.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms FINOCCHIARO: Kelly Vincent MLC was elected to the South Australian parliament in 2010 at 21, representing the Dignity for Disability Party, and is the youngest woman to be elected to any Australian parliament. Roslyn Dundas, elected to the ACT Legislative Assembly in 2001 at 23, representing the Australian Democrats, was formerly the youngest women to be elected to an Australian parliament.
Currently, in our parliament we have four women out of eight in opposition, and six women in government out of 16. That includes a female Speaker, female Deputy Chief Minister, and female Opposition Leader. We have a female federal member for Solomon, and a female Senator. Let us not forget Hon Sally Thomas, our female Administrator. We also have a female Chief Magistrate, female magistrates, and female Justices of the Supreme Court.
I further note the City of Darwin has seven female councillors representing more than half its elected members, and the City of Palmerston has three councillors representing just under half its elected members. I apologise to regions outside of those; I do not have those details. This is a fantastic situation for ratepayers in respect to council positions as they will receive the full value of the contribution women make at the highest levels. We must continue to push women to participate in government at all levels.
I refer to an article I found on the Internet called A Report on Women in Leadership dated 17 June 2009:
Further down the article.
The acting director said:
In 2010, I joined an organisation called Business and Professional Women Darwin. At that time it had seven members and was on the brink of being closed down by the national board. Its reputation amongst Territory women was not great and it lacked direction. I am very proud to say that during my time as President, and with the support of my committee at the time, we were able to grow the club to the largest BPW in Australia. The Leader of the Opposition was very supportive of us at that time, and I thank her for that. We enhanced this brand and it is now a reliable and quality source of personal and professional development for all Territory women.
It was at this time I first realised that, despite being in absolute denial that gender equality was an issue in the modern day, issues such as equal pay for women for equal work, maternity leave, and superannuation entitlements remained an issue in today’s society. One thing I learnt over my two-year tenure as president was that Territory women had a thirst for knowledge and they desperately wanted a forum where they felt safe, welcomed, and where there were no stupid questions - a place where experienced and inexperienced women from all backgrounds could enjoy each other’s company and enrich their lives through dialogue and support.
I do not speak today about one women’s organisation of which I have intimate experience. As I opened my eyes to this world where women remain significantly disadvantaged to men, I learnt of the thirst of women for all manner of women’s fora. There are amazing women’s organisations in the Northern Territory. Some of these are: Women’s Network NT; the Australian Women’s and Local Government Association; the Australian Federation of Graduate Women; Women at Work; Women’s Lawyers Association; Australian Women’s Chamber of Commerce and Industry; Country Women’s Association; Women in Resources, and the list goes on. There are also the women’s organisations that provide key services to women, such as the YWCA, Ruby Gaea, and NT Working Women’s Centre.
I will quote from the federal government’s Workplace Gender Equity Agency website, what I found under the heading of ‘Why gender equality matters’:
I am not sure anyone has seen this, but this is what it looks like:
When we talk about equality of women, people often reflect on how terrible things used to be, and they were terrible. There, obviously, continues to be a failure in society to recognise the importance, contribution and the value of women in our community and workplaces. We know - we have known for some time - that the key issues for women in the workplace are childcare and paid parental leave, domestic violence and work, the gender pay gap, job flexibility, sex-based harassment, and women in leadership. All of these issues must be resolved before we can have gender equality.
I pick up on the minister’s comment that women who have been successful - which I add, can be defined in many ways, and I believe the minister is referring to all definitions of successful - need to lend a hand to younger women. The power of role models and mentors cannot be underestimated. I, and I am sure many other women in this House, have benefitted from the wisdom of women who came before me. I add value to those women who will come after me.
In 2012, the average standard pay gap in Australia was 17.5%. That is translated to a gap of $252.80 a week. I have said before and will say it again - and if I have to say it very, very slowly, I will, for the member for Nelson – these numbers mean a woman’s male counterpart worked 64 days less than her last year to earn the same income.
I refer to some quotes I found in an article completed by the Workplace Gender Equality Agency called ‘GradStats - starting salaries’:
So, it actually went up:
I remind this House that I was born in 1984 and, at that time, women were earning 22.3% less than men. The maths is simple. In 28 long years, we have managed to close the gender pay equity gap by a pathetic 4.8%. To top it off, in the healthcare and social assistance sectors, which are sectors of our community in which thousands of women are employed, the gap has increased to 32.6%.
I highlight the comparison of the Northern Territory with other states. For 2012, the Northern Territory had a 20% gender pay gap, which was the third highest in the country. It went up 3.9% from the previous year, which is an enormous worry. That can all sound very dramatic, but whose responsibility is this? I believe a few of us have said today that the answer is all of us; it is the responsibility of all of us. It is men, women, Labor, Liberal - it is everyone’s responsibility.
I am proud to be a flexible employer of a mother with a young child. It was an absolute no-brainer for me to hire Angie as my electorate officer, knowing full well she had a young child and she dearly wanted to spend as much time with Kayla as possible. Who could blame her? I do not have children but it takes a truly heartless person to fail to acknowledge the importance of the mother-child bond. Unlike Angie, who is able to enjoy spending time with her daughter and work full-time, so many women continue to battle for flexible work arrangements such as job sharing, quality part-time, and working from home.
I cannot understand the resistance of some employers to implement flexible working arrangements. If only they could see how much more productive a mother or a carer would be if they were happy, content, and settled in their decision to return to work. In addition, studies show that women are highly productive and make direct benefit to the bottom line. I quote from the Workplace Gender Equality website:
My colleague, the member for Nightcliff, is a strong role model for working mums and I applaud her for her courage to run in the last election, while pregnant, to win the seat, for juggling a toddler and a newborn, and for ensuring her new son was nurtured even during the sittings of parliament. I am proud of you for being true to yourself and your family while still carrying out this all-encompassing position. You have contributed to the advancement of Territory women, and for that I thank you. Equally, my colleagues, the members for Arnhem and Araluen.
Too many of our highly-talented women exit the workforce, denying us all the diversity and quality of leadership we so urgently need. There are some alarming issues for women in the future, and I spoke of them in my maiden speech. Too often, women’s needs for flexibility see them in lower paid and more casual work, and this has severe long-term consequences for their economic wellbeing. We know this is increasingly threatening their housing security, and it most certainly threatens their superannuation and retirement opportunities. By 2019, it is estimated that women will have accumulated only half the superannuation of men.
In 2011-12, there were 4428 female victims of assault in the Northern Territory, which is almost twice the assault rate for males. In the same year, Indigenous women made up over half of all assault victims. This needs to be trending down, not up.
I had the benefit of a good education and a stable family, but many other Territory girls do not. I am fortunate to have a loving partner who respects me and my ambitions, but many women do not. It is the responsibility of all of us to ensure there is a strong future for girls and young women. We cannot let another 28 years go by so the young woman in this chair in the future has to, in her maiden speech, inform the House that the gender pay equity gap has closed by a mere 4.8%.
Madam Speaker, I commend the statement to the House.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I thank the government for bringing the Women’s Policy statement to the House, albeit lacking on detail and another motherhood statement. It is great it is here and that we can debate women’s policy.
The Labor government had a series of very strong achievements in women’s policy, and I will be touching on those in this speech so the record can be set straight in this debate.
In 2008, we launched a policy for Northern Territory women titled Building on Our Strengths, A Framework for Action for Women in the Northern Territory, 2008-2012. It was our road map for issues important to women in the Territory. The policy had the vision that every Territory woman would have equal opportunity to reach her full potential. This plan was built on information collated from Community Cabinet women’s forums held between 2003 and 2007 in urban, rural, and remote communities across the Territory.
It set out key actions in five priority areas: health and wellbeing; safety; economic security; leadership and participation; and life balance. We published two reports outlining progress and work on emerging issues in relation to the key areas identified in Building on Our Strengths. Key progress included the all-important introduction of mandatory reporting of serious harm from domestic violence, a measure that other jurisdictions in Australia have yet to match. Along with this legislative change there came all-important resources: $15m over three years to improve family violence service provision, data collection, and community education.
In 2002, the establishment of the annual Tribute to Territory Women gave all Territorians the opportunity to recognise, celebrate, and commemorate the remarkable women in their lives and communities.
There is the annual Chief Minister’s Study Scholarship for Women - I see that is out at the moment - encouraging women to undertake education and training to enhance their employment, general life outcomes, and, ultimately, improve their economic security. The scholarships were introduced in 2001 and targets disadvantaged women who would not be able to undertake further study without assistance. It is administered by Charles Darwin University.
Territory 2030 had a vision that the Northern Territory, as an inclusive society, values and embraces cultural diversity and promotes gender equity as a right for all Territorians. I note we have achieved gender equity on the opposition benches with four men and four women Labor members of parliament. I do not think there would be another opposition or government team anywhere in any Australian parliament which has achieved gender equity, but I am happy for someone to do the research on that and correct me if they want.
The Northern Territory government’s policy for women, Building on our Strengths, A Framework for Action for Women in the Northern Territory, 2008-2012, had an objective of increasing women’s participation and representation in leadership roles and creating opportunities for developing and exercising women’s decision-making skills. In 2003, the NT government committed to increasing women’s leadership and participation with that aspirational goal of 50% representation for women on boards. Development of the Women on Boards initiative supported the appointment of more women into leadership positions across the Territory.
Specific initiatives being developed within our strategic directions for women’s policy included: improving women’s representation and gender equality in board appointments through Territory 2030 and A Working Future; improved sex and gender disaggregated data monitoring, evaluation, and reporting through gender equality action plan; developing a gender equality action plan setting out clear and measurable outcomes for women which will inform best practice and gender analysis; and supporting the national plan to reduce violence against women and their children.
We had some proposed strategic directions for women’s policy. We had proposed to develop and implement a whole-of-government gender equality action plan for the Territory, setting out clear and measurable outcomes for women and gender analysis to inform government decision-making and assess outcomes.
I am pointing out what we had proposed so we see whether or not the Office of Women’s Policy continues in this vein or there is a very stark change. We were proposing focusing on improving women’s economic security, financial independence and workforce participation, ensuring that women, as well as men, equally benefit from the resources boom and economic growth in the Territory.
I remember seeing this incredibly dynamic DVD of young Aboriginal women talking to the camera about the participation in the workforce opportunities they had, particularly through the resources sector. It was a DVD that had been put together by our then Minister for Women’s Policy, Malarndirri McCarthy. If there are any copies of that kicking around in government, it would probably be useful to see. You might want to rebadge and rehash the DVD. It was an incredibly powerful message to young women about the opportunities they had in their participation in the workforce. Of course, participation in the workforce brings all-important economic security.
Developing a whole-of-government Northern Territory women’s safety strategy as an action plan was part of our COAG commitment in the national plan to reduce violence against women and their children. That was to run from 2010 to 2022, which would bring together a focus on gender-based violence; that is, violence against women. We were also continuing to focus on actions to improve women’s leadership through local government, board appointments, senior government appointments, and supporting leadership.
The issue of senior government appointments comes up again and again now we have had a change of government. There is deep disappointment across the community that the CLP removed the female CEOs of government. At the end of the day, governments make their decisions of who they have heading up their agencies. However, we now have a situation in the Northern Territory where there is no woman heading any agency. This has certainly been met with a great and deep disappointment in the Northern Territory and we feel we have headed back some decades.
I encourage the government to look at opportunity. Of course, it is always a merit-based selection at the CEO level. There is no doubt about that. But, there are some awesome women out there and I encourage you to consider some of them for opportunities in the future. It was very disappointing to see the sacking of the Under Treasurer; she was highly regarded. She has been picked up in a contract position but is no longer a CEO. That is an incredible waste of talent, but I have no doubt she is an asset to the Health department in her new contracted position.
In relation to Indigenous women’s health and remote issues, we made it a priority to work in partnership to improve the health of Indigenous women. We saw that all-important four-and-a-half-year improvement in life expectancy for Aboriginal women going from 65.2 years in 2000 up to 69.8 years in 2006. The Indigenous infant mortality rate fell by 37%. There were 25 deaths per 1000 births in 2000 and it fell to 15.7 deaths per 1000 in 2006. A big breakthrough was cervical cancer rates falling by 61%, and that dramatic decline in mortality from cervical cancer falling by 64% in non-Aboriginal women and 92% for Aboriginal women between 1991 and 2003.
We also employed community-based workers in our community health centres, improved access to health promotion programs and community engagement and, as part of A Working Future, ensured the issues which affected rural and remote women were considered and integrated in the delivery of government services and policy in the Territory. Understanding Indigenous women face disproportionately higher barriers to accessing formal education, often leading to vulnerability and exposure of Indigenous women and girls to poverty and violence, supporting our young mums out bush was critical to much of the policy work we established, whether it was through our family support workers or that really good Parents as First Teachers program first trialled in Maningrida and then rolled out to different sites across the Territory.
We had been working with the Australian government to establish early childhood centres. I hope the current Territory government sees that the reality in funding relationships is you take what opportunities come your way in areas - particularly in early childhood, which is critical to the learning process - where the Commonwealth offer you a part of the funding. Welcome to federal/state financial relations; it has always been thus. To say no because they are not coughing up the full amount means what is the alternative? Not have the service? Not have those early childhood centres? Or face funding the full amount from your own Territory coffers? Every incoming government is angered by what it sees as not enough of the Commonwealth funding pie. We get that, but the reality is they will meet their own budget requirements and set the amount on the table they want.
You can beat your drum all you like, but you will not get additional funding. Meanwhile, the kids miss out on early childhood centres. Politics is politics, but early childhood is critical to changing the pathways of poverty. Think twice before you simply see it as a drum-banging exercise. The Treasurer has taken that approach with education. I hope the new Education minister takes somewhat of a different approach, given he was a study of federal financial relations in the past.
Understanding the focus on women’s economic security helps to understand our work in reducing violence against women. Our strategic directions for women’s policy included the development of the women’s safety strategy to progress on a whole-of-government response, building and linking on our initiatives such as our alcohol management strategies, our Enough is Enough reforms and, of course, the bedrock of that work, mandatory reporting of domestic and family violence.
I acknowledge the great work that is done at the front of the organisations I have worked closely with, recognising Dawn House and Ruby Gaea, DAIWS in Darwin, and support organisations such as the YWCA, the Working Women’s Centre and, of course, the Top End Women’s Legal Service. These are all crucial services. In the Northern Territory, what we obviously need to achieve is an expansion and roll-out of these support services across our remote areas.
Fortunately, Commonwealth funding has provided safety houses, and we have seen some cooling-off places for men. I am really concerned about the funding for cooling-off places for men which has been mentioned in different contributions tonight. When you are looking at women’s policy and the advancement of safety and wellbeing of women, you cannot ignore the support services you provide to men. Ensuring that agenda does not disappear across the width of the Territory is critical. I look forward to seeing whatever advancements in resources are provided by this Territory government in the men’s cooling-off places, the programs they can run in them, as well as the critical health and wellbeing services for men. If we start to make greater inroads into that then, surely, we are making greater inroads into the preventative work you need in the harmony of our communities of our men and our women, ultimately, benefitting our children.
You will always get many issues raised in debates around women’s policy. I listened closely to the contributions, including the contribution of the member for Drysdale. I thank her for acknowledging the work I did to support the Business and Professional Women network in giving them access to the Australian Institute of Company Directors courses. I hope the incoming government continues to support that network financially in giving women access to the course because, if you can access workshops and courses for the Australian Institute of Company Directors, then it goes a long way to meeting that aspirational target of 50% women’s representation on boards.
Talking about boards, there are real opportunities in the Territory. Many community and sporting organisations have boards. I am not just talking the ASX 200. We are realistic about this. The first step, surely, is our own back yard in giving women access to the workshops and courses through that funding support, which has been beneficial.
The Office of Women’s Policy loves consulting and holding forums. They held some 64 public forums across Alice Springs and Darwin over the formation of their latest round of policy work for us. That is a good thing. The one thing I have noticed in the area of women’s policy is the debate is alive and well. Give women the opportunity to come and debate because, as heard in the contributions this evening, there is an enormous diversity of issues as there is such a diversity of backgrounds. What works for me and what I need as a single parent of many dependants on a fairly high income is not what works, obviously, for an Aboriginal woman living in a remote community in the Northern Territory who has a whole lot of family pressures and requirements and limited access to services. Let us not assume, in a debate about women’s policy, that one-size-fits-all, we have done a great deal of research in the past and, therefore, that will be the bedrock of how we go forward. Let us not assume that; let us continue to consult. That is a message of hope I send out.
I do not, obviously, have a high opinion of the Minister for Women’s Policy in this government. One of her failings is she makes assumptions about what everyone thinks. I urge members opposite to consider that and to watch carefully what occurs in the formulation of women’s policy, and ensure that underpinning their direction is some evidence - some forums and workshops. Take into account where they are held and how they have reached out to the diversity. There are great, strong women within our multicultural groups across Darwin and Palmerston. I met some awesome women representing multicultural groups in Alice Springs, for example. So, let us not assume we all share the same issues. We, clearly, do not. The point of the forums and consultations is to fleece out the variety of issues, so you can get a more well-rounded policy and a set of well-rounded implementation plans.
We have heard about the continuing difference in the pay gap, and we have a long way to go. I am always inspired by the young women coming through. Regardless of what workplace I was in, I have always seen part of my role is to support and nurture the women younger than me and encourage them to do whatever they want in pursuing their career and knowing they can bring family along on that incredible and exciting journey.
I am really proud we had a pregnant candidate for Nightcliff who then became our ‘mum’ member for Nightcliff. I was the first woman in the parliament of the Northern Territory to have a pregnancy and a child in office. I broke new ground there and I said to women, ‘It is not easy, but is certainly not impossible’. It makes us a better parliamentarian at times to have those experiences, because people are not shy in approaching you in a shopping centre when you have the baby in the pram, who is chewing on a biscuit, to have a conversation with you about the pressures they confront in their family life.
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing the policy statement forward and I look forward to seeing the journey we go on in women’s policy in the Northern Territory. I hope it brings forward a great deal of diversity.
Mrs PRICE (Stuart): Madam Speaker, I support the member for Namatjira on her statement on women’s policy. I am a woman with a daughter who is a single parent and has three children. I know how difficult it is rearing children on your own, having to feed them and make sure you maintain your motherhood. There are many women in the same situation. As the member for Karama said, we do not share the same issues and I acknowledge that. We all come from different parts of life and, yes there is a multicultural world out there as well.
In Alice Springs, we have Indians and Africans, people from Sudan, who have come from a different background and a much harsher environment than ours, and I acknowledge that. We all have to live in the Northern Territory and share the resources, the funding, and the agencies to survive as women. I am grateful we have this women’s policy within our government because it will give us a chance to make it better. We want to make it better.
I sat on the Violence Against Women Advisory Group with the federal government and was fighting for women in the Northern Territory to ensure they were recognised as human beings who were not just there as a wife or a mother; they ensure this whole economy keeps going in order to survive. I chaired the Indigenous Affairs Advisory Council and had conversations with the then minister, Malarndirri McCarthy, about setting up women’s councils in the Northern Territory - one for the northern part and one for the southern region - so we can give our women a stronger voice to be able to express themselves in a safe environment. It is a big issue, this women’s policy. We all have to support it because women are the lifeline. We need support from other women as well.
I am a grandmother and I support my daughter with her three children. I see other grandmothers in remote communities who have 20 grandchildren they have to look after in a three-bedroom house. It is difficult and we all come from different parts of the Northern Territory, whether we are rural, remote, or are a pastoralist’s wife who lives on Undoolya Station, Andado, Amanbidji or Mistake Creek. Those women need our support as well; they are isolated and we should not forget that. These women live in isolation, but they manage to keep their families going. They are the ones we should not forget.
We should not forget them whilst we are in the Chamber talking about whether one shoe fits all or whether the previous government had great ideas on how this policy should work and what should have happened to it. Instead of saying, ‘That is our policy, you are copying us, we got that together’, why do we not just put that aside and get on with making it work for every woman, including the young women.
There are many young women who have become parents who sometimes need direction from us women politicians. We must not forget that. I have young women in my immediate family who I am forever trying to encourage to be part of this whole economy and this whole world that is ever changing in front of their eyes. We are always on the back foot with our young girls. If we want to criticise this women’s policy, let us not forget that whilst you are saying that, you are ignoring the other women who do not have a voice. You are ignoring the very women who will be our future women leaders. That is what we are fighting for.
We can have a policy that does not have substance, but we can build on it. We should not rubbish it. It is not about us, it is about the future of our women and their health, lifestyle, and wellbeing. Let us open a pathway for them and give them an incentive to look toward, to work for, instead of being grubby to each other in here. Let us not forget that.
Whilst I was on the VAWAG committee, the Violence Against Women Advisory Group, I never heard any Labor member say to me ‘Good on you Bess, you are doing a good job. You are doing a great job for the Northern Territory, for the women and children.’ Whilst I supported the intervention, did I hear anything from Labor to say ‘Bess you are doing a good job, we support you’. No, I did not. I sat here listening to everybody else congratulating each other about the tremendous work they have done as women. What about this little black buck over here? I never got anything from Labor. But, it is all right, because I did not support their agenda. I was supporting women and children who were being abused. Young kids aged six were not fed and not allowed to go to school because they were hungry. Let us not get too caught up on this paper because it does not have substance. Let us build on it and make it better for all women in the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, that is all I have to say.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I am the ninth or 10th speaker and so far the only male. Come on boys! It is important, as males, that we contribute to this debate. What I am about to say will probably surprise many people in regard to my beliefs on women’s issues.
I remind honourable members we do not live in a perfect world. I was pleased to read reports in recent weeks about Malala Yousafzai who was released from hospital in England. This is the young lady of 14 years of age who was shot in the head by the Taliban in Pakistan for having the audacity to want to learn to read and write. There is some suggestion she should be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize and, considering what she symbolically stands for, that is not necessarily a bad nomination.
I will tell an anecdote from when I was a police officer many years ago when I was sent to a place in Ludmilla - one of the small cul-de-sacs off Wells Street - to a domestic violence event. When we arrived, a woman was on her knees in her underwear in the middle of the road and her partner or husband had her by the throat and was punching her about the head. She, clearly, was fairly distressed and, when we prised him off her and threw him in the back of the van, we tried to get an assault complaint.
This was in the days before domestic violence legislation was available to us. The way to proceed in a domestic violence situation was you extracted an assault complaint. All too sadly, despite our very best efforts to get a complaint of assault – in fact, aggravated assault as she was injured - the woman concerned was so terrified that she accepted as her lot in life that all she had to do was not upset the husband and her life would be better than it was if she upset him by making a complaint. As a footnote to that story, we finally ended up charging him with nothing more than disorderly behaviour in a public place.
When the magistrate heard the circumstances of the disorderly behaviour he wanted to know why we had not gone further with the assault. We had to explain to the magistrate that was all we could do. Fortunately, being a wise magistrate, he found that form of disorderly behaviour quite serious. That was only one instance, if twice in my whole police career, where I saw a person gaoled for a disorderly behaviour offence, and rightly so.
However, a metaphor also percolated through that story because I heard what the Minister for Women’s Policy had to say and was struck how we almost accept - particularly in remote communities where the standards of education are not all they could be - whilst it is not as pronounced as the example I gave, on a social level, that same position. It is almost as if the women in those circumstances resign themselves to that is what life is about, shrug their shoulders, try not to get beaten up, and get on with it the best they can in looking after their kids. That is hardly what you would call a satisfactory life. Unfortunately, it is an accurate description of too many lives in remote communities.
It was not that long ago in western culture, or within the English common law - I am talking about 110 years ago - that many of these attitudes were quite prevalent in England. A woman who married a man automatically lost all her property rights because the marriage was deemed to be a divinely sanctioned union - what God has joined together let no man cast asunder – therefore, they were a single unit in every sense of the word in law. So, all property that was vested in the woman became vested in them. Essentially, the law said the male had the overriding property rights that resulted out of that joint property right.
Of course, there was no suffrage for women at that stage, so you saw the rise of the first feminist movement, or the first wave of feminism, in that period. It was in the 1940s that Simone de Bouvier in France started writing about the patriarchal society, describing that nearly all of the structures of society were masculine in nature, so women in that society had a function which was ‘the other’ or some addendum to the masculine world. If you accept that, then all of the social structures we deal with have a masculine quality and women are tacked on the side. If you look at that world view, then you would accept, necessarily, it was almost a natural consequence that in a male-dominated society women who are attached to that society are almost put to one side. Once again, the description given by the minister in relation to what happens in remote communities resonates with that philosophical approach.
Of course, this is the basic structure of radical feminism as described in the second wave of feminism in the 1960s and 1970s. I would not automatically describe myself as a radical feminist, but there are many elements of that world view which I believe are true.
We still abandon, in our common language, the idea of a togetherness of the genders. Essentially, what is the difference between a stud and a slut? Gender. If a man is a stud, it is almost a compliment, but you would not compliment a women by calling her the latter. He is a gigolo, she is a whore. Once again, you find woven into the fabric of our very language a different meaning to exactly the same conduct, established almost entirely in the gender separation between the two: a promiscuous man, stud; a promiscuous woman, slut. Unfortunately, we allow that to continue in our language and in our world views. The truth is many women will use the same language because it is so percolated and woven into the use of language we do not even think about it when we are doing it; it is just language.
One of the things that also concerns me in the modern world is the many images we are seeing of strong women, particularly for young kids. I have two little girls and I look at what my children are watching and you see their role models, their pin-up models. For example, Pink, the rock star, is a very strong, forceful, strident female. The problem I have is not that she is strong or forceful, but many of the messages that come from her are highly sexualised; the message my daughters are getting from the television is that to be strong and forceful as a female there has to be a sexualised component.
I wonder if we are moving towards a better world if the best way a woman can be forceful and strong in the modern world is by having a sexualised component to her personality. I would be much more interested in what is happening between a woman’s ears than what she is doing with the rest of her body, in what I expect a good and strong woman to be.
I take from this statement that there is a long way to go in changing people’s minds - I mean men and women - as to how we address women’s issues in our community. There is still much to be gained from looking at the philosophical groupings of the early 1970s, and we should revisit some of those philosophical models because there is much valuable material in them.
When I was at university studying political science, there was a course called ‘Courtesans, concubines and conquest’. I was quite taken with the title of that course, thinking it would be the history of some war or something somewhere. I found out to my dismay and disgust, once I had signed up to it, it was a course in feminist philosophy. I had to do it; I had signed up for it. To this day, it is the only course name I remember because when I started reading the material for that course, I was thunderstruck. I was introduced to the schools of feminism; the three schools of the 1970s, which were radical feminism, liberal feminism, and Marxist feminism. I am not going to present a dissertation on the three, but I was amazed about how much I had to learn, not so much about feminism per se - not that I call myself an expert by any stretch of the imagination - but that the philosophical works very quickly shifted from the gender argument to the power argument.
To this day, power inequity is still one of the fundamental shortcomings in our community when it comes to gender equality. The power inequity women have talked about in this parliament today - financial power being one of the examples - is still something that could do with social reform. But, I do not know if it is the role of government to fix these matters. These have to be attitudinal changes somewhere in the core of our being as our society, so we either look upon a woman and a man of a promiscuous disposition with the same level of disdain or the same level of approval, depending where you are coming from, without making a gender differentiation. Perhaps it is not a particularly good example, but I suspect that through it, members understand what I am driving at.
I was also amazed that power relationships are often extremely subtle, and so subtle that even the people who are the subjects of those power relationships are barely aware those relationships exist. How you change that as a society, I am not entirely sure. How you change that as a government, I am even less sure. What I am certain of is it continues to be there.
I suspect that so long as we accept those differentiations in power relationships, gender and social structure, you will get the inequities that were described by the minister of dad staying at home with the kids - hardly ever happens at all. Or, for that matter, if, as the minister for Corrections, I look at the prison population, why is it not 50% female and 50% male? Is it something genetic or social? Or is it the case that we just send messages of different types, particularly to young men, which encourages them to do what is, essentially, risk-taking behaviour and the criminal manifestation of it? It would be a very interesting thing to know what drives that because - off the top of my head without having the numbers in front of me - the male-to-female prison population would be something at a ratio of about 10:1.
If you go to Berrimah and look at the female section, it is tiny and next to the main body of the prison. I am never quite sure why that occurs. There is still much to understand in these areas. Moreover, we should be aiming for an environment where we diminish the importance of gender increasingly over time. I suspect women and men will be always be different, and not only for physiological reasons.
I would be happy to live in a world where we do not look at the gender of a person even fleetingly when looking at their employment. I understand the argument being run that we do not have enough female CEOs and we should have. I agree. However, I would love to live in a world where that argument was no longer of consequence so it was just a matter of you had the best person for the CEO job, that gender, race, religion, and all of those things did not matter, and there was only one yardstick that was of value - the yardstick of merit.
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this to the House. There is still a long way to go, particularly in those subliminal areas I described of the relationships between to the two genders and the messages we give for similar behaviour to different genders. Mind you, looking back over the last 100 years, much has been achieved in the area of feminism. I hope, eventually, we live in a world where the feminist cause no longer has relevance because it is no longer a relevant cause. We can work to that ideal.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Deputy Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I speak with pleasure in support of minister Anderson’s statement on women’s policy and in support of the women of the Northern Territory. It gives me great pride to be in this parliament with 10 other female members of parliament. That point has been made by quite a number of speakers today. Territory women are, indeed, a courageous, hard-working and versatile lot. Our contribution is significant in all facets of Territory life - at the workplace, home, in the community and even here in parliament contributing to our democratic process. Three of the five new MLAs voted into the Country Liberals’ team at the 2012 election are women, doubling the number of women in our parliamentary wing. I am very proud to stand beside my female colleagues, as well as my male colleagues. Indeed, today we welcome the new member for Wanguri, further increasing the representation of women in this Chamber.
I will respond to some of the comments made by members of the opposition. The shadow minister for Women’s Policy, the member for Nightcliff, made some interesting comments as did the Leader of the Opposition. Once again, I find myself correcting the record and misinformation given by the opposition.
The first point I pick up on was a comment the member for Nightcliff made about our commitment to the domestic violence workers placed in key hospitals throughout the Northern Territory. It was the former Labor government that decided to cease funding to these positions a couple of months before the election. The member for Nightcliff accused us of turning our back on the women of the Northern Territory by not continuing to fund those positions. They decided to turn their back on the women of the Northern Territory by withdrawing funding for those hospital positions well and truly before the election.
We decided, on reflection, those positions were important but there were other workers in all of those hospitals which had that trial in place who could just as capably perform that function, including Aboriginal liaison officers, social workers, nurses and various other professional staff within the hospitals.
These are tough times financially. The former Labor government decided to cease funding for those positions, and we did not argue with that.
The other point the member for Nightcliff raised was she accused this new government of not providing funding under the new fair pay deal for social and community sector workers. I draw the member’s attention to a media release - an announcement made on 26 November by me, at that time as Minister for Women’s Policy. We announced additional funding of around $75m over the eight-year phase-in period for this fair pay deal for social and community sector workers, and an additional $17.5m ongoing from 2020.
If that is not a commitment to, primarily, a female workforce in the Northern Territory, I do not know what is. That is a huge amount of money the former Labor government did not cough up. They allocated a miserly $1m in this year’s budget for this fair pay deal for social and community sector workers and we came up with the real money: $75m over the phase-in period and $17.5m ongoing from 2020-21.
No doubt we will continue to hear furphies and misinformation from the former Labor government. They roll it out and mislead the poor people of the Territory with information regarding women. This is an opportunity for us to join in bipartisan discussion within this parliament about how we can assist women to be better placed in our society. Yet, the Labor opposition has harnessed it as an opportunity to spin more lies – sorry, I withdraw that, Madam Speaker - mistruths and misinformation. That also came from the Leader of the Opposition, who gave a compelling story about what they have done for women over the last 11 years in government. That is just what it was, a lovely story with very little perspective and reality associated with it.
This is the former government that presided over the destruction of the child protection system in the Northern Territory for 11 years. Child protection and the welfare of women and children had never been so low as it was when presided over by the former Labor government, now the opposition. This convenient amnesia which prevails in the opposition is incredible and alarming and is doing damage to the people of the Northern Territory who might be listening to this nonsense and choosing to believe it.
Tonight we want to talk about some positive things we would like to see happen to women across the Northern Territory. After 11 years of Labor, violence against women in the Northern Territory has never been so bad. This was conveyed to me by the Children’s Commissioner at the end of last year. He visited me and said, ‘Robyn, despite all the measures that have been put in place and all the funding going left, right, and centre to support women in the Northern Territory, we still have the highest rate of violence against women in Australia’. The Northern Territory has not even started to address this very appalling and serious problem, which has been graphically described by my colleagues this evening.
Coming into government, we have put on the public record that we are, indeed, committed to the implementation of the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010 to 2022. This is a national plan, announced by the federal Minister for the Status of Women and the federal Attorney-General in February 2011. The former government signed up to it, and we are in full support of this plan. It is a 12-year national plan which was endorsed by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) and it brings together the efforts of all Australian governments to ensure women and their children are safe and free from violence now and in the future.
The national plan is supported by a series of four lots of three-year action plans. We are now coming to the end of the first action plan in 2013. These action plans identify actions, responsibilities and time frames, allowing all governments to work together to develop, implement, and report progress within a coordinated national framework. The action plans are guided by the national plan’s vision that Australian women and their children live free from violence in safe communities. To measure the success of this vision, all governments are working collaboratively to make a significant and sustained reduction in violence against women and their children.
This is a good strategy. As I said, all jurisdictions throughout Australia have signed up to it. The creation of this national platform to address violence against women and their children at a systematic level is designed to achieve sustainable, long-term change so Australian women and their children live free from violence in safe communities. It is a good strategy which we will embrace. As a new government, we have committed to that already.
Some of the priorities of this strategy include building primary prevention capacity, or stopping violence before it occurs – prevention is always better than cure; enhancing service delivery or improving services for victims; strengthening justice responses, improving links between criminal justice processes, services for victims and perpetrator interventions; bringing the evidence base together; and identifying new ways of working together. It has a strong emphasis on education, trying to target children and teach them there are better ways of living life. That is a part of the primary prevention focus.
We are definitely committed to this strategy. It will be ongoing for 10 years. We look forward to hearing just how this will be implemented by this new government, compliments of our new Minister for Women’s Policy who is making her formal policy announcement, as she said, on 8 March. I look forward to that.
In the second part of my speech tonight I will make a few comments about women in politics. For all the women in this room, the female parliamentarians, this is, indeed, a topic we ponder over a great deal. I do, and my Country Liberal colleagues do. It is an incredible domain in which to work; it is challenging, highly competitive, aggressive, and tough. The new member for Wanguri is about to experience the highs and lows of the roller coaster of being a woman in political life.
Some of us have been here a long time. The member for Namatjira has been a member of parliament for many years, and has been in the political arena through ATSIC. She is a seasoned player of women in politics. Of course, there are those who have just come on board since the last election. I have been in parliament for less than two-and-a-half years. It is an experience you cannot anticipate. It is male-dominated, even though we are doing very well in the Northern Territory parliament. Someone mentioned before we have the highest rate of female representation of any parliament in Australia. I believe I heard that correctly. It is still heavily male-dominated.
It is beyond what most women imagine they can do, from the comments I heard earlier. People are often asked, ‘How do you cope? How do you manage, particularly with children and family responsibilities?’ Most women cannot imagine standing in this environment, representing your constituents and speaking on issues such as we are this evening. It is a hostile, aggressive environment at times. It is highly emotional. All sorts of things happen and every day is different and exceedingly difficult and easy within a short space of time. Then you have the demands of the travel and long work hours - all those things that become almost second nature to us, in time: the conditions in which we work.
Being a woman in politics is not conducive to family life and I believe most of the women here who have children can verify that, even though they have not been here a particularly long time. It is a tough gig for most of us. I struggle to strike that balance between my family and my working life. The reason I am describing this tonight is to acknowledge we need to ensure women enter this realm, encourage women into politics and try to act as role models as best we can to make it look as attractive as possible.
Have women been denied equality in politics? Traditionally they have. Traditionally, it was an extremely male-dominated arena. I like to watch the documentaries of the history of Australian politics and politics in the UK and America. Those documentaries are very much about men in very high positions. We have a range of contemporary movies about American politicians that are all about men; women only play the parts of wives and mothers.
As women in politics, we must strive to be great role models and demonstrate to people it is possible and essential that women consider this sort of career path. It is also about education and opportunities. We have had, and will continue to have, many discussions about how education, training and opportunities are linked to the success or the career path of women.
However, as a bare minimum, women need to be treated fairly. It is accepted that it is essential that women be given a fair go. The perceptions in our society are still quite powerful; weakness is seen as feminine, strength is seen as masculine and, therefore, male. However, I believe those types of perceptions are becoming less prevalent. There is weakness, even within this parliament at times. Most of us have a shed a tear and showed emotion, whether we be male or female. It is a highly charged environment and being able to express emotions, whether it be anger or sadness, is becoming more accepted.
The place of women is not just in the home. It is not just as carers but as powerful figures. We all aspire to different goals. Women have a right and a responsibility to try to reach their potential. One of my true beliefs in life is that people of both genders have the right and responsibility to try to reach their potential. As women, that is a great guide to how you can achieve goals.
Over time, there has been a convergence of the status between men and women in our society and I truly celebrate that. Social equity versus social inequality will always remain a debate in our society. It is just one of the standard university type debates people will ponder over for decades and centuries to come. Women are no longer required to be subordinate; they can pick and choose. They have choices and freedom and they deserve safety, respect and recognition.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to the Minister for Women’s Policy unveiling her new Country Liberals women’s policy in the coming weeks and months, and I thank you all for your contributions.
Debate adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table the Auditor-General’s February 2013 Report to the Legislative Assembly.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the paper be printed.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the paper and I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, now it is time for adjournment. I understand there has been an agreement to allow the new member for Wanguri to make her first speech while her family and friends are present in the gallery. I remind honourable members of the convention that first speeches are heard in silence.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, first I acknowledge the Larrakia people, the traditional owners of this land, and thank them for sharing this wonderful place with us all.
Today I stand here as a proud Territorian extremely honoured and humbled at being elected to represent the people of Wanguri, the electorate where I live, where I grew up and where my heart belongs. To be sworn into parliament today, 19 February 2013, when we all reflect and commemorate the Bombing of Darwin, has some meaning for my family. In my case, had it not been for that tragic event I would not be standing here today.
After the first bombing, my grandfather Leslie Manison was posted to Darwin in the Army as a truck driver. When he returned to Melbourne, where he and my grandmother, Alice, raised three children, including my father, he told his children many stories of adventures and life during the war here in Darwin. This ultimately played a large part in the allure that attracted my father, Gary, to venture north in 1975 and to join the Territory police in 1976. It was in a cricket match where my father met my mother, Rose, who was from Perth and serving in the RAAF in Darwin. He bowled her out and eventually bowled her over and convinced her to marry him. She, too, came to Darwin seeking adventure and together they went on to live across the Territory for 30 years where there has been no shortage of adventure.
My upbringing would be very familiar to many children of Territory police. I was born in the Tennant Creek Hospital in 1979 and had a childhood full of many moves as my parents sought the next job opportunity or the chance to study. This gave me the opportunity to live in Alice Springs, Groote Eylandt, Perth, Canberra, and in the place where I have always called home, Darwin. Although the moves often came with the heartbreak of leaving friends, there was always a sense of adventure and it was always comforting to return to Darwin where my friends remained, the people inspired me, and the opportunities seemed endless.
Growing up I was educated mostly here in Darwin at some wonderful schools, including Holy Spirit, Wagaman Primary, Dripstone High and Casuarina Senior College. I always appreciated how lucky I was to have such a diverse group of friends at school whose parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents had come from many lands miles from here to make a new life for their family in Darwin: Greek, Cypriot, Chinese, Timorese, Portuguese, Filipino, Italian, Indonesian, Indian, Malaysian, Thai, English, Irish, and the list went on. I loved living in such a vibrant multicultural community, and it remains one of the things I love most about Darwin and the Wanguri electorate.
During the Wanguri by-election, I had the opportunity to meet so many people when I was doorknocking. I met long-term Darwin families, many newly posted Defence families, singles, couples, seniors, young Territorians, the whole array. It was clear the Wanguri electorate is a changing place as we have seen Lyons come out of the ground and Muirhead is now under way. However, what was also clear was, despite the differences from household to household, the electorate shares many of the same concerns and vision for the future.
People are deeply concerned about cost of living pressures and many told me they did not see a long-term future in Darwin. Some of this was driven by the desire to buy a home to call their own and exit a life of renting. It was also clear that power and water costs and childcare were pressures households were struggling with. Strong schools were also something the people of the Wanguri electorate wanted to continue seeing into the future. The schools already are the heart of our community and the Wanguri electorate wants to continue to see strong investment and support for our schools into the future so local kids receive a world-class education.
There is no doubt the management of growth in the Wanguri electorate is a hot topic for all and we are all feeling the changes every day. The new suburb of Lyons is a wonderful community and a beautiful place to live. We can all see Muirhead will also be a beautiful suburb when it is completed. However, the pressure of a growing population is starting to pinch, and everyone wants to ensure growth is not only managed well but they have a say in the solutions. Parking, traffic management, and roads are issues the Wanguri electorate is concerned about and the best solutions will only be found if the community have their say and are able to share their expertise and experiences with government and council going forward.
Local residents also made it clear they love the lifestyle here and want to protect it and see it further improved. People want to see improvements to our parks, better amenities for walking, running, and cycling and ensure community events continue to grow. As a local, I share and live these same issues with my constituents every day and I feel it will make me well-placed to help.
I was fortunate to work with the former member for Johnston, Dr Chris Burns. He is a man I have learned much from, and one who did an incredible job in his time in parliament. Prior to his retirement last year, one conversation we had stuck in my mind in the preparation of this speech. He once told me a great deal of a member’s worth can be seen when they come to the end of their career in parliament and reflect back upon their maiden speech to see whether they achieved what they set out to do. These were words I considered carefully when writing this and thinking what it is I want to see improved in my electorate and the Territory.
I want to see continued investment in our schools so Territory children can look forward to a life of opportunity. This means continued investment not only in infrastructure, but in education programs from the early years through to Year 12 so every child has an education tailored to their needs. Teachers play a critical role in the education system and quality teachers will always play a huge part in the education outcomes of our children. We have all had a teacher in our lives who has made a difference and inspired us to learn. For me, it was a man named Graham Parker at Casuarina Senior College who taught me history, geography, and politics. Teachers like Mr Parker make a difference to the lives of thousands of young Territorians and I want to see strong support for our teachers right across the Territory so they can get on with doing their job to the highest standard.
Tragically, the number one issue in education that continues to break my heart and destroy the future opportunities of so many Territorians remains: school attendance. We all know there is no easy answer or it would have been done a long time ago, but we must never lose sight of this issue and continue every effort to get children to school every day so they too have a life of opportunity and choice because they have an education.
Delivering great schools and facilities for children with disabilities is also an area in which I would like to see continued efforts. The special schools infrastructure program was started under the Labor government and I look forward to the new government continuing this important investment. However, at the last election Labor made a commitment to building a new Henbury School. This is something I hope the new government considers in the future so children with disabilities in Darwin can start their schooling at the state-of-the-art Nemarluk School and finish high school at a custom designed and equipped new Henbury School.
Owning your own home is a dream that most Territorians aspire to. There is no doubt getting a foot in the door of the housing market is a challenge in the Territory, and Australia-wide. Governments should do what they can to ensure it does not fall out of reach for too many. I am disappointed the low- to middle-income earners will now find it more difficult to purchase a home in Leanyer and Wanguri as the former HomeStart program, which helped so many into homeownership, has ceased. I am hoping in the future we see more opportunities for these Territorians who want to live in the suburbs where they grew up, near their family connections.
As someone who is involved in sport, I fully appreciate the benefits of participating in local sport and recreation. Territorians have always loved sport and recreation, and it helps form a strong community. It is important for governments to continue supporting local sport and recreation groups, and to ensure we never lose sight of how we can better assist volunteers and officials; without them, clubs and associations would not exist so we must back them in every way we can. I hope to see continued investment in the future in sport and recreation facilities as our population grows.
I am excited about the future and what it holds in my new role as the member for Wanguri, and I will never take this opportunity to be here for granted. I pledge to work hard for the people of the Wanguri electorate and do all I can to give them the best possible representation.
I must acknowledge and thank the now retired and former member for Wanguri, Paul Henderson. I thank him for his tireless dedication to the electorate and to the Territory. As I doorknocked the electorate, it was made clear to me that people had a long-standing strong relationship with him, and they were deeply saddened to see him go, but they understood his decision. As one of his constituents, I thank Paul Henderson for his work and setting the bar high. I hope, in time, I will be seen on an equal par to him as local member.
There are also many other people I must thank. Delia Lawrie and my Caucus colleagues, I thank you for your support. It is a great team to be part of, and I look forward to working with you to drive good outcomes for Territorians. I also thank members of Territory Labor for all their support. It was overwhelming to have so many people behind me and I am proud to be a part of the Australian Labor Party, a party that believes in the principle of a fair go in giving people a chance. To my supporters who never stopped believing me and who encouraged me every day to take a risk and take this new journey in life, I thank them too. Their messages, calls, and discussions, helped me through this process.
I have a few people to name today. I will not get them all or I would be here forever. However, I acknowledge Justin, Siobhan, Gracey, Burnsy, Jenny, Costa, Roberto, Gino, David, Anna, Ruth, Ryan, Cam, Sheena, Angela, Peter, Ron, Rob, Ella, Miriam, Courtney, Lesley, Pippa, Katie, Maria, Lids, Jane, Kent, Laura, Rebecca, Kate, Lauren, Jake, Dawn, Andrew, Renner, Teuila, Jason, Georgia, Audra, Heidi, Josh, Justine, Justin, Renae, Rebel, Ant, Jimmy, Ari and Eunice. I could not have done this without you.
To all my friends through sport, the mighty Waratah Netball Club and the mighty Waratah Football Ladies, I thank you for the support and good times we have shared over many years - for the grand final wins and losses, the ups and downs but, most of all, the friendships for life.
Last, to my family, the people who have been my number one supporters throughout my life and stepped up to a new level in recent weeks. To my family in Perth, Melbourne, Korumburra and Cyprus, thanks for all the well wishes and encouragement. I particularly acknowledge my Aunty Jan O’Meara, a life member of the Australian Labor Party, for her valuable insights over the years. To my in-laws for their love and support; to Beau, Mia, Will and Jo McNeill in Queensland; to Jess, James and Alice Herraman in Darwin, and to Ian and Kit McNeill, I love being part of your family, and your good humour has always put a smile on my face. To my parents, Gary and Rose Manison, and my brother, Luke Manison, thanks for an upbringing of a good education and opportunity; thanks for the love and support and endless tolerance of all my energy and ambitions; thank you for showing me what compassion is, and bringing me up on strong principles of being good to people and doing what you can to help others, and contribute to the community. Thank you for being the best family in the world.
To my husband, Scott McNeill, who puts up with so much; his was not what he signed up for a few years ago when we were married, but he always knew it was coming. Thank you for all your love and support and putting up with me. This new job will be another exciting adventure in life that we will share together.
Again, I thank the people of the Wanguri electorate for putting their faith in me. I will be putting everything into this job to serve you and to help work towards an even brighter future for this wonderful Northern Territory.
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): I congratulate the new member for Wanguri. Well done. Welcome to the team, and I look forward to working with you over the course of our term.
I want to reflect on a couple of matters that attended to last week. For part of my speech, I will read my press releases for which I apologise; they may not be very interesting for some people, but I want to get them onto Hansard.
Last week, I was approached by a childcare centre in my electorate. They were having some significant antisocial behaviour issues. Those issues were pre-existing well and truly before we dismantled the BDR, so I just want to get that on the record. My press release in that regard is titled, ‘Standing up for the Community’ and it is dated 15 February 2013.
An update from 15 February: I visited the childcare centre on Monday and they reported a significant decrease in this type of behaviour on Thursday, Friday and over the weekend. There were some ongoing issues on the Monday morning, but police are on top of it. I cannot thank Palmerston police enough. They worked so well with me and the childcare centre, and I know the staff really appreciated the police going there and speaking with them about how to deal with the abuse and other incidents that have been occurring.
Also, in conjunction with the police support that was received on this ongoing issue, I have written to the City of Palmerston and asked them to conduct a Crime Prevention through Environmental Design audit of the building. Hopefully, through those two means, we can stamp out this type of behaviour for that childcare centre. Thank you again to police and council. I look forward to hearing from you.
A couple of weeks ago it came to my attention that there was not one event in Palmerston to commemorate the Bombing of Darwin. I pondered that and thought it was a bit sad, and I wanted to bring something to my community. The Palmerston 50+ Club who we know all about because I talk about them incessantly in adjournment, is a fabulous group which meets every Tuesday at the Gray Community Hall from 10 am. There was an existing function taking place today which I enhanced for our 50+ Palmerston residents, and I am extremely grateful to Peter and Sheila Forrest who put their hands up to come and speak to the 50+ Club, which was very well received. Also, Waldo came and did his Ode to the Bombing of Darwin, and he provided a framed copy to my office and to the City of Palmerston. Thank you to all three of them for making such a contribution to the commemoration of the Bombing of Darwin in the Palmerston area.
I read my media release in this regard, dated 15 February 2013 titled Palmerston Bombing Commemoration.
The 17 Mile Camp is situated behind what is now Mackillop College. It is sandwiched between Lambrick Avenue, Mackillop College and the Stuart Highway. The development of that area is a Labor legacy, and it is an excellent walk and there is a lovely signboard there that is part of the Defence of Darwin Experience. It explains the significance of that landmark. It is a very enjoyable walk, and it has some wonderful silhouettes of soldiers dotted throughout the bushland and you can see old gun pits and drums from latrines and other bits and pieces. It is an excellent facility for Palmerston residents to enjoy being outdoors and in the bush, and also to reflect on times past and on the sacrifice that so many people made in the defence of our beautiful Territory
I would like to close by saying I enjoyed this morning’s ceremony at the Cenotaph very much. It was my first Cenotaph Bombing of Darwin experience, certainly in the front row, and I spent a lot of time reflecting on how important it was for our federal member of parliament, Natasha Griggs, to have ensured that this is now a national day of remembrance.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I wish to put on the record the passing of a long-term Territorian, my grandfather, Maxwell Watkin Vowles who passed away after a short illness on 19 January in Tasmania.
Maxwell Watkin Vowles was born in Leeds, Yorkshire, on 2 December 1921 and grew up on the outskirts of Leeds. It was a difficult era to grow up in and Max was about eight when the Great Depression set in and about 18 when World War II was declared. He had joined the RAAF about a year before that. One Christmas Eve he met one Marjorie Hilda Johnson at a dance just before he was about to depart on the invasion to liberate Europe. He served as a leading aircraftsman in the RAAF, and there is a delightful story that when they asked for volunteers to be observers with the Army for a while, he stepped forward because you got an extra ration of an egg every day, the memories of survival through the Depression influencing this decision.
He and Peg were engaged on the eve of D-Day in June 1944 and then did not see each other until after the war. They were married in 1946 after he was demobbed in Bramhope, a delightful little town just north of Leeds in Yorkshire. My father, Robert, was born there in 1949, a year or so before his family migrated to Australia in 1950 as Ten Pound Poms. Peg’s family had a difficult time because they missed them when they moved and obviously missed the growing up of my father, their grandson.
In 1953, my Uncle Phillip was born in Brisbane where the family had settled, and Max was working as a mechanic for Qantas. It was difficult enough moving away from the support network and family, and Max remembered Australians were not always welcoming of immigrants and made things uncomfortable at times the way they treated them.
In 1958, Max’s family, my grandparents, moved to Darwin where my Uncle Stuart was born in 1962. For many years Max worked for AB Motors in Nightcliff. One of the things he and Peg did in those years was buying and renovating houses; they did one in Brisbane and two more in Darwin. Later, he took work with the Transport and Works department which moved into the MVR and he worked there for many years until he retired in the early 1980s. If you knew my grandfather, the term ‘retired’ was used very lightly because he kept working at things. He did not get paid for everything he did, but he was a workaholic. He and Peg rebuilt the old railway cottage house at Darwin River where they lived until recently. He was active right through until last Christmas and could never sit back and have something done for him, he always did it himself.
One of the highlights of his recent years was a reunion with his brother, Denby. He had not seen his brother for 66 years as they separated during World War II. The way it worked out in circumstances and timing suggests the reunion was just meant to be. Max had talked about him over the years and he missed him. It was great they finally met just before my grandfather passed away.
Despite his abilities and commitment to work for all his life, Max was always quite reserved and private in many ways. His business was his business. He treated people well, and his family would tell you that he did not make enemies; they simply remember he did not have any. He was always straight with you and I inherited the same ability, and what you saw in Max is what you got. He was an honest man; he would simply call it as it was. He would never knowingly do wrong to others or take advantage of them. He was the type of man people like to have on their staff.
One area that sometimes left people wondering was his sense of humour. He had a unique sense of humour, and part of it was he gave everyone a nickname, and even named his machinery as well. Sometimes his jokes were so dry people took them the wrong way. His family and friends always knew when he was joking but, occasionally, others who were not so close to him took him the wrong way. He was always clear, and always such a practical and capable man. He was well into his 80s when he took up woodturning and was as meticulous at it as with everything else he did; his values were old school and included ideas like, ‘If it is worth doing, it’s worth doing properly. You repair things, not throw them out’.
He was so practical that if Peg admired something in a shop he was likely to make one rather than buy it, and when he did make something it was usually bigger and better. He did not always have much time for the modern ways of doing things. One of the things he turned his hand to was gardening. He was a wonderful and gifted gardener, particularly good with hydroponics. He could grow anything but, in truth, it did not matter what he took on, he took it on wholeheartedly and worked hard at it. He would read things and follow them up with much energy and activity. If he took you to a museum he would read everything and follow-up by going to the library to get more books to read.
My Nan summed it all up. After 67 years of marriage she turned to me at my grandfather’s funeral, and said, ‘They just don’t make them like that any longer’.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I wish to place on the record the results of a meeting I had last Saturday with residents of the Daly River regarding the Mt Todd mine. While this meeting had been planned for some time, I had some criticism levelled at me by some media and a resident of Katherine, both of who seemed to have self-interest in raising unnecessary fear and concerns in my home community. I assured those at the meeting that I will not speak for them, or on their behalf, unless I first consulted with them.
At the meeting, residents were advised of the history of the Mt Todd mine and the environmental threat it poses; that is, should we experience another large Wet or sudden enormous downpour similar to that which occurred on 27 December 2011, then large amounts of contaminated water could find its way into the Edith River and, subsequently, down the Daly. This type of uncontrolled release is not what we want and, therefore, a solution needs to be found. I advised the gathering I felt I did not have, or have not been given, sufficient information to make up my mind about the safeguards being used and implemented as part of the conditions of the waste discharge licence being issued. Most residents were of the same opinion. While they realised this situation with Mt Todd cannot be left as a disaster waiting to happen, they want the best solution possible to be implemented.
Where to from here? The Daly River Community Development Association has requested that I arrange for Vista Gold to be asked to attend the meeting of Daly River residents to lay out for them the plans they have for processing the contaminated water and answer any questions residents may have. While Daly River is a small community, it must be realised it is also the only community living on the river downstream of the mine and needs to be given as much information as possible so they are fully informed of the plans by Vista Gold to treat water on the site and release it into the Edith/Daly system.
I was a little disappointed a presentation was made in Katherine, but not planned for Daly. I have also been asked to get Dr Stuart Blanch, from the Environment Centre NT, to attend and present his side and answer any questions. I had a meeting with Dr Blanch this morning; he is well-known to the residents of the Daly.
Only after being given all this information can residents make up their own minds as to their support or otherwise. The fact that Vista Gold may plan to mine the site into the future has much to do with the need for a clean-up of the legacy water issue and presents a great opportunity for the community to get some action to alleviate the threat without the use of large amounts of taxpayer’s money. This is not a political issue, but an issue to be addressed by all Territorians.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I join the Minister for Arts and Museums, the member for Greatorex, in congratulating the NT Libraries on their National Tourism Award. I enjoyed my time working with NT Libraries, and we know the fabulous job they do throughout the Territory in libraries, particularly here with the reference library and the Parliamentary Library, our NT libraries in the Parliament House precinct.
I have to mention on the public record that I am most disappointed with the Minister for Arts and Museums regarding the sackings at the Museums and Art Galleries of the Northern Territory, one of whom was a librarian. There is much disquiet in the arts community, both with the sacking of the librarian and the photographer. I urge the minister to reconsider those decisions and get out to the Museums and Art Galleries of the Northern Territory and do some thorough investigation into what is an iconic piece of our culture and heritage. Basically, at the end of the day, it is the dedicated officers who work there who conduct the programs, the curation, and the preservation of our culture and our heritage.
I also thank the Minister for Arts and Museums in his media release announcing that the nation’s most prestigious Indigenous art award, the Telstra National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Art Award, is on again this year marking the 30th edition of the NATSIAA, with Telstra remaining the principal sponsor of the award again in 2013. This year marks 22 years of ongoing support from Telstra as the principal sponsor of the NATSIAAs.
I am a bit disappointed to hear, and this is the word on the street, that there was no media function, there was no doorstop; there was no turn-out for what is the first important round of media for the 2013 NATSIAA. Word on the street has it that it was only museum and art gallery staff of the Northern Territory who were there to promote the call for entries for this year’s NATSIAA, and word on the street has it that the minister did not even turn up.
So, I ask you, minister, to correct that for the record because it is important to hear that you were there, that you did conduct this media event and that you value it because it is not only about art the artists and the Territory, it is also about the national scene. It is about the Territory hosting and promoting a premier national art award. We have worked very hard in the past to continue this award program and it is especially important to recognise Telstra as the major sponsor.
Minister, I believe you have some work to do there. My advice to you is that, as the minister for Arts, you need to think about each release and each promotion as a theatrical performance. I know Territorians love it; I know the staff of the Museums and Art Galleries of the Northern Territory value it when you show compassion, when you show enthusiasm, when you truly value the hard work they do. You can turn this around. The next major marker is when the entries start to roll in. Then there is the curation and there are many opportunities then to get that message out onto the national scene.
A quick message to Bill and Val Powell at North Bendalong in New South Wales: you will not be seeing me on the television this year as I am not the minister. However, if the minister wants to invite me to the doorstop, I will turn up with bells on, because that was one time that Bill and Val always said to me, ‘Gerry, we have seen you on TV. We only see you once a year’. It is all to do with the promotion of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Art Award.
Lastly, working off government media release - the government word that they put out there - I make comment on the Minister for Transport’s media release on 15 February 2013, ‘New Works Improve Carpentaria Highway.’ Thank you, minister, for telling that story. I will be telling that story throughout the electorate. That is the conclusion of the previous Labor government’s work on the important Carpentaria Highway, that link between the Stuart Highway, the McArthur River Mine and the township of Borroloola, including all those wonderful cattle stations on the way. The minister’s media release focused on the 12.7 km of highway, those four sections that underwent strengthening and widening.
I travelled on that highway on my way to Darwin, after a trip into the Gulf country in the electorate of Barkly, and it was great to see that work finished. I watched that work on the design and construction. It is also good to mention when you are talking about Territory roads, particularly the Carpentaria Highway and the two record Wet Seasons of 2010 and 2011, the previous Labor government committed over $95m worth of work for repairs and maintenance. The Carpentaria, which supports a lot of heavy vehicle traffic in and out of the McArthur River Mine and the town of Borroloola, suffered its fair share of damage. So, I congratulate the department of Construction because you monitored that, you designed the repair work and supervised the construction, not only the new sections strengthened and widened, but also those repairs that were very necessary to keep traffic open into that important Gulf country and all the exploration programs, the minerals programs, that are going on in that part of the world.
I remember working closely with the department of Construction and I threw in my two bobs worth every chance I got. I will have to be careful of my language here as the member for Katherine will be searching for semantics to try to throw back at me. However, I remember it well, and the department of Construction staff will remember it well. One of the issues we talked about was the joins. I congratulate you because obviously some people have taken notice of my comments and those joins have been touched up and the new work blends in well. At the moment, the Carpentaria Highway is in great shape thanks to the department of Construction, the valuable civil contractors throughout the Northern Territory, and thank you, minister, for being able to tell that story as the new minister in government.
To conclude, I remember well in this House the jibes and torments and the vindictive nature of adjournments. There was always one about the grass on the side of the Stuart Highway and those metre high ant beds that were there, and the neglect of the previous Labor government. Well, minister, you have been lucky this year because you have not seen a Wet but let me tell you - around Dunmarra, south of Elliott, and some areas have just been cut around Mataranka - the spear grass has reached a metre, the ant beds are back, but that is the Territory, and that is what I understand - always did, always will. You are in the chair, now you will understand. I will not torment you with any ridiculous jibes like that, but be aware that the Wet Season is coming and your job will step up considerably. I am here in support, minister. Whatever you need to know, just ask. The previous Labor government can inform you well.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Resignation of Former Member for Wanguri
Resignation of Former Member for Wanguri
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise that on 23 January 2013 the resignation of the former member for Wanguri, Mr Paul Henderson, was submitted to me by letter pursuant to section 18 of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the Speaker’s gallery of family and friends of the new member for Wanguri, including Mr Scott McNeill; parents, Gary and Rose Manison; family members, James Herraman, Jess Herraman and Alice Herraman. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to our visitors here today.
Members: Hear, hear!
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Filming of Swearing-in of New Member for Wanguri
Filming of Swearing-in of New Member for Wanguri
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise I have given approval to ABC TV, Sky News, Channel 9, AAP and the NT News to take film and photographs and to record sound during the swearing-in of the new member for Wanguri.
RETURN TO WRIT
Division of Wanguri
Division of Wanguri
CLERK: Honourable members, I lay on the table the return to the writ issued by Her Honour the Administrator, Ms Sally Thomas AM, on 18 February 2013 for the election of a member for the electoral division of Wanguri on 16 February 2013, certifying the election of Nicole Susan Manison.
Nicole Susan Manison made and subscribed the oaths of allegiance and office required by law.
Madam SPEAKER: On behalf of all honourable members, I extend congratulations to you and best wishes as the new member for Wanguri in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly.
Members: Hear, hear!
OPPOSITION PORTFOLIO RESPONSIBILITES
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I advise the Assembly of the new opposition portfolio responsibilities.
Ms Delia Lawrie, Leader of the Opposition – Treasurer; Major Projects; and Economic Development.
Mr Michael Gunner - Government Accountability; Statehood; Police Fire and Emergency Services; Education and Training; Business and Employment; Racing Gaming and Licensing; Alcohol Policy.
Ms Natasha Fyles - Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage; Climate Change; Parks and Wildlife; Child Protection; Children and Families; Women’s Policy.
Mr Kenneth Vowles - Tourism, Sport and Recreation; Senior Territorians; Multicultural Affairs; Young Territorians.
Ms Nicole Manison - Public and Affordable Housing; Public Employment.
Mr Gerry McCarthy, Deputy Leader of the Opposition - Regional Development; Infrastructure and Construction; Lands and Planning; Transport; Essential Services; Arts and Museums.
Ms Lynne Walker - Attorney-General and Justice; Corrections; Indigenous Policy, Local Government.
PETITIONS
Cutting of Government Funding for Freds Pass Reserve and Litchfield Swimming Pool
Mr WOOD (Nelson)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 2103 petitioners relating to cutting all the NT government funding for Freds Pass Reserve and the Litchfield Swimming Pool. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- To the honourable Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory.
We, the undersigned, ask that the government reverse its decision to cut all NT government funding for Freds Pass Reserve and Litchfield Swimming Pool. Litchfield is a growing area and recreational facilities are an important part of the development of the region, especially when it comes to sport, recreation and opportunities for youth. We believe this decision by the government was done without any consultation with the community, the Freds Pass Management Board, the Litchfield Council or the local electorate members. We therefore ask that the government reverse this retrograde decision and continue to fund the Freds Pass Reserve and the Litchfield Pool.
DISTINGUISHED VISITOR
Dr Chris Burns
Dr Chris Burns
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw to your attention the presence in the gallery of a previous Leader of Government Business, Dr Chris Burns. Welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
JUSTICE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT
(AGE OF RETIREMENT) BILL
(Serial 15)
(AGE OF RETIREMENT) BILL
(Serial 15)
Continued from 5 December 2012.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, the opposition supports this bill which seeks to amend four acts, the Director of Public Prosecutions Act, the Law Officers Act, the Magistrates Act and the Supreme Court Act. We will be brief in the second reading debate, essentially because we do support it.
These amendments seek to raise the retirement age from 65 to 70 for the roles of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Master of the Supreme Court, the Solicitor-General, as well as magistrates.
I thank the Attorney-General’s office for the briefing on this bill as well as the follow-up comparison overview with other jurisdictions which was provided to me by Mr Burke from the Attorney-General’s office.
While the Northern Territory becomes the last jurisdiction to raise the retirement age to 70 for the Master of the Supreme Court role, there is a range of different scenarios which play out in other jurisdictions with the Director of Public Prosecutions’ role, and the Solicitor-General’s role. However, raising the retirement age for magistrates sees the Northern Territory join Victoria, Queensland, New South Wales, Tasmania, and the Commonwealth which have a retirement age of 70, or 72 as is the case in New South Wales and Tasmania. Some of those jurisdictions do not have a mandatory retirement age.
For magistrates in the Territory, this also aligns with their counterparts in the Supreme Court who have had a mandatory retirement age of 70 for some time. Just shy of his 70th birthday, I was very honoured to be part of the very special ceremony last Friday in the Supreme Court to farewell Justice Dean Mildren who has served the Northern Territory for decades in his various roles in the legal fraternity, including Supreme Court Judge since 1991. At that ceremony in Court Room No One there were some very fitting tributes to his enormous service and contribution, and his incredible knowledge.
There is certainly much to be said for retaining the cumulative knowledge and skills, which is why, as the Attorney-General noted in his second reading speech, and I quote:
- … short-term relieving magistrate appointments can be made for up to 70-year-old and former magistrates have been engaged on numerous occasions in the past as relieving magistrates.
No doubt that will continue to occur, and that is all very good.
The issue of valuing people’s contribution through the public service, whether it be in the courts or the public service, is not new to Labor. Nearly 10 years ago, the former member for Nhulunbuy, Mr Syd Stirling, sponsored amendments before the House to the Public Sector Employment and Management Act. These amendments were about removing the compulsory retirement provisions within that act. I will quote from the then minister’s media release when he said on 12 August 2003:
- This government believes that ceasing the employment of valued and skilled public sector workers on the basis of age alone is simply unacceptable and inconsistent with anti-discrimination legislation. In addition, the Australian population is healthier and living longer than ever and, as a result, people have potentially many years of productive working life beyond the age of 65. These challenges will allow individuals to retire when it suits them.
Whilst this bill does not allow magistrates and other officers to retire when it suits them, it does extend their service to the age of 70 years.
While many of us long for the day when retirement comes, some will seek it sooner than others and I do hope to be enjoying retirement before 70, but time will tell. Then there are those who retire - and I am not referring to members of the judiciary here nor the roles covered in this bill - only to be lured back by the promise of a new job and a very lucrative employment package, such as we have seen since the August general election with the CLP employing all their old mates in very senior and well-paid advisory positions. But, I digress.
The opposition has no issues with this bill and recognises the need for the Northern Territory to be in step with what is happening in other jurisdictions, which includes valuing the wealth of knowledge and experience and allowing those who may choose to, to continue on until the age of 70.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I cannot say I am particularly surprised by the support of the members opposite but, nevertheless, I am grateful.
One of the things I have noticed over the years is that the Northern Territory’s age of retirement for masters, magistrates, the DPP and the Solicitor-General is reflected in some jurisdictions, but not, quite frankly, in most jurisdictions, but that is not the motive behind this. The motive is simpler than that. We live in an age where the average person lives a longer and healthier life. If you track the average age of people over the last 100 years, average ages have crept up. It is no secret that in the Australian Constitution there is a handbrake on being a High Court judge, which means you retire at the age of 70. The Australian Constitution, being drafted in the late 1800s, was reflective of a time when that would not have been an appropriate age to retire if, indeed, you lived that long. Today, people regularly live to the age of 70 and it is surprising how fit and healthy so many 70-year-olds are. You occasionally hear the expression ‘60 is the new middle age’, and I understand that.
I note the member for Nhulunbuy is planning to retire before she is 70. I have no idea when I will retire, suffice to say I quite like the idea of living a long and productive life. One of the reasons I studied law was so I could continue to be productive long after some of the physical faculties started to fail. As long as you have a brain in your head you are able to practice law. There is no shortage of examples in the modern world where lawyers are quadriplegics and still practice by virtue of the fact they can manage with their cerebellums intact.
The bill before this House is designed to recognise that and, if it were possible or convenient without major legislative change, it would almost be tempting, as a government, to say we will go to an age where the person chooses to retire. Unfortunately, that raises another difficulty inasmuch as a person who sits on the bench is very hard to retire. It is a principle of the separation between this House and the houses of justice in our community that we cannot forcibly retire judges or magistrates and to do so would require a special resolution of this House. I cannot, in living memory, think of a single example of it occurring. I am sure it may have, but I am not familiar with it. However, 65 for many people is not old age. For many magistrates, masters and judges it is a time when they are at the peak of their profession. I can well imagine they would like to continue doing their job because they relish it, enjoy it, and because they have much experience and another five years of practice would suit them as they would see themselves as being at the peak of their profession.
As a consequence, one of the first things I determined to do when becoming Attorney-General was address this issue. I am proud to have brought it into this House. There has been no push-back from any quarter I am aware of, and I am pleased to have navigated this bill through the House. I am grateful to those people who have had input, those people who have given me advice on it, and I believe it is ready to pass.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Alcohol-Related Harm in the NT
Alcohol-Related Harm in the NT
Mr TOLLNER (Alcohol Rehabilitation and Policy): Madam Speaker, I outline the Northern Territory government’s response to alcohol-related harm in the Northern Territory. This harm is felt by all of us: the dedicated clinicians working in the emergency departments of our hospitals, police on the streets tipping out alcohol night after night, residents of Darwin enjoying a stroll on the Nightcliff foreshore or the Esplanade, and the small business owners in Katherine, Alice Springs, and Tennant Creek.
However, the people feeling the most harm from the impacts of alcohol-related harm are the families for whom alcohol-fuelled violence is an everyday part of their life. The high levels of domestic and family violence in the Northern Territory are unacceptable. We, in the Northern Territory government, like everyone else who lives in the Northern Territory, know the misuse of alcohol causes considerable harm to individuals and to our community as a whole.
A study commissioned by the Menzies School of Health Research found the harm from alcohol misuse costs the Northern Territory community $642m per year. This equates to $4197 for every adult Territorian compared to $944 nationally, and includes the cost of hospitalisations for chronic health problems and injuries, alcohol-related violence, victims and ambulatory costs, road accidents, policing alcohol-related crime and antisocial behaviour, courts and the correctional system, and the impacts on the workforce such as absenteeism.
It is clear, from both the Territory experience and the national and international evidence that a range of responses are required which deal with the supply and harm. A number of measures to reduce supply are in place in the Northern Territory. Activities undertaken to deal with the supply include regulation, for example, via the Northern Territory licensing community and through community self-regulation such as the work that communities do as part of developing alcohol management plans.
Local communities determine solutions to alcohol harm in their communities. Examples include the establishment of locally designed permit schemes such as in Groote Eylandt and East Arnhem, and the three strikes ID system proposed by the Elliott community. These work because they are locally developed and managed. There have been major and sustained reductions in alcohol-related harm since these systems were put in place in Groote Eylandt and East Arnhem.
Other examples include communities offering land use for police stations and for outstation rehabilitation services at such places as Jilkminggan and, as I said during Question Time in relation to the member for Arafura, on the Tiwi Islands.
This government stood fast by its election commitment and abolished the Banned Drinker Register framework. Those opposite - specifically the Leader of the Opposition - declared the streets are awash with grog, anarchy is rife, crime is rampant, and there has been a dark cloud hanging over the Territory since the government abolished the BDR. This is what the opposition would want the public to believe.
In fact, this is the scenario this opposition falsely represented to the Prime Minister of this great nation, and it presented a brief to the Prime Minister which was spurious and false in fact. The brief to Julia Gillard, which attacked this government, was based upon manipulated and misleading data concocted by a desperate Territory Labor government in its death throes, attempting to justify the Banned Drinker Register. Not only did they manipulate the data, they also deliberately omitted alcohol-related domestic violence data, a shameful and hypocritical act admitted to by the Opposition Leader.
Now is the time to review other falsehoods which are being espoused by the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition stated on 7 February 2013 during a radio interview that there was a 15% drop in Territory-wide alcohol-related assaults under the Banned Drinker Register, comparing the 2011-12 year to the 2010-11 year. The figure is incorrect, as it simply related to antisocial behaviour. However, in respect to assault, and based on the last published statistics from the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice comparing 2011, the year of the operation of the BDR, with the previous year, there was, across the Territory, an increase in assaults by 6% during 2011-12 from the previous year. There were 2.9% more alcohol-related assault offences across the Territory during 2011-12 than there were in 2010-11, despite the Banned Drinker Register being in place throughout the whole of 2011-12.
During this interview, the Leader of the Opposition wrongly inferred that the standards for reporting have changed since this government was elected, meaning that statistics could not be compared. In fact, the statistics recording and counting has not changed at all. On the contrary, the only change has been that we have moved to ensure crime statistics are again released publicly every quarter.
It is a sad state of affairs that the Leader of the Opposition has declared that when she was in government she spent a year designing the BDR policy and a year implementing it - a failed system. What a waste of time and Territorians’ taxes. This is a sad indictment of a government which ignored the advice of experienced public servants who said the BDR would not work for the simple reason there is no way third-party or secondary supply could be counted. It is as simple as that.
To make matters worse, the Banned Drinker Register was supported by legislation which was highly bureaucratic, ineffective and lacked any sanction. By way of example, if a person was caught supplying grog to someone on the BDR, that person would be placed on the BDR. This was a total joke.
Finally, the previous government put in place a tribunal which encouraged people subject to a banning notice to attend. The pointlessness of this was that the legislation was supposed to facilitate compulsory assessment and treatment. It did not. The former Labor government’s policy was demonstrably a complete, but expensive, farce.
The Northern Territory government made and stood by our election commitment to rescind the Banned Drinker Register. In its place, the Northern Territory government has committed $15m per annum to the development of a comprehensive alcohol rehabilitation policy, including mandatory treatment.
This, coupled with the existing investment of approximately $20m in alcohol and other drug treatment and rehabilitation, means an investment of $35m per annum to support Territorians to access services to break the pattern of alcohol and substance addiction.
This government is aware that mandatory treatment may not be affective for all. I am not declaring it is a panacea to cure all ills. The fact is, to direct a person to a place to simply provide them some respite from a life of alcohol abyss is a positive. To provide him or her with greater opportunities is a positive. To strengthen that person’s capacity to make decisions and attempt to turn his or her life around is a positive.
I am aware that there are those who declare that mandatory rehabilitation is a framework of doom and despair, based upon a Chicken Little scenario. I am also aware there is evidence available showing that coerced alcohol treatment can be as effective as voluntary treatment. In fact, a note detailed in a recent New Zealand paper regarding compulsory treatment of substance dependence said, and I quote:
It is important not to misunderstand the lack of evidence about the relative effectiveness of compulsory and voluntary treatment. Firstly, it does not imply that treatment is not effective.
This paper noted that many experts working in the alcohol and drug treatment sector consider that compulsory treatment can be effective in some situations for some people. It stated that:
- … the short-term use of compulsion is effective where there is an imminent risk to a person’s health or safety and the person is incapable, because of his or her dependence, of making decisions about his or her drug use and personal welfare.
It is intended to implement a mandatory treatment response that provides for assessment by a clinician, oversight by a tribunal, and aftercare arrangements. In addition to being able to refer the person to mandatory treatment, the clinicians will also be able to refer a range of other options already available in the system, for example, existing non-residential treatment such as a program provided by Amity Community Services based in Darwin, or residential services at Vendale in Katherine or KARPU in Alice Springs.
I expect implementation of the legislation to support mandatory treatment to be ready by mid-2013. This government is about providing balance and hope, which includes addressing alcohol abuse, providing pathways to education and employment, and growing private enterprise in remote areas demonstrating that life is not about government cheques in the mail. However, our policy response is not just about treatment. We are taking a system-wide approach, enhancing the response to those impacted upon by alcohol by supporting the prevention of alcohol misuse and intervening early when people are at risk.
A review of sobering-up shelters has commenced. These shelters are seen to be an integral component in support of the mandatory rehabilitation policy. However, their role in minimising harm to drunks has not changed since the mid-1980s. I envisage there may be a need to increase bed numbers and expand opening hours. Similarly, there are opportunities to improve interventions and outreach services within shelters. We want to encourage greater use of the shelters and ensure people who are picked up drunk are provided with a referral pathway to a rehabilitation provider. We want to change the philosophy of the shelters and get out of that spin-dry mentality.
We will be ensuring those working in the alcohol and other drugs field in our NGO sector have opportunity to access certificate level training for their workers. In addition to our commitment to invest further in treatment and rehabilitation services, the Northern Territory government will improve its current service model. This will mean evidence-based therapeutic interventions to tackle the causes and results of addiction. After all, alcohol addiction is a chronic, relapsing condition and requires long-term management. It is rarely cured in a one-off intervention such as the hapless lot opposite investing almost solely in their failed Banned Drinker Register.
In addition, those going through the treatment will be provided with a range of skills development to support job readiness. I am committed to ensuring that with treatment comes post-treatment support. This will make the difference in success or failure of the treatment. People cannot return to the same circumstances without support to continue the new skills and behaviours learnt through treatment, and after-care through planned transition from treatment to the community is critical. As I have repeatedly said, the best incentive for anyone to get off the grog is to have to get up in the morning and go to work.
The Northern Territory will be developing two secure services in the Top End and the Centre. I have directed the Department of Health to work with existing service providers to ensure the existing treatment provides a therapeutic intervention rather than a place for people to sit down. In addition to this, treatment will include the provision of skills and other training to support job readiness. The trigger for mandatory rehabilitation will be repeated episodes of public drunkenness eventuating in protective custody. Individuals will be accessed by a clinician and, if required, undergo medically supervised detoxification prior to appearing before a tribunal which will then determine if their situation is so hopeless they require mandatory rehabilitation.
The Northern Territory government has also invested funding of nearly $1m per annum ongoing to Bush Mob, the youth alcohol and other drugs service provider in Alice Springs. In January 2011, the failed Labor government announced that the Bush Mob service would be relocated and its capacity expanded to 20 clients but, true to form and typically, no funding was provided for either the capital elements or service expansion elements of this move. There expansion stalled although there has been a significant waitlist for their services. Bush Mob provides critical youth residential alcohol and other treatment services in Alice Springs, and is widely acknowledged for its approach in working with high-risk young people in Alice Springs.
A focus on supporting the development and enhancement of treatment services with a track record of reducing alcohol-related harm will mean the Northern Territory government’s approach to mandatory treatment will result in increased service quality and service capacity. It will provide a range of options which respond to the complexity of alcohol-related harm in the Northern Territory, and will provide the best opportunity to reduce alcohol-related harm. It will also, consequently, take the drunks off the street.
Dealing with alcohol-related harm is far more complex than one black and white solution. If the issue was this simple a solution would have been in place long before now. Sadly, it is a fact that Indigenous Territorians, particularly those from remote communities disenfranchised from family, will disproportionately be referred or directed to mandatory rehabilitation and will be subjected to rehabilitation programs. Whilst this is not acceptable, it is the end result of significant dysfunction, unemployment, poor or fragmented educational outcomes, and a general sense of hopelessness that is the reality of life for many Indigenous people in remote communities.
This is a blight not just on the Northern Territory, but our entire nation. We will only ever be tackling symptoms like poor health, drug and alcohol abuse and crime if we do not, as a whole society, confront the entirety of the problem. We can easily mouth the rhetoric of self-determination for Indigenous Australians; however, unless we start treating them with respect and dignity as equals and create real jobs in partnership with the private sector, improve school attendance, stop treating them as a curiosity to be studied from afar and break the cycle of dysfunction, nothing will change. It is a challenge this government will tackle and drive. It is acknowledged this will take time and cannot be done in isolation. We will work with communities, Indigenous leaders, non-government organisations and the private sector to facilitate jobs, build industry and provide real employment opportunities, not simply another government-funded program.
In dealing with people who access a rehabilitation program, the policy of this government is to facilitate opportunity, improve lives, provide job opportunities, and reintegrate individuals into society. When all is said and done, developing self-worth and building hope and aspiration is the only way we can give individuals a real future and create a community in which we are all content to live.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, this is an issue we have debated in this House a significant number of times both last term - in my first term in government as a backbencher and the member for Fannie Bay - and now in a new term with a new government where I carry portfolio responsibility for alcohol policy in opposition.
It is an issue in this House where we are both united and divided. We have had debate in this Chamber about the nature of alcohol-fuelled violence in the Territory and we always agree. We agree there is a significant issue in the Northern Territory with alcohol, alcohol-fuelled violence and binge drinking, which occur in our towns and in our communities. We have, in many ways, a common cause as parliamentarians to try to tackle alcohol and alcohol-fuelled violence.
As a government, we had a range of plans working together to try to tackle alcohol because, as the current minister said, there is no one single solution. You have to have a number of programs and work together to make a difference. We were doing that as a government. Also, as a local member, you have responsibilities to your area and you work with people to try to make a difference in your local area.
Last term, as a backbencher in government, I worked with the government trying to put things in place in my area. Now, in opposition, I am still the local member for Fannie Bay and will work with the current government doing anything we can in my local area to make a difference.
I will do that with the member for Fong Lim, who is also the Minister for Housing. Recently, there have been articles in the paper about Kurringal and things we can do there. I will be very happy to work with the member for Fong Lim in doing what we can.
The comments he has made so far on the public record are similar to the previous government’s prior to the last election. We can find common ground on how to tackle some of the problems in areas and spaces like that. As the local member, I worked with the government around the Parap Police Beat and met with local police then - and still meet with them now – to talk about the issues in our local area. Also, I receive feedback from constituents and people who travel through my area who talk to me about the intelligence they receive and what they are doing. You constantly work together to try to ensure you are tackling problems in those hot spots.
We had our public housing reform program which started at Wirrina, and we have seen a massive difference there, opposite the Parap shops. That has had a flow-on effect in a large number of directions, as have the CCTV cameras through the local Parap shopping precinct.
We also had other plans of turning barren spaces, which encouraged antisocial behaviour, into vibrant, actively used spaces, which is an important part of our planning principles of taking a space that is not being used and using it proactively and positively. One example of that is the community garden behind Framed in Stuart Park, which is in the process of happening. I understand it has been delayed, which is a little frustrating to many local residents, but it is fully booked, every garden plot has been taken, and there is a waitlist longer than the number of plots available in the first place. People want to be able to use their open spaces positively; I talk specifically about Darwin now, although it is true for the whole the Territory. We live in a beautiful green city with open spaces which, often, we do not use positively. The community garden is an example of how you can use an open space positively, and it is important we, as parliamentarians, are constantly working to try to tackle these issues either in our local area, as part of government, or in opposition holding government to account.
We agree there is a problem. However, from there we disagree because we go on two divergent paths about how to tackle that problem. We had plans in place; the CLP did not like them, and they scrapped them. In many ways, people respect the authority of a new government to come in and do their thing, but what has frustrated people is they scrapped the plans without actually putting anything else in their place. They scrapped the Banned Drinker Register, the Night Patrol, the Alcohol Court, the Return to Country program, and put nothing else in their place.
Fine, the new government does not like the plans we had to make a difference and they scrapped them, but they did it prematurely. They did it before they had any of their own plans in place. What was the impact of that? For example, from October last year, the Alcohol Courts were going to be in a position to do targeted income management through the orders those courts could make. They were going to be able to use leverage off the Commonwealth powers to make income management decisions targeted at problem repeat drunks. But, now, they cannot do that because the CLP scrapped them. The CLP came into government and scrapped the things we had in place, which they did not like, and they replaced them with nothing.
There is a great deal of frustration out there, people on the street who have seen things we all felt were making a difference. People with 20 years’ experience at the Fannie Bay shops, people with similar experience at the Parap shops, and Stuart Park shops, saw programs that were making a difference scrapped without anything else put in their place. These are practical people. They may have come on board behind the Banned Drinker Register but they were not early converts, they were converts after they saw it in practice. But they are practical people, and when they saw the CLP scrap it they could not believe nothing else was put in its place – they were shocked at that.
So, what do we have? We have our plans scrapped by the CLP and, on the other side, we have a statement. That is where we are after six months - we have a statement from the government about what they intend to do. That is what we have in this Chamber. That is where we have come after six months; to a statement from the Alcohol minister. This is the person who has been placed in charge by the Chief Minister to deliver on the CLP’s promise to immediately remove all drunks from our streets and, six months in, we have an alcohol statement. We had a promise to immediately remove all the drunks from our streets, to crack down on antisocial behaviour and, six months in, we get a statement from the Minister for Alcohol Rehabilitation and Policy.
He made some reasonable points in it, he had some rhetoric, and he talked about many things, but it is a statement - it is not immediate action, which is what the CLP promised going into the last election. This is part of what has fuelled Territorians’ anger. The CLP made promises going into the last election and they are not honouring them. They promised to immediately remove all drunks from the streets and to crack down on antisocial behaviour. Six months in, the Chief Minister’s interpretation of that policy is to ask drunks, nicely, to stop drinking. That is where we have come to in this debate.
People are frustrated the CLP basically said and did anything to get elected and it turns out they had no plans. Maybe they were not expecting the last election result, but they promised to immediately remove all drunks from our streets, and that is now a broken promise. We are six months in, and we have a statement from the Minister for Alcohol Rehabilitation and Policy.
We want to see the bill. You promised us immediate action. You talked about a plan. It turns out you only have the promise of a plan and, six months in, we still do not have the detail. Instead, we are debating in this Chamber - we continually debate alcohol - a statement from the member for the Fong Lim full of things he might like to do one day. We have a statement with good intentions. Page 9 says:
- It is intended to implement a mandatory treatment response that provides for assessment by a clinician, oversight by a tribunal, and aftercare arrangements.
This is the promise of a plan. We have a statement from the minister full of good intentions. What else do we have? A review of sobering-up shelters has commenced. So, six months in we have good intentions and a review. That is all we have come to in debating alcohol in the Northern Territory following the Country Liberal Party’s promise to immediately remove all drunks from our streets. That is the promise they made going into the last election, and it turns out they only had the promise of a plan to maybe do that.
You can understand why Territorians are frustrated to the point of being angry, why they turned out the way they did in Wanguri - a result of the CLP continually breaking their promises to them: the promise to cut the cost of living and to immediately remove drunks from our streets.
Page 1 of the 100-day action plan - not page 2 or 3 – said, ‘… immediately remove drunks from our streets’.
The Chief Minister’s photo is on that, not the member for Fong Lim’s. Maybe the member for Fong Lim would have been a little smarter about how he worded some of the promises the CLP made going to the last election. Unfortunately, he is now the one who has to carry the can as the minister for Alcohol Policy.
It started off as a bit of a roundabout in the first couple of weeks of government. The Attorney-General seemed to be taking over responsibility for the mandatory rehabilitation of problem drunks, but it has now distinctly shifted to the minister for Alcohol Policy, who I assume will be working for the minister for Business, who has the licensing portfolio, and the member for Araluen who was leading the negotiations with the providers in Alice Springs. The member for Fong Lim has been given the responsibility for ensuring the CLP’s promise comes true, and it has not happened. We are six months - 177 days today - into the term of the new government and we still have not seen them deliver on their promise to immediately remove problem drunks from the streets.
This is the statement you give when you promised to immediately remove drunks from the streets, and six months later you have done nothing. It is the wedge statement. You give it in the hope no one notices you have not brought the bill forward. ‘We should make a statement on alcohol so no one notices we do not have the bill ready yet.’ This is a wedge statement. You make it to try to get some debate happening and cover up the fact you do not have any of the detail yet of how you will crack down on antisocial behaviour. Front page election promise: 100-day plan to crack down on antisocial behaviour, but six months later it has escalated out of control and the minister has resorted to blaming police for taking drunks to the emergency department at the hospital. This is the statement you make when you promised to immediately send drunks to mandatory rehabilitation and six months later you have to admit you have done nothing.
It is noticeable that in this statement the minister does not even discuss the current Chief Minister’s claim that people should just tell drunks to stop. In this statement the minister does not acknowledge or address why his good mate, Tony Abbott, does not even agree with him. The incompetence of the CLP is in the extraordinary unity of Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott.
The opening of this ministerial statement says:
- Madam Speaker, I outline the Northern Territory government’s response to alcohol-related harm in the Northern Territory.
We do not have that. We have the same detail we had before the election: that they have intentions to do something.
We are now 177 days into their 100-day plan and they still have not immediately removed drunks from the street; they still have not cracked down on antisocial behaviour as promised before the last election.
These are broken promises and this is what is fuelling the anger of Territorians, which we saw on Saturday at the Wanguri by-election with many voters there speaking on behalf of all Territorians and saying you cannot break your promises so blatantly. It is extraordinary. To come in on such a clear, simple promise and break it so brazenly shocks people. They are angry. They cannot believe you would be so blatant as to say one thing and then do the opposite after you are elected. It bewilders people to the point we saw in the result of the Wanguri by-election on Saturday, people expressing their anger at the lack of action from the CLP in honouring their own promise to immediately remove drunks from our streets.
We are now 177 days into the term of the new government and they still have not done one of the fundamental items on the front page of their 100-day action plan. What is their plan?
Well, we do not know too much more than what they said before the last election. It is quite extraordinary that we still have:
- It is intended to implement a mandatory treatment response that provides for an assessment by a clinician, oversight by a tribunal and aftercare arrangements.
It is quite extraordinary that where we have come to after 177 days is good intentions.
We know they want to take a drunk from the street, from the park, from the pub, from behind the wheel, from within their home - a problem drunk - and put them in a facility where they cannot escape, because it will be a correctional facility, essentially. It will have a wall or fence and essentially be a prison so those people cannot leave. They will want to leave, they have an addiction to alcohol, so you have to build a facility where they cannot leave, essentially a prison.
But at the same time, you will be providing rehabilitation within that facility; it will need to have a medical component, essentially a hospital or hospice. It will be a medical precinct so you will have nurses, doctors, medical staff, allied health professionals. You will have a combination of a prison and a hospital staffed by guards and nurses, and it is going to be expensive.
They have an incredibly expensive promise of a plan. We do not have all the details yet, but we know it will be incredibly expensive and there is no evidence it will work. We have what I believe is one of the most extraordinary quotes within a statement. It is quite brilliant in many respects if you are in government. It is an extraordinary way to defend a policy. It was a very ‘Yes Minister’ moment. I could not believe it when I read it, and I quote:
- It is important not to misunderstand the lack of evidence about the relative effectiveness of compulsory and voluntary treatment. Firstly, it does not imply that treatment is not effective.
We know this has no evidence base, the CLP admitted it has no evidence base, and in this ministerial statement they confirm it has no evidence base. But now they are saying, ‘Do not worry about the fact that there is no evidence that this incredibly expensive option of mandatory rehabilitation works’. Move on, the fact that there is no evidence that supports this plan should not be taken as any guide that it will not work. The fact there is no evidence anywhere in the world does not, or should not, be seen as a reason for this not working.
So, we have this incredibly expensive option on the table where we are still waiting for some critical detail from the government about how they will make this work. We know it will cost a great deal of money, and they themselves admit they have no evidence, and there is nowhere in the world where this works. There is no evidence to support this model, but do not worry about that, it does not mean it will not work; the fact that there is no evidence anywhere does not mean this will not work. An extraordinary quote.
An extraordinary quote and we still have no detail about how they will take the drunks from the street, the park, behind the wheel, from the pub, from their home into this care. Page 12 of the statement says:
- The trigger for mandatory rehabilitation will be repeated episodes of public drunkenness. ...
That is what we have always known, that is what they have said repeatedly, but we need to see the detail of how this will work. That is what we are all waiting for. We thought they would be ready to go with it after they were elected, they promised it. We are six months in and see no more detail, no bill before this House.
We understand there is a level of political debate and departmental debate about how to make this happen, that there is a great deal of division internally about how to make this work in practice. We see a government paralysed and no detail before this House. Instead, we get the statement you give when you have nothing else to say, a wedge statement to try to hide the fact that no action has been taken on this.
We are six months in with no detail of how they will make this work. It is extraordinary that we are in the House debating a statement which confirms there is no evidence to their plan, and no evidence is not a problem. Forget the fact there is no evidence, that does not mean it will not work; nothing to see here, move on. It is extraordinary.
What is the importance of evidence? The CLP says in its own statement - I could not believe it – they followed that quote up by admitting evidence is important. The minister said in his statement:
- In addition to our commitment to invest further in treatment and rehabilitation services, the Northern Territory government will improve its current service model.
That is excellent. Governments should always look to improve their service model. As you go each year you receive constant feedback and learn practical ways to improve how you do business. Great. You should improve your current service model. That is what they are doing. Brilliant!
How are they doing it?
- This will mean evidence-based therapeutic interventions to tackle the causes and results of addiction.
After all, alcohol addiction is a chronic relapsing condition and requires long-term management. It is rarely cured in a one-off intervention. They are saying the evidence base is important and a one-off intervention, like the mandatory rehabilitation they are proposing, does not work. There is an extraordinary section in the statement where they admit that evidence-based therapeutic interventions are important; that is how they are going to improve their service model.
It is extraordinary that we are six months into the term of a new government, following their promise to immediately remove all drunks from the streets, and we have a statement which gives us nothing. It confirms they have no evidence base to their incredibly expensive plan. They say, ‘Do not worry about that. No, evidence does not matter.’ Then, ‘We are going to improve some service models and use evidence base to do that’. It is quite extraordinary this is where we have come to when debating alcohol in this Chamber.
We want to see the bill. We were promised a bill. We are six months in and we still have not seen the bill. We want to see the detail of how you will immediately remove all drunks from our streets. This is one of your big promises. This is one of the big things you took to the last election. We are six months in and still have no detail, and the earliest the member for Fong Lim says we might see it is the middle of this year. A year into their 100-day action plan we might see the bill. That is what we want to see. That is the debate we are waiting to have in this Chamber, the detail of your alcohol policy.
We on this side are frustrated; most Territorians are frustrated because a simple, clear promise was made and we are still in this Chamber debating good intentions and a review.
From our side, and maybe some of the parliamentarians on the other side depending on how they vote in the leadership challenge, are frustrated by these broken promises. We are six months in and still have no detail on their plan to immediately remove all drunks from the streets. We get the statement you have when you have nothing else to say: the wedge statement. The statement you give to cover up the fact you are not ready to come forward with any detail.
The bill probably should be in the Chamber today if they had their act together. Instead, we have a statement about the fact they might have a bill. It is an incredible disappointment to many Territorians that the CLP has so blatantly and brazenly broken an election promise and, instead, we still have the promise of a plan. We have good intentions and a review and, from our side, we are looking forward to the debate around the detail. That is what we want to see. Instead, we are stuck in the same rhetorical loop about the fact you have scrapped all our plans and put nothing else in place. We are still waiting to see the detail of your bill and how you are going to immediately remove all drunks from our streets.
We are a little lost on what the CLP is doing. We have no extra information. It is all very frustrating. We saw that frustration expressed on the weekend in a clear message from the voters of Wanguri who said, ‘We are disappointed with your broken promises to cut the cost of living, to immediately remove drunks from the streets, to sack nobody’, etcetera. Instead, we are here today, three days after the by-election, talking about the fact the CLP has broken a promise and made a statement confessing they have broken a promise. This is the dog ate my homework statement. This is the, ‘I have not done it yet’. It is extraordinary to come into this House and say, ‘You are right, we have not kept our promise. We are 177 days into a 100-day action plan and still have not immediately removed all drunks from our streets. We still have not cracked down on antisocial behaviour’.
The Chief Minister said, ‘When I said crack down on antisocial behaviour what I meant was go up to problem drunks drinking in our parks and streets and ask them politely to stop’. That is where we have come to in this Chamber. It is incredibly disappointing, incredibly frustrating.
We are looking forward to a bill coming into this House with some detail on what the CLP’s plans actually are. It will be disappointing when it comes forward because it will signal a broken promise. We need to be debating it now. By the time they finally get around to doing it, it will almost be too little too late. We want to see the detail of your plan; that is the debate we want to have in this Chamber. All we see are broken promises, the dog ate your homework statement. ‘We have not done it yet, we have some good intentions, we have a review, we will get there eventually. Sorry about that’. They do not say sorry; they probably should say sorry. ‘Sorry about that, we have not honoured our promise to immediately remove all drunks from our streets’. Page 1 of the 100-day action plan. We are 177 days into it and still have not seen any sign of this plan happening’.
We will note the statement, but we are not ...
Mr McCarthy: And we are going somewhere.
Mr GUNNER: Oh, we are going somewhere. According to the Chief Minister, ‘We are going somewhere. We do not know where that is, but we are going somewhere’.
From this side, we note the statement but we look forward to the debate about the detail of the election promises they have already blatantly and brazenly broken. When they finally get around to doing what they said they would do, we look forward to debating the detail of that.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I remember when the government was in opposition they used to say, ‘Oh, these puff pieces that have been put forward by the government’. Well, this is a little puff piece because it does not have any guts to it. It is certainly a good statement to debate, but there is no real vision.
The beginning of this statement says, and I quote:
- Madam Speaker, I outline the Northern Territory government’s response to alcohol-related harm in the Northern Territory. This harm is felt by all of us: the dedicated clinicians working in the emergency departments of our hospitals, police on the street tipping out alcohol night after night, residents of Darwin enjoying a stroll on the Nightcliff foreshore or the Esplanade, and the small business owners in Katherine ....
I must mention that, somehow, Mitchell Street was left out of that.
- However, the people feeling the most harm from the impacts of alcohol-related harm are the families for whom alcohol-fuelled violence is an everyday part of their life. The high levels of domestic and family violence in the Northern Territory are unacceptable. We, in the Northern Territory government, like everyone else who lives in the Northern Territory, know that misuse of alcohol causes considerable harm to individuals and to our community as a whole.
I totally agree with you, minister. However, the Attorney-General, in debate last Wednesday said:
- I do not care if people get drunk, it does not bother me in the least.
That, to me, signifies there is not a common vision in relation to the problems related to alcohol. Drunkenness is the main reason people get into fights. Drunkenness is the main reason people bash up their missus. Drunkenness is the reason people crash into a tree in their car.
I am disappointed that is the attitude because I have said, time and time again, while we might silently sit back and think drunkenness is okay, we are deliberately avoiding the real problem; that we have allowed drunkenness to be okay in our society. I say again, this is not about prohibition or about me because I do not drink, it is simply because drunkenness has now become an acceptable way of behaviour, theoretically, as long as you do not do any harm to someone else.
However, the point is many of the crimes are committed by people who are drunk. I honestly feel the government has not stated its vision clearly as to what it thinks in relation to appropriate behaviour for people who have been drinking.
I will go through some of the issues in here, and I note that seven pages out of the 16 can the previous government for the BDR. Only nine of these pages deal with the issue before us. I will say again, the BDR, to me, needed to be trialled for longer than one year. For the government to can the federal government and the Territory opposition, saying there were no statistics to prove it was working, is irrelevant in your argument because the decision about getting rid of the BDR was made before the statistics were available. You opposed it when it was introduced into parliament, you set it up as an election promise and you got rid of it the day after you were elected. Then you quote statistics from after you were elected. I criticised the now Opposition Leader for saying the BDR was working after three months of statistics. You could not make a proper intelligent decision about the Banned Drinker Register with three months’ statistics, nor could you do it with 12 months of statistics. But you people decided against it before any decent statistics came out.
I have said in parliament that I had my doubts about it working because of secondary and tertiary supply. But - this is the problem with party politics - let it run, there was a fair bit of money spent on it. Many people became used to showing their identification. Let it run for three years, have a look at it statistically and see if it had an effect. There is no way the Banned Drinker Register would solve all the drink problems in the Northern Territory. You would be foolish to say that because this issue is so complicated you need different ways to tackle it. This was one approach, and I have never knocked any government for at least trying something.
I have been on record to say I support mandatory rehabilitation, and I will get to that later. How it is done and who does it should be debated, but to spend seven of the 16 pages of this statement canning the BDR, based on a select version of events, while canning the other side is a little hypocritical.
In relation to the issue before us, mandatory rehabilitation has some benefits. I have said before, many people in Darwin get sick of people in their front yard, or lying on the road, and all sorts of things; they disturb peoples’ peace and people have the right to live in their homes and walk the streets without drunks or people humbugging them for money or defecating or whatever. I have seen it many times. I have been to St Mary’s Cathedral and seen a person defecate while Mass was on. It is a bit hard to take. That is not appropriate behaviour. My wife, and I am talking now from her perspective, would think that was not an Aboriginal way of doing things. The problem is, alcohol is destroying what they would normally themselves say was inappropriate behaviour.
We have a problem there which mandatory rehabilitation may assist, but we have to be very careful. The one area, first of all, we have not cleared up is whether it will go through the Attorney-General’s model - I know he has been looking at other models - which is, if you are picked up three times and told to go to rehabilitation and you do not go, that will be a crime and you will go to gaol. That is a long way from saying if you are drunk you commit an offence. I prefer to see it as a health problem because the people we are talking about simply cannot help themselves anymore because alcohol is controlling their lives. If we come from the health perspective, and I have mentioned this before in parliament, if you take the example used in the Mental Health and Related Services Act, section 15(a) is involuntary admission on grounds of complex cognitive impairment. I am not a doctor so I am not saying whether people affected badly by alcohol fit into the category of complex cognitive impairment, but in that section of the act there are many checks and balances because one of the issues that is so serious in this is you are taking someone off the streets against their will. That is not something we should do without a great deal of thought and a great deal of protection in our legislation.
If you go through the act you will find, under section 44A a series of requirements, such as, the setting out of a plan for that person. It has to go to a tribunal; a person cannot be taken off the streets willy nilly. There has to be some safeguards for their rights as a human being and a citizen in the Territory before you do that. If we are going to take people off the streets then we need to do it through the Mental Health and Related Services Act because the protection for the individual is far greater, and it does not make the person a criminal. That is the direction we should be going in.
The minister did make some reference to mandatory rehabilitation working, and he did mention some New Zealand figures.
It would be worthy of a minister bringing out a statement to try to prove mandatory or, as he said, ‘coerced alcohol treatment’, can be as effective as voluntary treatment. When he mentions a recent New Zealand paper regarding compulsory treatment it should be a requirement of the minister to quote exactly what that New Zealand paper is, because I could say I have another paper from Western Australia and it says something else. There is a requirement to at least refer so we can check the evidence the minister is putting before us to see whether it is correct, whether it is in the right context, and to find out whether that is the case.
I did Google quite a bit on mandatory rehabilitation for alcohol and there are many opinions on its benefits. That is why I asked the question which got two very small words in answer today. I hope the minister will give us longer than that when he comes to respond to this. I asked if the minister had spoken to AA, CAAPS, FORWAARD and Amity, because they are the people who deal regularly - there are other groups too, I am not trying to leave them out - who deal regularly with people who have substance abuse, day in, day out. They are the people who run the rehabilitation courses day in, day out.
I have been to FORWAARD and I have talked to Matthew Bonson about what he does. It is pretty impressive, the work they do. All I am saying is that before we become the experts about how we should set up these mandatory rehabilitation centres, we should be talking to those experts. I am not an expert in this field and would rely on those people to give me advice before I went down the path of a $15m project.
Because the jury is out as to whether this will work - it certainly will take people off the street and that is part of the argument we should not forget – perhaps we need to run a trial first using some of the people involved in CAAPS, FORWAARD and Amity Community Services. That way would be much better.
Minister, in your statement you mentioned the high number of Aboriginal people who are, unfortunately, requiring treatment. They are the people who will probably end up in the mandatory rehabilitation centres. I would like to know what the Aboriginal solution is to this. In other words, how are we going to involve Aboriginal people in the solution? Maybe people at FORWAARD and CAAPS could give advice to ensure options and ideas coming from families and groups of people throughout the Northern Territory on this really important problem are considered.
I hope they are brought into the discussions about how this will occur. If they are left out, I do not believe the future of these mandatory rehabilitation centres will be positive.
The other area we forget in this debate is the many people in prison for reasons which caused them to commit a criminal act, and many of those people have a substance abuse problem while they are in prison. So, whilst we are looking at mandatory rehabilitation centres outside of prison, I would be interested in the Minister for Health saying what type of programs he would be looking at, whether they need revitalising, whether they are okay at the present time. Are they working? What programs already exist in prison for people with substance abuse issues? There are many people in gaol who have that problem and, if you look at many of the sites in relation to this, you will see much of the work that has been done has been done with people in gaol.
I am interested to know if anyone has done an analysis over the last few years of the effectiveness of any treatments in prison for people who have substance abuse. Can that be related back to recidivism? Has there been successful treatment? Did people have jobs when they left? I do not know, but that is certainly part of the debate we need to have today.
I was disappointed when I heard the Attorney-General earlier in Question Time talk about youth justice. I find it very sad that an Aboriginal group who run Balunu, which is an intervention program for young people with alcohol and drug problems who are at risk of suicide, have lost their funding. I am not going to say whether Balunu was the best or the worst, but they lost their funding four days before Christmas and eight people lost their jobs. They do a great deal of work with young people, especially those at risk of suicide, and they do a great deal of good work with people with alcohol and drug problems. They tackle it from an Aboriginal perspective; if you talk to David Cole you will understand that.
What I find disappointing is later this year the government will look for tenders for new programs but, unfortunately, there was no gap funding for Balunu and without gap funding they have had to close down, which is very disappointing. When the government puts out tenders later in the year for these services they will obviously have to put their bid in like anyone else but, in the meantime, so you do not have a gap and put children at risk, I would have thought you would keep that funding going until you had another program in place. We should be doing as much as possible to intervene before we have to bring in these rather draconian methods of alcohol rehabilitation facilities because they are, more or less, the last resort.
The other area where I hope the government does not make a hasty decision is the SMART Courts. Before it looks at removing the SMART Courts it needs to undertake a cost benefit analysis. SMART Courts need to be given a thorough investigation before the government decides to scrap them. I will read from the Department of Justice website which says:
- SMART Court. Has your alcohol or other drug use contributed to your offending? If yes, you may want to participate in a SMART Court.
You have an option before you are put in gaol. You have an option before you might end up in a mandatory alcohol rehabilitation centre.
This method is giving people the free will to decide if they would like to try this option. What is the SMART Court? It stands for Substance Misuse Assessment and Referral for Treatment Court. It can:
- ... make orders for people with a history of serious substance misuse who intend pleading guilty or have been found guilty of committing certain offences. The Court makes orders which provide increased opportunity for rehabilitation and to decrease criminal activity and the risks and harms of alcohol and other drug use. The SMART Court replaces the CREDIT (NT) programs and the Alcohol Court.
If you are eligible for this specialist Court, you will have an assessment with a Court Clinician who is a professional person, experienced in alcohol and drug treatment. Once the Court decides if you are eligible for the SMART Court, you will be allocated a Court Clinician who will work with you while a SMART Order is in place. The Court Clinician will be responsible for assisting you to meet treatment and other related goals and will monitor and report your progress formally to the SMART Court.
You will be eligible if:
- you are a juvenile or an adult offender who has a serious history of drug and/or alcohol misuse;
the offence you have been charged with can be dealt with to finality in the CSJ or YJC;
you have pleaded guilty, indicated that you will plead guilty or been found guilty of that offence;
you have not been sentenced for that offence; and
An action plan would be drawn up which would include:
- alcohol and other drug and other relevant counselling sessions
- attending resident rehabilitation
- addressing any health issues you might have
- finding a job
- living in specific accommodation
- going to AA/NA meetings
- doing a training course
- submitting to alcohol or urine drug testing or curfews monitored by Community Corrections
- If you are suitable, then the Magistrate will:
1. Defer your sentencing and make a SMART Order which you have to obey until you complete or are discharged from the SMART Court; or
2. Impose a prison sentence which is suspended on the condition you obey the SMART Order.
This system has a carrot-and-stick approach. It gives people the opportunity to turn their lives around or, if they do not, take up their prison sentence. I believe that before governments make the decision they need to fully assess the benefits of this court because this keeps people out of prison. It allows people to continue to work. Keeping people out of prison, simply from a financial point of view, saves money.
It is really important the government does not throw this out until there is a thorough investigation into its effectiveness ...
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request the member be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Barkly. The reason I am putting forward a case for the SMART Court is what I said before. It would be pie in the sky if I said it would ever solve the alcohol problem, but it will require programs, policies, many of those things. It will not be a simple panacea, ‘Here is a tablet. This will fix the problem’. It is complex; it is different for different cultures; it is different for different parts of the Territory. There are many reasons why people abuse alcohol and drugs.
I hope the government has a vision that is not stuck on just one thing. Mandatory rehabilitation, for me, may have a use. I see it more of a use to get people off the streets and an opportunity, as the minister has said, for people to have a bit of fresh air, dry out, and have a think about things. We would be kidding ourselves to say people are going to get off the grog with three months’ mandatory rehabilitation but at least we give them a bit of clear space in their life, and at least the public has a bit of clear space in their lives as well. From that point of view, it is good.
However, as I said, because it is a process which removes people, takes their freedom away, then it has to be done properly and carefully, respecting the rights we all have in society. That is why I say to the government look at the legislation that is already in the Mental Health and Related Services Act. We cannot just look at that on its own; we have to look at the broader perspective. The early intervention, the Balunu stuff, is trying to break down the issues before they become worse.
As I have said before in this House, I visited the West Central Therapeutic Community in Ohio some years ago and I sat with six prisoners; they do not call them prisoners, they call them residents. This is a self-help prison and most people are there because they had drug and alcohol problems. Six men sat in front of me and said they consumed alcohol or drugs from about the age of 10, and they all came from broken homes. You have a certainty that if you start off your life that way, you will end up in prison.
We need an early intervention program. Of course, it is broader than that. You can send people to school; if they have no job, they get bored, they get into trouble. We have all these broader issues, some of which are bigger than this government can fix and that is why the Commonwealth has to be part of the solution. If you do not have jobs and education, then you get boredom and, if you get boredom, then you get on the grog and you cause problems; you drift into town and have nothing else to do. Whilst we are talking about a small portion of the problem, it is much bigger than that and that is why it requires many policies. If we are ever to put a dint in the problems we have in our society, we certainly need a multipronged approach.
I say, time and time again - and I know people will laugh at me –we are kidding ourselves that trying to reduce alcohol consumption in the Northern Territory will be easy, because there are vested interests. You do not have to go far to look at sport. You do not have to go far to look at the cricket, the football, and the television ads. Sport and alcohol go together, and one of the biggest things people like in the Northern Territory is sport.
If you are an advertiser, where would you advertise? You would advertise where there is sport on, whether it is at the football ground or on television. Why? Because the big people, the people who run the breweries and the hotel people, know that is the most effective way to get their message across and sell their product. Their product can be enjoyed by many people but, as we know in the Northern Territory, it is also a product that has destroyed many lives and has put many people in gaol.
The industry has to put its hand up and say, ‘We sell a product which we know people enjoy, but we know, especially in the Northern Territory, it causes so much pain and suffering’. They have to be part of the solution. The promotion of alcohol is one thing that should be looked at because it is subtle, many times it is funny, and people believe it is okay but, in fact, it is all about making bigger sales and that is about it.
It is not about drinking less; that would go against the grain of the big companies. It is not even about responsible drinking. They might state right down the bottom in small print on an advertisement, ‘We ask you to drink responsibly’, after they have promoted umpteen specials at Liquorland and Thirsty Camel.
We are fooling ourselves if we do not believe there are other people in this equation that make it very hard. I remember when I was on Bathurst Island years ago Mr Tuxworth, who was the Chief Minister, gave us some money and we brought out some advertisements for television. At the time Carlton United had an advertisement which said, ‘You have to be a man amongst the men’.
That really appealed to many Tiwi men. ‘You have to be a man amongst the men. You have to have a VB in your hand’. That is the type of advertising that is irresponsible. You do not see that in such a direct way now. Now, you have to sweat, you have to have a bit of sawdust in your mouth, you have to be drilling a hole in a piece of steel or digging a hole; you have to earn that beer. No one says that is a bad thing, there is no problem with people having a cold beer at home or at the pub, but it is the continual promotion by these companies that, eventually, becomes part of the psyche. Unfortunately, whilst many people have no problem with alcohol, there is a fair percentage who do and many of them are in gaol because of the abuse of alcohol.
There are many other issues. I mentioned the Newcastle experiment of working a different approach to closing hours in pubs; that made a difference there but you run into hostility from the AHA, and even governments. Neither Labor nor Liberal in New South Wales liked it. However, the New South Wales Police Association, the nurses at the hospitals in Newcastle, the doctors in Newcastle hospitals, the paramedics and all those people who dealt with those drunks at night were pleased to see that change in the closing hours of pubs in the Newcastle CBD. But the effort to bring in those changes was fought constantly by big business and big government.
There are solutions to changing matters around. I am not sure government is brave enough to do all those things and this is just a very small part of what needs to happen but, on its own, it will not make much difference. It might make a difference to people in the CBD, or the people who are humbugged, but the question really is, what part will this play in turning people’s lives around who are affected by alcohol and drugs? I am not sure.
I remind myself, and I have said it many times: I looked after a dormitory of 30 boys; half of those boys died under the age of 21. I never forget it and it always hurts. It was because of grog. So, sometimes I get passionate; I have good reason to be passionate, because I remember those kids. Because alcohol destroyed them, they never got to grow up to be men. Generations of young blokes were never able to pass on the knowledge of their parents to the younger people
This debate should move out of party politics if it can because it is such an important debate. It is about the future of so many people. It is about the welfare of the Northern Territory. We should do our best to join together and try to find solutions, as one, to a problem that if we do not get on top of, from an economic point of view, will cost us a fortune, and we will still be locking up people, still have people in hospital, still have broken families, and still have court orders for domestic violence. As well as that, the social fabric of our life will always be damaged until we work out good, practical ways to deal with this issue.
I thank the minister for his statement; there should have been a bit more teeth to it. I understand where he is coming from. I hope in his reply he will tell me what discussions he has had with Amity, CAR, CAAPS and FORWAARD and any other groups because I would be interested to hear what they have to say. I do not suggest that in a silly way. I am interested because they are the people who deal with this issue on a day-to-day basis. They know what goes on out there more than I do.
I thank the minister for his statement and am certainly interested in his response later.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I wish to speak on the minister’s statement as I have very deep and sincere concern and interest in what is an area of major concern right across the board, not only to people in my electorate but to all Australians. We are all in this together.
Many years ago I was a drinker and I am very happy to say that I have not touched a drop in about 30 years. That was my choice, and I am a person. I am here today because I made that choice.
I am not saying I am against drinking, I am saying it is up to the individual. Unfortunately, some individuals have fallen into a trap of alcohol abuse and its catastrophic effects which trail right across the spectrum, in both town and bush communities. While many people in this situation need to be held responsible for their own actions, there are those who need a great deal of help to get themselves off the alcohol induced merry-go-round they are on, a merry-go-round that is spinning out of control.
What the minister is talking about today is a way to get that merry-go-round under control so we can start addressing a massive social and health issue. There is no doubt in my mind that the Banned Drinker Register did not work. I witnessed many times people who were on the register, who had no identification, simply getting someone else to buy alcohol for them.
The figures given by the minister today are positive proof that the Banned Drinker Register was a failed exercise. It was poorly thought out and even more poorly managed by the previous government who left a legacy this government has had to redress and sort out. I am very pleased with this news that there is the intention to implement a mandatory treatment response which includes assessment and is overseen by a tribunal. This is a positive step, but I am particularly happy that after-hours care arrangements are included and follow-up and ongoing care would be a key factor in the rehabilitation process.
It is important to note that this measure is aimed fairly and squarely at repeat offenders who are regularly taken into protective custody for proven episodes of public drunkenness. Often we see the drunk on the street or in a park causing disturbance and engaging in behaviour that is totally unacceptable. The measures being discussed today will take many of these repeat offenders out of that situation and not only give them a better chance at life, but also give the rest of the public a break from this antisocial behaviour.
I will continue to lobby the minister for as early as possible establishment of rehabilitation centres on the mainland and the Tiwi Islands. We have spoken about possible sites near Nguiu, or Wurrumiyanga, but I am also keen to see where it can be best situated on the mainland.
I have previously talked to, and will continue to talk to, families and communities affected by alcohol abuse in my area. I will be working with them to find the best way to set up this rehabilitation centre to suit the local people and the community. There should not be a one set formula; there is no one-size-fits-all. Indigenous communities and regions across the Territory vary in many different ways. There are different languages, different ceremonies, and different country. One of the keys to success of any program is input and support from the local people. This will go a long way to ensuring positive outcomes.
Madam Speaker, I commend the minister on this very positive statement and look forward to the future. We are on the right track.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I welcome the statement from the Minister for Alcohol Rehabilitation and Policy. It is seen, as intended, very much as a motherhood statement. It does not contain the detail we have being looking for since the CLP gained government: the detail around the legislation to support mandatory rehabilitation, the type of facilities, the location of facilities, the number of beds, and exactly what staff will go into these centres. It was a repeat of what we have heard from the CLP since coming to government.
In that sense, we will continue to put the questions out there as you have heard the member for Nelson do. Questions about the legislative tools around mandatory rehabilitation, the nature of the centres, where will they be, how will they be staffed, and what this new regime of mandatory rehabilitation will cost the taxpayer.
However, the point missed – and I do not doubt it continues to be missed by the government - is the community has seen more drunks on the streets since they came to government. You can spin the statistics whichever way you want and say the BDR did not work, yet if you sit down with the statisticians whose job it was to compile the statistics in the Department of Justice, and sit down with the police who can explain what the statistics mean - they were very clear in their briefings, we spoke about it on the record – there was a dramatic trend down in the first quarter: a 22% reduction in crime across Darwin, and similar figures in Palmerston. As the quarters went on the amount of crime was reducing, which was the cumulative effect flowing through. It was police initiatives that were increasing crime figures and chasing them around. The police would talk about how, when there was an increase in the statistics in Tennant Creek, they would explain the domestic violence policies they initiated in Tennant Creek and what that meant in police resources. That is what you want. You want to see police going in hard on that horrible subject of domestic violence and ensuring the perpetrators are brought to account.
You can play politics with the data all you like, but Territorians will not be fooled; you can literally see the difference. As I was fond of saying, it took a year to create the policy based on evidence coming out of the alcohol management plans which worked, particularly in Groote Eylandt and Nhulunbuy, and the tools we saw being effective in Alice Springs and Katherine, bringing all that work together and road testing it across several months with industry. When I say industry, critical stakeholders in the rehabilitation sector: lawyers, doctors and police, of course, as main stakeholders. All of them were highly supportive of the system that was introduced. The Enough is Enough system was not just the BDR. Yes, it was a frontline tool at point of sale at bottle shops, but there was far more to it with the tribunal and the SMART Court. You have heard the member for Nelson talk about the importance of the SMART Court.
Any incoming government will have its own set of policies and views. This government has a very different set of policies and views on alcohol, so they have scrapped the previous government’s ideas. However, we are still waiting to see any rubber hit the road on their policies. Thank you for the motherhood statements, but the community is asking you to actually get on with the job of getting the drunks off the streets because you said in your 100-day plan you would immediately remove them and you have not.
There are many people pouring grog and misery into their lives and they are harming themselves and society. That harm to the individual is so disturbing when they could have been getting access to help and assistance through the tribunal. Bearing in mind, of course, the CLP did not want that tribunal to work, which is why they chopped it off in its infancy before the income management powers conferred on it by the Commonwealth came into effect in October. It was a big stick that would have got people into the rehabilitation system. But, that is okay, we can only talk about that in theory because it was never allowed to occur in practice.
What did occur in practice was the SMART Court. Have a look at that data and see how we were diverting people away from the gaol system. These are people who are not violent offenders because the SMART Court was not available to violent offenders. These are people who had not committed a violent offence but had been found guilty of an offence and were diverted into a therapeutic system, not gaol, which was rehabilitation. The CLP stopped that. They said, ‘No, that cost too much and we did not think it was value for money’. They put nothing in its place, and now those offenders are going to gaol; they lock them up.
If you look at the Territory’s recidivism rates, locking them up does not cause someone to change the course of their drinking behaviour. Yes, they are off the grog while they are locked up, but when they come out, they are back onto the grog and back into the problems associated with that, and you have that cycle of recidivism which is legendary in the Territory and has been written about in studies. Again, let us not confuse your thoughts with any fact or evidence you can obtain from reading these studies because you would rather stay within the safety of your own ideology, and so be it.
Your ideology is a lock-them-up approach. I do not know how much you explained that to people when you were campaigning in the 2012 election. When you have created mandatory rehabilitation centres - maybe it is the model in Texas you are very keen on, one of the harshest prison models we have heard of - whatever approach you take you are locking people up, and opposition will explain it was the CLP and what you choose to do. It will be interesting to see what people think about that.
The member for Stuart pointed out that people will want to go to gaol. We do not agree with that comment, but each to their own. To say that people want to go to gaol is extraordinary. There are certainly many people around the Territory and our nation who would beg to differ; who would say they do not agree with your comments. I know if you say anything in debate questioning their policy or their views it is seen as a personal attack. Well, this is not; this is a debate in this, a house of debate, on alcohol policy and what people comment on.
I go to comments the member for Braitling made previously in parliament in 2011. It was a debate on grog, and we have had many in this Chamber. He was talking about the opening and closing times of takeaway outlets. He said, and I quote:
- I support moving the takeaway opening times forward. People should be able to buy alcohol whenever they want. People should be able to do that. It is a free and open economy, it is a free and open market; we should be able to do that.
On 5 May 2011, the member for Braitling went on to talk about the supply of grog and he said, and I quote:
- … I believe the idea about opening earlier is a good idea - that is our policy. It is a good idea for the short term, because what it tries to do in opening up the supply earlier, is allows those people – who you are not going to address through demand-side strategies – to get drunk earlier, so the police can manage it.
It was not just the member for Braitling who held those views and said it was CLP policy. There are many members of the CLP in this House who are on the record talking about the opening hours of licensees in Alice Springs. Yet, here we are, six months into government and there was been no change to the opening hours of the licensees in Alice Springs. You have to wonder if it is still their policy or, now that they are in government, have they torn up that hard core policy?
I look forward to hearing a response from the relevant minister regarding the opening hours of trade in Alice Springs. Currently, it is a two o’clock opening for takeaway and whether or not, as is stated by members opposite - the members Braitling, Araluen and Greatorex are on the record. I am not sure whether the member for Namatjira has contributed to the opening hours debate for licensees, but three of them are very clearly on the record as saying they believe it should be 10 am.
Six months later, the Licensing Commission has not held any hearings in Alice Springs to my knowledge – again, I would be happy if the minister could tell me otherwise - to alter the trading hours of licensees in Alice Springs back to 10 am opening for takeaways. Is that no longer CLP policy? I would have thought some clarity around that would have been contained in the statement by the minister. I look forward to that answer.
At the moment, you have some motherhood statements from the CLP about what their wish and intention is. There is no detail, certainly no identification of resources, and no timelines. We still have unfettered access to alcohol and the harm that is causing our society. We can quote the information; it is all there on the record: $642m a year is what the harm associated with alcohol costs the Northern Territory. I know that the CLP rail against the cost of the SMART Court, but when you stack that up against $642m you ask, ‘Is it worth investing in? Are preventative systems and rehabilitation systems worth investing in?’
I look forward to you explaining the detail of yours, because it is still missing, and I look forward to you explaining just how much you will invest in that. I look forward to hearing, if you ever do get around to putting the detail of the alternative in the public domain, the views of others - the legal fraternity, the police, the rehabilitation providers, the medical association - because all these stakeholders embraced the Enough is Enough reforms and are on the public record supporting them, which included the tribunal and the SMART Court, not just the BDR.
It will be interesting what people say about it when you finally do put some rubber on the road. Will you go out with a discussion paper? Will you go out with draft legislation? Will the first time we see the legislation be when you bring it into the Chamber and introduce it? These are genuine questions and I would like, in the minister’s response, to hear these answers because they are questions that key stakeholders are asking us. I am sure they are asking the government if they are asking the opposition.
Thanks very much, minister, for the motherhood statement. I look forward to any skerrick of detail in your response.
Ms ANDERSON (Regional Development): What utter nonsense from the bridesmaid: never to be the bride, always the bridesmaid.
I thank the Minister for Alcohol Rehabilitation and Policy for bringing this document forward. I would like to pick up on something, before I get into the groove of talking about this policy statement, that the bridesmaid said to my colleague, the member for Stuart.
The context in which the member for Stuart spoke last week was very emotional and only understood by Aboriginal people - what our people need. I will reiterate and hope, member for Stuart, that I can put it as emotionally as you did last week.
When we talk to our families, our brothers, nephews, nieces, aunties, uncles, mums and dads we try and counsel them on the problem they have with alcohol and other substances. The answer is - and we tell them these are the laws that the government of the day has for anyone who consumes alcohol and uses alcohol to the extent our people do - you might go to gaol. They say is, ‘Gaol is our home. We get three meals a day and a warm bed and we get looked after. It gives us time to rehabilitate, to make sure we think about the things we need to do for ourselves, our families and our community’.
That is the context in which the member for Stuart, my colleague, used that. You on the other side will never know, because you do not go through the pain and hurt we go through with our families, having to bury someone who dies from alcohol misuse and overuse literally on a daily basis.
For the bridesmaid to take that comment out of context is not warranted because she would never understand. She does not come from an Aboriginal community; she does not have her brothers and sisters, aunties and uncles dying on a daily basis. She does not have to go to the funerals like we do to bury our loved ones: those who commit suicide, overdose, or die of alcoholism. Yes, this Chamber is about open debate, but you need to understand where we stand and how we understand our culture and live and breathe our culture.
This is what we go through. We go through it with our nephews all the time. We tell them, ‘Please do not drink and drive, you will get caught by the cops. Do not do that again, please. We need you at home looking after your grandmother and being part of this family. We want you to grow up as a good individual’. They say, ‘It is okay, we have family in prison. We are going to prison’.
In winter you get people committing crimes just to get to a warm bed inside, because they do not have a warm bed in the creek, if you are looking at the Todd River when it is minus1o in Alice Springs.
The bridesmaid has never had Aboriginal people knock on her door and say, ‘Can I have a bed in your lounge for a couple of days until I find somewhere to go?’ Does she go around to the town camps to feed her family like we do? We pick up our families who are in the Todd River or struggling to find somewhere to camp because the police are moving them on. We bring them home and we look after them. That is exactly the context my colleague, the member for Stuart, put it in, and it has been misused because people do not understand.
A lawyer has spoken on ABC radio condemning the member for Stuart for saying people like going to gaol. It is obvious even this lawyer does not understand Aboriginal people. That is because they do not speak the Aboriginal language, are not part of the culture and do not understand what we are talking about and what we are going through. We are trying to educate you in this very important debate to understand what we struggle with, with our families and alcoholism.
We want you to understand that they tell us they like going to gaol because they get fed three meals a day and are looked after better than outside, or it gives them an opportunity to visit their family. Like the member for Stuart said, there are beds for Warlpiri people, Luritja people, Arrentre people so they are there with their brothers, sisters, and clans. That is what you need to understand. You can only understand that in this debate from we who struggle to get our children, nephews and nieces to understand how important it is that they are part of a society that is active, that they are involved in it economically and socially and engage with people from all walks of life, not just us.
It is through all this interaction, we, as politicians, learn so many things because we live in a multicultural society now, not just in the Northern Territory, but across Australia. We learn from the friends we get on with. I have friends who are Sudanese, South African and Chinese and I learn so much from those people. Interacting with those people makes us grow and understand the problems we debate in this House. Alcoholism is just a symptom of many things for Aboriginal people. It is a symptom because people have a poor quality of education, appalling standards of health, and live in overcrowded conditions.
We have to fix the underlying problems of housing, health and education and get people educated properly in order to fix the symptom.
If we do not do that, we, and others after us in this Chamber, will talk about and read in Hansard what we said in the past. These are future politicians who will stand in this Chamber like us and talk about the same problems. Our debate in this Chamber about alcoholism and Aboriginal people is really in the hope we can educate you as our colleagues, as debaters in this House, to understand where we come from.
We talk about reconciliation. How can we reconcile our differences when reconciliation starts from an equal playing field? If we are coming from a background of poor education, health and housing that is not reconciliation. Alcoholism is only a symptom of many things,
I have to congratulate the minister because I heard him on radio talking about that very thing. You will have doubters in this debate: people who believe a floor price is right, people who believe the BDR is right. My colleague, the member for Arafura, said the BDR did not work because our people use all the smartness for all the wrong reasons. They are smart, but they use it for all the wrong reasons.
They will give their ID to anyone to buy alcohol for them. How can you put a BDR and a floor price on all the houses that sell alcohol 24 hours a day, seven days a week? I ask that question of anyone entering this debate. These people enter the debate naively not knowing; they work in their own realm of statistics turning them to suit themselves at the risk of women who are vulnerable. We need to question ourselves in the debates we have in this House.
I thank the minister for bringing this statement to this House. Minister, I am sure, as your colleague, you will be the best educated on the journey we will take on a rehabilitation method, as the Country Liberals, to please everyone. It is about taking our people back to country. It is about healing them back on their country. The minister has spoken to many people, and I have spoken to many people on behalf of the minister. We have looked at outstations where we can take these people.
Again, Madam Speaker, I congratulate the minister. This is an honest statement, and I hope we can have honesty in the debate in this House and stop misquoting people who know what they are taking about.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I am very disappointed. The rampaging front row forward for the Liberals gets sold a pup! Dave, I am really disappointed in that dysfunctional team over there. How dare they sell you a pup, of all members? You must be really taking it to heart, because this is a pup. The speakers on our side have really outlined the nature of what that means. It means: no policy, no bill, no legislation, and no teeth. It is cuddly; it is no Pit Bull - it is a Maltese Terrier - God love it. It is a bit disappointing.
I am sure you are extremely disappointed this is all you have because it puts you in a position that, by the time any legislation is framed and worked through and comes to this House, we will be 12 months out from the Liberal win in the Northern Territory.
Twelve months out is the exact rhetoric you use with the BDR, except the BDR is the opposite. The Banned Drinker Register was not given any time to work. It had its legs cut out from under it due to a populist, economic rationalist, Liberal election promise. It had its legs cut out from under it to try to appeal to the populist vote.
As the member for Namatjira constantly reminds us, there is not a white way and a black way, there is only a right way. As members of this House, as elected community members, we should have the courage to tell Territorians we are all in this together. The BDR was but one tool in the Enough is Enough alcohol reform package. It asked for seven seconds of disadvantage at the point of sale and together, as Territorians, we were going to continue to address the problem drinker.
The member for Karama, the Leader of the Opposition, gave a very good summary of the process the previous Labor government went through. I was in the Caucus debates, I was in the Cabinet room, I followed the Enough is Enough alcohol reform package. It was worked through thoroughly with stakeholders. It was extremely demanding legislation and it came online only to be cut down in its infancy by the Liberals with a populist appeal to the general public. Then, of course, ‘Oh, shock horror, we have made promises we have to deliver’.
It is interesting to watch the media flow about the number of Territorians who are saying, ‘We are populists, we are Liberals, but we reckon it should have been given a go’. There is a constant stream of mainstream Territorians saying it should have been given a go for a very specific reason; there is nothing in its place. It was an election promise to get rid of it. Now, we have a minister - a hard-hitting front row player who likes to roll his sleeves up and get involved - having to deliver what has been coined ‘a motherhood statement’ to this House six months into a new government about changing the Northern Territory and making our community safer.
The Banned Drinker Register, as the Leader of the Opposition outlined, very clearly was one tool in a reform package. I have said in this House before, I have lived in Tennant Creek for a long time and we were the experimental crash dummies for alcohol reform in the Northern Territory over 10 years. People who have lived in Tennant Creek really can contribute to the debate. In 10 years, an alcohol reform package missed the target when it never addressed the point of sale. The Banned Drinker Register went to the point of sale.
In terms of the member for Namatjira’s comments, I was in the electorate from day one when the Enough is Enough package hit the streets, and I continue to talk about the alcohol debate. It was about education and awareness, about using the tools - the Enough is Enough alcohol reform - that were given to us as community members.
One thing that was clearly resonating in the bush was that your ID is important. If you treat it flippantly, share it around and become a secondary supplier of alcohol, ask yourself a few basic questions. Who are you supplying to? You are obviously supplying to a person who is banned because they have not got ID. If you are supplying to a person who is banned, they are banned for good reason; they are trouble. That trouble will follow you and you will lose your ID; you will become another statistic on the Banned Drinker Register and it will continue to roll through. The reaction I have been getting is, ‘We understand. We want to protect our ID. This is part of normalising our lives for all sorts of reasons and, therefore, we do not want any trouble’.
That was an education and awareness process going on in a small block, one-and-a-half times the size of Victoria, in the Northern Territory. People were starting to understand a real and pragmatic intervention into alcohol abuse.
On the weekend, I stayed around in Darwin to look at how an urban polling place operates to support my new colleague, the member for Wanguri. That engaged me in a number of visits to shopping centres. I had reason to buy a bottle of Scotch for a family member’s birthday. When I went to the bottle shop an old sign on the door hit me like a ton of bricks, it stated, ‘No shirt, no shoes, no service’. I had all these images of the good old days when that was the only tool there was to address the problem drinker.
Now, we are back to that good old rule and it is a furphy for anyone to argue that the BDR did not totally frustrate the problem drinker, that it did not give the responsible drinker some real tools to work with. To say the BDR did not start to alienate the person with the problem is a joke, because they do not know what is going on in the electorate. I often hear members opposite from bush electorates touting this liberal tripe and I wonder how connected they are in their electorates? I saw in the Barkly the Banned Drinker Register resonating among responsible people who were alienating themselves from the problems. Secondary supply, of course, was a challenge.
The member for Namatjira continually reminds me not to speak on Aboriginal issues because I am not an Aborigine. What a joke. I see the challenge of kinship was able to exploit the Banned Drinker Register and secondary supply. That is why I used the basic principle of education and awareness on how to use these tools properly, how to apply these tools in the correct sense.
As the Leader of the Opposition outlined, the process was rolling through so the responsible drinker alienated the problem drinker and then had some recourse to show there are ramifications because of the referral from the BDR to tribunal, the tribunal mandating an outcome, a consequence of your behaviour. No comply? Then income quarantining, not only hitting the point of sale, but real income quarantining of up to 80%. Take away the rights at the point of sale, take away the income and you have a serious conversation going on in the community.
However, it was not allowed to happen; it was taken away. It was cut out within 12 months of its growth and development and we will experience 12 months under the Country Liberal Party with nothing in its place. That is a fair debate. That is a fair comment. If we had a game changer, if we had a bill in this House, if we had the building of rehabilitation centres, the recruiting of highly skilled clinicians, the recruiting of staff and setup of these mandatory facilities then we would not have much to debate about except let us see what it does. But at this stage we still have nothing, and that has been pointed out very clearly.
I listened with interest when the minister said in his statement that he is interested in locally developed ideas and initiatives. I encourage him to look at alcohol management plans and acknowledge the work that has gone on behind the scenes on alcohol management plans. Elliott was mentioned, and Jilkminggan was mentioned. I have had a great deal of correspondence to government, being a member of government and an MLA, about issues associated with alcohol, alcohol consumption, and alcohol-related harm in communities and in town. One local initiative rolling out was alcohol management plans.
In essence, they are the responsibility of, and sit with, the federal minister. I encourage the Territory minister, the member for Fong Lim, to look at these plans and what was decided at a local level. As I travel the Barkly, people are telling me they want to get started. They do not care if these plans are not the panacea, are not the total solution, they need something to work from. These alcohol management plans were designed and included comprehensive stakeholder engagement, community engagement, revisits, huge amounts of talk, community meetings and forums and they basically give a roadmap designed by locals for locals. We need to get these back into the Territory and give them a go.
One of the things, minister, people are telling me in the Barkly is that they want to look at a permit system. They want to look at normalising behaviour with consequences that already exist in the Northern Territory. If you muck up you are dealt with according to the laws of the Northern Territory, but at the moment they still have that uncertainty from the Australian government. We are continuing to lobby in that space and I encourage the Northern Territory government and the new minister in this area to continue that lobbying because the people in the Barkly want to get these plans back on the ground. They want to have the guidelines to operate under, and then we will go through a process of seeing what works and what does not.
The member for Nelson always adds very important elements to the debate and one element I picked up was where he said to the minister, ’What about the Aboriginal solution? What is in this statement that represents a solution coming from Aboriginal people throughout the Northern Territory?’ I draw the minister’s attention to the media release from the Aboriginal peak organisations of the Northern Territory, an alliance of the CLC, NLC, CAALAS, NAAJA and AMSANT. It was a communique, ‘Grog in the Territory: Summit Outcomes’. It was in response to the debate that was initiated in this House. It was directly in response to statements and hints at policy positions - no real substance other than these clauses or concepts about what the new government was going to do - but it gives you a good running sheet on what these respected Aboriginal organisations have put together in terms of their communique.
On page 2, and I quote from this media release:
- Aboriginal participants made a number of key resolutions about action to be taken in their communities:
To promote truthful and productive conversations about alcohol within our communities;
- To draw strength from our successes
Local examples of where alcohol management has worked, local examples of where alcohol management has failed.
To draw strength from the importance of spirituality and culture.
Before we mandatorily lock people up, we have the obligation to explore what Aboriginal people have been telling me, what the peak Aboriginal organisations of the Northern Territory are telling government, and what would be innovative and new. That would be to have the solutions incorporate this healing process and it would be very innovative for the Northern Territory. There are many examples of this type of rehabilitative strategy operating in North America and Canada with Indigenous people.
It sets a very clear benchmark that we do not lock people up first. We go down a process which is premised on education and awareness and start to build it from the ground up.
What the member of Namatjira was trying to say in defending the member for Stuart’s comments is the bottom line is many Aboriginal people support people going to gaol. That is a negative in its sense because, first of all, there is offending which leads them to go to gaol, and second, it says gaol is not a real outcome: the mandatory incarceration of a person is not a real outcome.
There is also the culture the member for Stuart did not talk about. What I really struggled with in Corrections when I was minister was that culture of gaol. If we go back in the Northern Territory there was that really strong feeling that you were not a man unless you had done time in Berrimah. I went in headlong to change that and Corrections have done a great deal of work around that.
The issue of locking people up, mandatory sentencing, and the way this government is going is not supported by the wider view of stakeholders in delivering rehabilitation. It is questioned right across the board from academics, and many community people as well, who do not like their young people, their family members or their friends locked up in gaol. They see it as a shame process, as isolating and as alienating. In relation to any alcohol rehabilitation, mandatory sentencing has the possibility of creating further problems. One of the aspects I had to deal with, with prisoners, was jealousy. When people were incarcerated and alienated from their families and their clans, or from their friends - whoever they are - then it caused a lot of jealousy, ill-feeling and suspicion and, when people returned to the community, in my mind, I had no doubt it affected further offending behaviour.
I am nearly out of time in this debate, once again ...
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I ask that the member be given time to finish his comments.
Motion agreed to.
Mr Tollner: It is okay because I am bored.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I thank the member for Fong Lim for granting me that extension of time. I will pick up on his interjection, ‘It is okay because I am bored’. Well, bring it on, and I will take the positives and the negatives. This is a very serious debate and I will continue on and thank members for the opportunity.
The next point in this communiqu was:
To ensure our communities get access to relevant data and evidence regarding alcohol impacts and policies;
Once again, in my words, real feedback that relates to consultation and trust:
- To ensure that community consultation processes are not dominated by drinkers but give voice to women, non-drinkers, elders and particularly children; and …
To take harm reduction as the key principle guiding alcohol policy.
Harm reduction, once again, goes back to the point I was making that people who are taken out of a societal context and incarcerated, put into this alien environment, can really suffer with suspicion, superstition, and paranoia if they are getting mixed messages.
This was a good example for the minister for Corrections about the walkaways from the cottages in Alice Springs. The majority of walkaways from the cottages I had to deal with all relayed stories that they were told something was happening at home with the wives or the girlfriends or whatever, and they were going to deal with it. I continually tried to get the message through not to live off innuendo, gossip, rumour or suspicion, that they have a responsibility to complete their sentence, be rehabilitated and then go home and take up those important duties, whether it be as a father, brother, ceremonial leader, or a carer of senior Territorians.
This suspicion, innuendo and rumour was always a part of the problem in integrating a person back into the community when they had been taken out, incarcerated, locked up. Let us face it.
There is still much more debate around the member for Stuart’s comments. To lead off that and go into a new area, I also recommend that the member for Stuart talks to the Minister for Correctional Services and tours the Berrimah prison. Have a look in B Block, see those men who are locked up in clan groups and talk to them. I did, and they gave me a great deal of information as to why it was not a good place to be, why they really did not want to be there, and how they would change when they got home.
The member for Stuart might want to pick up on my three questions, because when I visited the prisons regularly and met many of my ex-students - both in the female and male blocks – the number of Aboriginal people in our prison system who recognised Mr McCarthy became quite legendary. It did not say too much about my teaching abilities, member for Fong Lim, but it certainly had an impact on me as a decision-maker, law-maker, and a person working with the public sector to address offending behaviour within our community.
I used to ask the question, ‘How are you?’ and I always had to modify that to, ‘Are you okay?’ Are you all right?’ The answers, generally, came back in a physical sense, ‘Yes’. In a mental sense, there were always qualifying statements. I used to say, ‘What are you doing in here?’ Invariably the answer was offending behaviour. I used to cut it short because I did not want to know about that stuff. I used to qualify that question with, ‘Are you enrolled in courses? Are you doing education? Are you involved in any work?’ Are you working in the kitchen, or do you work in the laundry? Get yourself a job in here. Make this place work’. The old crims, the hard boys, used to tell me, ‘Time goes quicker if you are working in here, minister’. The old boys gave me a lot of advice, but that was one that resonated with me, coming from hardened criminals: time goes quicker if you have a job.
The second question was, ‘What are you doing in here? Are you doing something?’ That was in the positive. The last question I always asked was, ‘What is your plan? What are you going to do when you get home?’ Invariably, there were not many answers and there was not much forthcoming. So, I started to think: this is obviously the really critical, important link: the re-integration back into the community.
The member for Fong Lim, the minister, has said in his statement, ‘It is not the panacea’. We know it is not the panacea. We cannot say it will provide all the answers, but he really needs to critically look at the reintegration process for these recovering alcoholics because, unfortunately, one of the real challenges that I discovered in Northern Territory Corrections is that we were releasing rehabilitated people back into environments that supported their offending behaviour.
That is the reality of what was happening to a large degree in cases right across the Territory. So, that is where we started to explore ways of trying to support the reintegration process. The reintegration process for the recovering alcoholic, or the person addicted to illegal drugs, is going to be very important in this plan. Not only will it involve considerable capital expense, it will also involve budgets. You have two choices: you re-create the wheel or you start to invest in the stakeholders that provide these services. Whichever way it goes, none of this stuff is cheap, but if you do not invest in it then the good work you are trying to do will be undone very quickly with no strong reintegration plans and reintegration processes.
Once again I am on my feet debating alcohol in this House, and am looking forward to the minister bringing a bill into this House where he can roll up his sleeves and get stuck into debate and committee stage amendments. This minister will relish committee stage. There are a few fragile egos on that side, member for Fong Lim; they do not like this committee stage. I had a good crack at the Chief Minister, Minister for Lands Planning and the Environment. He flicked the ball so fast it was better than Benji Marshall. He threw it out the back so quickly. He did not fool me for a minute. I was trained as a hooker; I knew the ball was going to move and I was straight on to where that ball landed.
Today, in Question Time, I could not understand whether the Chief Minister, when talking about land release said, ‘craft’ or ‘graft’. I was not sure. There was a small phonetic misinterpretation by me, I accept all responsibility, but I did not quite hear whether he said, ‘We are going to craft land release’, or, ‘We are going to graft land release’. Whichever way it goes, I will be there. I am following that ball, and I will seriously look at this delivery.
I bet the member for Fong Lim is keen on getting his sleeves rolled up. It looks like the game ain’t on for at least 12 months into government, which is very disappointing. We want to get into more of this debate because it is hard to nail down the story for Territorians if you still have these statements about maybe somewhere, we are going somewhere, we are going to do something. It is not tangible, it is not laid down and I suppose, at the end of the day, I will take another leaf out of the member for Port Darwin’s book, and that is, it will be in the budget books. It will be in the budget papers, and we will see it spelled out, each line entry itemised. Then, of course, we will get to debate it in terms of legislation, and we will see the new Liberals’ approach to addressing alcohol abuse within our community.
Mrs PRICE (Stuart): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Minister for Alcohol Rehabilitation and Policy. I would like to start by saying how many family members I have lost because of alcoholism. I lost three brothers, a niece who was 21-years old, five cousins, nephews and nieces, uncles and aunts, and I can go on all afternoon about who they were. During the time they drank, Labor was in government.
Could the opposition tell us exactly how many of their relatives they have lost to alcoholism? We have to put up with this, as I have always said, every day of our lives. We have people ringing us, knocking on our doors, screaming at us. I do not believe the member for Karama would have that type of behaviour or reaction in her electorate of Karama, nor would the other opposition members who want to lecture me and tell me I should consult with my families when they are never in the vicinity of these people we are talking about who drink alcohol every day.
As for the member for Barkly, I know Tennant Creek has very strong women who will stand up and fight for their rights. For your information, I am going to talk to them on the weekend. I will make sure I talk to Rosemary Plumber, Valda Shannon, and many more I know who are related to me, and find out from them exactly where they stand on this. I will be talking to Geoffrey Shannon and Mr Jones. I will ensure I get hold of them to talk to our minister for Alcohol Policy.
I will ensure their voices are heard by our government. I will do that whilst I am Tennant Creek on the weekend.
I want to go back to the previous statement I made on Thursday about how young people are much better off locked up. By saying young men or young people, that is how we classify our young men. It could be a 30-year-old, it could be a 40-year-old, it could be a 50-year-old because of the relationship we have with them. That is the appropriate way I would refer to these young blokes. There are young men in youth detention who are close to me, and that is close to my heart as well. We, as Aboriginal people, try our best. As the member for Namatjira mentioned earlier, we try our best to encourage our young people and young women not to get into trouble, not to drink, because they will go to gaol. As the member for Namatjira said, they tell us, ‘Oh, it’s all right aunty, gaol is all right because we are only in there for a little while’.
Sometimes during December and January gaols have a huge influx of young people who deliberately smash a window so they can be locked up between December and February. Do you know why? Because it is Christmas and they are looked after. Every inmate in the gaol knows each other, they even know the prison officers. They are all mates in there. Why would they want to be in 45 heat outside whilst they could be in an air-conditioned room surrounded by family?
Alcohol will always be around. White people were used to it 5000 years ago. We are still getting used to it. We have not been able to sort the alcohol problem out. We are still challenged by it and our people are still trying to get used to the idea of drinking alcohol not to get drunk. This is the message we need to get out there as well, you can drink alcohol but not all in one go. You can have a couple of beers. You can do it. Do not make excuses because I am a blackfella and can drink whatever I want. Only (inaudible) drink like that and everyone wants to make excuses for our people and alcohol.
Everybody wants to make excuses, and they encourage it. Do you know how they encourage it? ‘Something was happening to family so I had to drink this bottle’ of whatever. ‘Something was happening to my wife, my uncle, my sister’, or, ‘He made me do it, that is why I did it. That is why I am in gaol’. I am sure the member for Barkly would have had conversations with inmates who said, ‘Hello, Japangardi, how are you today?’ He would have said, ‘Yes, I’m good. How are you today?’ ‘Yes, I am good’. Because that is what they want you to hear. That has been going on for a long time and has always been the case.
Mr McCarthy: That is sad, Bess.
Mrs PRICE: That is reality.
Mr McCarthy: Are you trying it on me?
Mrs PRICE: That is reality. They do it to me too, not only you.
Mr McCarthy: I do not do anything to you. That is sad.
Mrs PRICE: They do it to me too. They tell me, ‘I am all right, I am okay’. That is what they want me to hear.
Mr McCarthy: Yes, but you are talking about me, not you.
Mrs PRICE: I am talking about you and I am talking about me …
Mr McCarthy: Making assumptions about me.
Mrs PRICE: But this is the case ...
Ms ANDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker. The Member for Barkly was heard in silence, so I expect the member for Stuart to be heard in silence.
Madam SPEAKER: Please continue, member for Stuart.
Mrs PRICE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is reality. It has hit something sensitive, and that is the message I want to get out there.
To go back to what the member for Nhulunbuy said about her Yapa in Nhulunbuy, the Gurruwiwi family. I am a Yapa, but that is me because I am a Yapa in Warlpiri, which describes me as an Aboriginal person. I have many friends who are white people as well, and I do not stand up and talk about them.
If we are fair dinkum about helping people control alcohol, we have to be straight with each other. We have to be honest with each other and talk about how we can help each other. It has to come from our people on the ground, and this is where I respect the women of Tennant Creek because they know what they want for their young people. They see it every day in the streets of Tennant Creek. I want to support them, because this alcohol issue is not going to go away. As I said, Rome was not built in a day.
I say to the member for Karama, I look forward to taking her with me to go for a drive in my electorate so she can sleep on the verandahs of all the houses that have been neglected, sleep with the dogs, and talk to everyone about their alcohol problems. We can talk freely. The statement being directed at me is, consult your people. I have been consulting since day one with my relatives. We should all think about what has happened so far. Who worries? We will be debating this alcohol problem for years to come.
I want to work with our government to set up rehabilitation centres and get genuine programs in the prisons, in the rehabilitation centres. I can talk about the Mount Theo program which was set up for petrol sniffing in Yuendumu where I am from. That worked. It was an initiative from the old people who decided enough was enough. That is where we need to focus. We can make these things happen instead of accusing each other of not knowing what we are talking about. These are serious problems we have in the community which we need to address.
I am pleased our Minister for Rehabilitation and Alcohol Policy has stood up and ensured this mandatory alcohol treatment is heard and, hopefully, people may help and join in and make these changes. I thank the minister for bringing this important issue for us to debate.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I wish to offer a small input to this debate. Yes, we could manipulate the statistics as the opposition did when it was in government. However, we would prefer, as a government, to be more open and transparent.
Much to the disappointment of the proponents of the BDR, the statistics show there was an increase in alcohol-related assaults. As the minister pointed out, that increase was 2.9%. I want to make those points first.
The funding outlined by the minister of $35m per annum supporting Territorians in accessing services to break the pattern is great. This initiative will go some way to reducing - I do not know whether people picked up on the $4197 we spend for every adult on hospitalisation, victims of violence, road accidents, police in courts, and workforce absenteeism.
I have previously raised my view that locally developed and managed permit systems are the best way to work. I have spoken about the success of such clubs as the Peppimenarti Club and its impact on the people of Wadeye. It creates employment for the people of Peppimenarti and has some very strict rules. Those rules seem to be stricter than some of the rules at the Humpty Doo pub.
This is not a takeaway venue and the BDR had nothing to do with it. It was not part of the controls. So I am not sure how the removal of the BDR has made the streets awash with grog. I have yet to see any anarchy or massive boost to crime, and I live in the bush. As the minister alluded to, this anarchy forecast and touted by the opposition has lead to further threats of intervention by the federal government, another impost on the rights of Territorians. She cannot keep the BDR, so let us bring in some other impost.
As a party, we see rehabilitation as only one of the solutions and, as my colleagues have said, Indigenous people see incarceration, at the moment, as a saviour. Maybe this forced rehabilitation will soon replace the poor perception that imprisonment is their only option. Coerced alcohol treatment is always an ongoing option as are other less intrusive approaches, such as non-residential treatments through places such as Amity and others The planned review of sobering-up shelters is welcome and far overdue, having had little done with them since the mid-1980s. We can get away from the ‘spin dry’ approach and lead to some type of evidence-based approach with trained staff, not just a job for someone to pick up the drunks. I note that the legislation will be ready by mid-2013, an excellent outcome for such a shift in addressing alcohol problems, and I applaud the minister for that.
As a party we are about implementing a full team solution, not a front row forward approach of crash and burn anything in our way, as was highlighted by the member for Tennant Creek. As we all know, routine such as getting up each day to attend work gives people a purpose and this needs to be a key part of any rehabilitation to get away from the ‘sit down money’ boredom. However, this habit needs to be instilled in our youths, so I am pleased to see this area also gets some attention with an increase in funding of $1m to Bush Mob, which is only in Alice Springs - I will speak to the minister later about some closer to my electorate - another commitment of the Labor government best described as a casualty of the GFC - get further credit - another unfunded announcement by the previous failed government.
I will finish with a quote from the minister’s statement which I found very good in dealing with these people, that we do access a rehabilitation program:
- … the policy of this government is to facilitate opportunity, to improve lives, provide job opportunities, and reintegrate individuals back into society.
It was a very good statement, minister.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): I want to pick up on a couple of the comments that were made during the course of the debate, particularly by the member for Barkly, who gave us a nice dissertation about his trip to gaols as the minister. I was curious to hear him tell us about his little trip to B Block.
If the former minister is to be believed, gaols work and locking people up works. During his debate he said, after saying locking them up does not work, that prisoners in B Block do not like being there and when they go back to their communities they change their behaviours.
That, from a retributive point of view, is the idea of how a gaol is supposed to work. But I do agree with him, when he is not bumbling around with his words, that gaols have a limited capacity to achieve social outcomes and that is largely because they are a concentration, in many respects, of the worst of humanity. The people are not in there because they have done good deeds; they have broken the law. The law exists for a number of reasons, not least of which is to protect people from the criminal offences of other people, which means if you break the law you may have created a victim - some of the reasons you end up in gaol.
Putting all of that aside, there is a much bigger picture in operation here and what is of particular concern to me is this apprehension, amongst the members opposite particularly, that if you get a person to question themselves and explore themselves then you will get an improved behaviour. That is true; I have no doubt that is entirely true, but let us put that into the context we get from the picture drawn by the members for Namatjira and Stuart. Think about it; a person does the requisite navel gazing required by the members opposite and as a result of that finds themselves a new and wonderful purpose in life. There is only one problem; that person lives in Papunya or Mount Liebig or Kintore or one of those communities. They decide to get themselves cleaned up, they are sober, and they are heading for a new life. But what does the new life entail? It is a remote Aboriginal community, welfare dependent, no jobs, often with a lack of inspiration amongst the people who live there and, to compound that, you have passive welfare being poured into the place.
We heard from members earlier that nothing will get you in more trouble than being bored. There is nothing more that will create boredom than passive welfare in a remote Aboriginal community. So what do you do? You either commit offences when you get bored in that community, and often that means buying grog which has been smuggled in by grog runners or you head into town, town being Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine, or Darwin. So when you get to town, what do you do? Do you get a job? No, you are not in the mood for getting a job by this stage; you are in the mood for getting on the turps and getting into mischief. Consequently, that is why these people end up in gaol.
I listened to the member for Stuart the other day when she made her statement about gaols being a place that people actually want to go to, and if you understand what these remote communities are like you can understand why she would say that. These communities have, in the past, been called all types of things including ‘hellholes’ by some members in this House. That may not always necessarily be true but, in many instances, you can understand when you see these communities why they are not great places to be. Housing is overcrowded; where housing exists it is often damaged by the people who live in it. There is a multitude of indifference in many of the people who live there and, unfortunately, there is nothing to occupy people’s minds, and that is very frustrating. People say alcohol is a curse in its own right. Yes and no. It is certainly a substantial presence. I see alcohol in our community primarily as a symptom, and it is a symptom of a much larger thing, idleness.
Idleness in Aboriginal communities is encouraged, in part, by a non-productive environment.
I find it fascinating that people can own so much land – more than half the Northern Territory – have an interest in the other half in terms of native title, yet are unable to, on the land they own outright, generate income. This is what we call asset rich, dirt poor. It is extremely frustrating that the land owned by these people - we are talking hundreds of thousands of square kilometres, in many instances very good, high quality land - does not do what land has always done for Aboriginal people, provide them with a living.
Prior to the arrival of Europeans, the living made off Aboriginal lands was sufficient for survival and basic shelter. I would not suggest the cure for Aboriginal ills at the moment is to run off into the bush and live as you did 230 years ago; many of those songs and stories have been lost anyhow. However, that land, as a source of survival, can be achieved not only in a spiritual sense, but in a very real economic sense. One of the things I would like to see on Aboriginal land is much more development.
Historically, I have been critical of the Land Rights Act and, for that matter, land councils. I am more critical now of the act than the councils themselves. The councils, to their enormous credit over the last 15 years, have moved from a defensive posture to a posture more inviting towards investment. However, that then runs into problems because the structures of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act are such that it is investment averse.
By way of example, picture a person who has $10m. They wonder what they can do with $10m. ‘I can invest it in Sydney or I can invest it on Aboriginal land to build a hotel’, for arguments sake. This person then says, ‘Oh, I would like to do something good - build a hotel on some Aboriginal land and see if we can create one or two jobs’. To achieve that, you have to approach a land council. This is required by the act, so I am not blaming the land councils. The land councils then have to set up a meeting with the various traditional owners who are on the land trust. You then have a couple of meetings, you go back and forth and, as the potential investor, you are supposed to be the person who does the job of paying for all the meetings. Alternatively, you can buy a block of land in Sydney and do whatever development you like.
That is why you will find many investors are shy of going into Aboriginal investment. Not only is it legally difficult in the sense you have to go to leases, subleases and all that nonsense, it is also difficult in the sense it is very hard to break into that land. So, you find a situation where you have a cattle station on one side of the fence, productive at making money and employing numerous people; step over to the other side of the fence and you have stepped into the Third World. That means there is nothing different about the land or the country or what is potentially available on that land, what it means is you have stepped from one land management system to another. You have crossed the border from South Korea into North Korea, and the results could not be more startling.
What has all this got to do with grog? If people cannot get investment and that type of thing happening on their land, ultimately, they are without work and passive welfare happens. One of the manifestations of passive welfare is alcohol abuse. If we want to talk about a broad range of policies to protect Aboriginal people from alcohol abuse, I am happy to start talking about a broad range of policies. Let us do some restructuring of how we can create investment and advance investment in Aboriginal lands so we can create jobs, get rid of the idleness, get rid the passive welfare, make people proud of themselves and, before you know it, alcoholism rates in a community like that start to reflect alcoholism rates in other communities.
I heard the member for Namatjira say Europeans have been living with alcohol for 5000 years. That is true, but guess what? Alcoholism is still a problem in European communities. There is a class of people - I suppose you call them a class of people - with addictive personalities who have a predisposition to alcohol addiction. That class of person, if they are genuinely addicted, will not be bashful or shy about pursuing their addiction. That is why things like the Banned Drinker Register do not work. If you are dealing with someone who has a genuine addiction, like the platinum cardholder and the frequent flyer club from the Banned Drinker Register list, then they will obtain alcohol. The case in point is Mr 117 arrests for intoxication ...
Mr Tollner: One hundred and fourteen BAT notices!
Mr ELFERINK: That is right. He then gets served 114 BAT notices saying he has to front the tribunal so he will be taken off the Banned Drinker Register in due course. Of course, without any penalty attached to that, they never bother to front; those notices can be thrown in the bin and they can go and procure alcohol by whatever nefarious means they determine to do so, which includes drinking things like Listerine, vanilla essence, and those types of things.
Let us not kid ourselves that we, through some magical potion or process, are able to deal with these problems, no matter what flavour of government we are. What we on this side of the House are prepared to say is that you have to intervene, and that is what the minister is talking about: creating an intervention system. I am delighted we can do it on a health model, because the model I had always described when drafting these policies used a hybrid of criminal justice to get a health outcome. The health outcome was always the target. If we can do it with a direct health model, so much the better.
I know the minister is working very hard rolling this package out. We made it abundantly clear in August that this policy would take 12 months to roll out. I remember giving various media interviews on it. The minister, by bringing the legislation into the House by July, is doing well; he is ahead of schedule. I heard the members opposite screaming about it, but guess what? It is happening and it is coming.
I support the minister’s statement; I support the policy very much, and I look forward to the implementation of this policy for the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory.
Mr TOLLNER (Alcohol Rehabilitation and Policy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank all the speakers who spoke on this statement. I value the way everyone spoke passionately on the topic. It is clear to me – and it has always been clear to me - this is an important issue that is recognised by the entirety of members in this House. We all recognise the problems caused by alcohol abuse. That is abundantly clear. It does not matter what electorate you are from, people feel this is an issue. It reinforces to me again that this is a Territory-wide matter.
At the end of the day, it is our philosophy, our ideas, our point of view, on which we differ in a few areas. Last week, I believe it was on ABC, someone said, ‘We have to take the politics out of this issue’. That is not my view. My view is politics is about the battle of ideas, and it is through politics that the best ideas bubble to the surface and, ultimately, we as a people, as a race, as humankind, benefit from the best ideas being aired and picked up. So, I am never afraid of politics. That is why I have entered this most honourable profession because I believe in the power of debate, the power of fresh ideas and the like. In that regard, I am truly thankful to everyone who has commented.
I thank the member for Port Darwin, the last speaker, for his comments in relation to some of the problems we are dealing with. Alcohol abuse, in the main, is a symptom of a much greater problem. I believe the member for Port Darwin did more than scratch the surface and identify some of those problems. It has been my long-held belief, too, that the framing of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, whilst well-intentioned, has not positively impacted on most Indigenous Territorians.
The fact is, as the member for Port Darwin pointed out, the whole idea of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 was about keeping people out, keeping western culture out, and basically locking up country for people to be hunters and gatherers to forage and live on that land as they have for 40 000 years or more. It was the brainchild of a Labor government, put in place by a Liberal government. Ian Viner was the federal minister who brought in the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. The Northern Territory jumped up and down about it at the time, and quite rightly so. Canberra did not trust the Northern Territory government; they did not trust business, they did not trust western civilisation. So, they created an act of parliament which aimed at keeping everyone out of that land, and some of the problems we have today are symptoms of those problems put in place over 30 years ago. I thank the member for Port Darwin for raising that. We could talk about that all afternoon.
The member for Stuart spoke incredibly passionately. It is difficult for many of us in this House to understand the real impact alcohol abuse has had on the lives of people, but to listen to an impassioned presentation like we heard from the member for Stuart is a wonderful thing.
Similarly, my thanks go to the members for Arafura and Namatjira. Both spoke extraordinarily well. I am very thankful that the member for Barkly put in his two cents’ worth. There are some matters I will respond to which he and the opposition raised.
I thank the member for Nelson for his contribution. There are some matters in his contribution which I will attempt to address; similarly, the members for Karama and Fannie Bay.
I thank the member for Fannie Bay, the shadow minister for Alcohol Policy, for the way he has taken this statement. They say this is a motherhood statement or a ‘puff piece’. It is far from that, but I will explain that.
The comment that goes through the whole opposition argument - it started off with the member for Fannie Bay saying we scrapped everything, we scrapped this, we scrapped that, we scrapped the BDR, and put nothing is in place. I heard the member for Barkly say, ‘You have gotten rid of the Banned Drinker Register; you are going to get rid of the SMART Court. What are we left with? We have nothing’. They were his words, ‘We have nothing!’ I do not know what his concept of ‘nothing’ is, but I remind the member for Barkly, and members opposite, the Northern Territory probably has the most highly regulated alcohol laws in the western world. There is no place I have visited where I have seen stricter rules around the serving of alcohol. We have an incredibly regulated area; there are enormous numbers of restrictions in place.
Putting politics to one side for a second, to be very clear about it, we have an opposition which supported the Banned Drinker Register; that is fine, good on them. We have a government which does not. In fact, we have a government which went to an election with a key platform of getting rid of the Banned Drinker Register. Why did we do that? Because it was not working; it was having no effect and was very expensive.
If the opposition believes we should have kept it, fine, but put yourself in our shoes understanding we do not believe it was working and we do believe it was very costly. Why would we keep it? Irrespective of whether we have anything to replace it with, which we do not, we do not believe that measure worked.
Why would we continue that very expensive waste of government funds when we have a view that one of the best things we can do for all Territorians, is get the drunks off the streets and into rehabilitation? This is the difference between the rhetoric of the former government and the rhetoric of this government. The former government kept saying they ‘turned off the tap’, which meant nothing. Everyone knows it was a ban on takeaway alcohol and, the fact is, taps are inside the pub and anyone can walk into a pub; it did not matter whether you were on the Banned Drinker Register or not.
Setting that aside, the fact was it did not work and the greatest sanction anyone got under that legislation was their name added to a list. That was it. That was the big hit. That was a wallop on the back of the head. The single biggest punishment the previous system could mete out was they would put your name on a list, a Banned Drinker Register. Even if it worked, that was the biggest penalty.
We have a different view. Our view is that putting your name on a list will not get you off the alcohol, off the street, or stop you accessing alcohol. We have a view that whether it works or not, we need to give people the opportunity to get treatment, to give them that break in order to dry out, collect their thoughts, and make a value judgment based on their circumstances and where they might want to head in the future. We are dead keen to do that. We are dead keen to give people that break from alcohol abuse. We are dead keen to give the policemen that break so they are not picking up the same person night after night, day after day. We will put people into a mandatory treatment model.
It is questionable whether mandatory treatment or even voluntary treatment works. Many people say it does not matter if you do it voluntarily or it is mandatory, it is like quitting cigarettes: some people will quit, others will not. To me, that is a simplistic argument. The greater argument is the fact we are giving people a break from alcohol simply by putting them into mandatory rehabilitation. We are giving them some breathing space to dry out and start making some real decisions. If we get in there at the same time as providing a dry-out service and try to engender people with a work ethic similar to what the Attorney-General is doing in Corrections, where he has prisoners leaving prison with full-time jobs to walk into, that will have a major impact on the number of drunks on our streets.
Another concern I heard from the other side is it will be 12 months out before we have anything. This, again, came from the member for Barkly. I like the guy, he is talking about me being the front row forward of the parliament. If that little terrier was chasing me no one in this House would run faster, because that little joker could pack a decent wallop. Enough of the football analogies.
However, he says 12 months before we have done anything. I understand, as an opposition, you try to call into question the work ethic of the government. We certainly did it when in opposition but, for the benefit of the member for Barkly and members on the other side, you need to understand something has happened. In fact, a great deal has been happening. These things do not materialise out of nowhere. We do not have major rehabilitation facilities in place; they will need to be constructed. We need to work with the existing sector, which was one of the things the member for Nelson raised, have we consulted? I can assure the member for Nelson we have consulted. The organisations he mentioned have all been spoken to by government. Some want to be part of the mandatory rehabilitation regime, others say, ‘We have this area of work we operate in and are happy to continue that. We do not really want to go into the mandatory treatment side of things’. That is fine, because we need a range of different solutions.
People will be given the option of voluntary rehabilitation and we need places where people can voluntarily check themselves in. We need sobering-up shelters, we need drying out locations, we need places where clinically trained people can ensure detoxification and all those things go well. A wide range of services will be required to do this.
Additionally, we need to look at staff, infrastructure, and all those matters are being negotiated at the moment. As the member for Barkly knows, you just cannot click your fingers and have legislation instantly in the Chamber. It has to be drafted, there are processes of the parliament, and these things take time.
I am not reluctant to say it is taking some time either, because we want to get it right. We want to ensure we have a system that works for all people in the Northern Territory who need this assistance and we want to ensure whatever we do really relieves the community of much of the worry related to alcohol, antisocial behaviour and all those other things we are all so upset about.
I have no problem with the time this is taking. To suggest this is a motherhood statement or filibuster is a little cute. The statement has been given to encourage debate on this issue and to give an update on exactly where we are at.
The member for Barkly need not worry; by the middle of this year we will have legislation in place, and I am hoping we will be very close to completion of some major facilities. Of course, I am certain the Alcohol and Other Drugs sector will be fully on board.
One of the things we committed to as part of the election was funding a peak body of Alcohol and Other Drug operators in that sector. We have done that. AADANT, Association of Alcohol and other Drug Agencies NT, has been funded, they are operating quite well; we have a dialogue with them. I am very keen to see that sector utilised. I would much prefer to utilise the people we already have in the Northern Territory before bringing others in from interstate. The program we are embarking on is big, comprehensive and will be quite expensive.
This is an area which we have made no bones about. We said, prior to the election, we understood this would be expensive. We said we understand we are in a great deal of debt at the moment - the legacy left by the previous government. However, we have put a ring around the alcohol issue because it is so important to the community; we have to deal with it. As such, we will throw everything at this policy to ensure it works, that we get the drunks off the streets. Not only that we get them off the streets, but we make every effort to keep them off the streets, get them rehabilitated, get them into meaningful lives, and get them working and doing the best they can for the community.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I again say thank you very much to all those members, both government and opposition members, and the Independent Labor member for Nelson. Thank you everyone for the wonderful contributions. I have heard what everyone had to say. There are some things I am more than happy to answer. Other things have challenged my thinking. Thank you for taking this statement in the manner in which it was presented.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Women’s Policy
Ms ANDERSON (Women’s Policy): Mr Deputy Speaker, today I outline the government’s approach to women’s policy. This is my first speech in my role as Minister for Women’s Policy. I have spent much of my life thinking about what we mean by women’s rights and it is good to have the chance to think about it more as minister; to reflect on where we have come from and where we still strive to make progress.
The place of women in the Northern Territory is difficult. It is different to just about anywhere else in the First World. If I had been appointed to this portfolio in any other Australian government, we all know the speech I would be giving now. It would be a pretty positive story of how women have almost achieved equality in society and culture - equality under the law. There is still some way to go in that story, but the achievements of the past 40 years have been enormous and the journey seems to be almost over.
I cannot give that speech in the Northern Territory. That story describes the lives of some women here; you have only to look around this Chamber to see that. However, for many Indigenous women it is almost as though the great battle for equality had never been fought. If you look at teenage pregnancy, education levels, unemployment and, particularly, at violence, thousands of women in the Territory are no better off than they were 40 years ago. In fact, often they are worse off, partly because they are Indigenous. They share many problems with Indigenous men but, in large part, it is because they are women.
I am thinking especially of violence. Violence goes to the heart of women’s inequality in any society. Today, Indigenous women are far more likely to be its victim than anyone else in the country. I have lived with that brutal fact all my life, and it continues to distress me. It continues to anger me.
Women are being bashed and abused, women are dying. Safety is not just women’s business; it is everyone’s business, and everyone has failed. Because the Territory has such a high proportion of Indigenous people in its population, this prevalence of violence, of women’s pain and suffering, makes the challenge of women’s policies here more urgent and more pressing than in any other place. It also makes it appropriate; sadly, that the Minister for Indigenous Advancement is also the Minister for Women’s Policy. Having said that, I acknowledge that the story of women in the Northern Territory is much bigger than that. It is a story with many positives starting with stories about the unique contributions made in all the traditional societies from which the people of the Territory come. For Indigenous women, it is the story of tremendous resilience, of all they have done to hold families and communities together during times of enormous change and stress.
It is also, as I have acknowledged, partly the story of progress as experienced by women in other parts of Australia, and the world, where most women have achieved education and jobs and the freedom to do things women have never done before in the history of the world. I want to celebrate that story of progress for two reasons, first, because it is relevant to many women in the Territory and, second, because even for those women who are still behind and still suffering oppression and violence it is inspiring. I want all girls and young women to know their rights and to see the possibilities available in their own lives.
I want the men to see it too. History shows that achieving women’s equality, just like racial equality, is a job for everyone. I want men to know that if they do not help in that job, they are condemning many of our women to continue to suffer in a way that is almost unique in so-called developed nations. They are condemning our women to an historical and national backwater. As Minister for Women’s Policy, I will do my best to tell all those stories and ensure everyone is aware of them. I will do all I can to ensure women here have the chance to achieve the possibilities, the stories revealed to us.
The solution to women’s problems does not lie just with government. We know from advances achieved for women in other places that they can only be achieved if everyone pitches in: NGOs, voluntary organisations, churches and philanthropists. We know that many women who have been successful need to turn around and lend a hand to younger women; many are doing this already. I hope we can develop some ways of encouraging even more of this type of inspiration and help.
I want to acknowledge that there are two broad groups: the Indigenous women I have mentioned, and the many others who have benefited from the reforms of the past 40 years. Just like women all around Australia, I want to celebrate the progress of that group. The progress has been impressive. To draw on some recent New South Wales figures, typical of most of Australia, these days 70% of girls complete Year 12, compared with 63% of boys. Girls are still less likely than boys to do an apprenticeship or traineeship; however, even that gap is narrowing. In admissions to university, women have charged ahead with 57% of university students now women.
How things have changed in less than a lifetime. Today, most Australian women can do just about anything they want. This was not always so. Not only were there all types of prejudice, there were laws and regulations which made women second class human beings. Women were simply excluded from many places, jobs and positions. There were unequal rates of pay, and there were rules like the one in the Commonwealth public service that said female employees had to resign if they got married. If you looked at the public face of society then, outside of entertainment, women were almost invisible. There were almost no female politicians or business leaders. The only female leaders of any kind were in those all-female careers or institutions such as nursing and schools. It had been like that for all of history, so when you think of how much has changed in those 50 years, which, in historical terms is just a blink of an eye, it is amazing.
One of the things that strikes me, looking around this Chamber, is we have one of the highest proportions of women in parliament in Australia. In most other Chambers it is much lower. It is puzzling that while women have progressed in all kinds of ways in the past half century, they have not managed to move into all the many positions of leadership. Of course, there have been some successes. Look at the gender of the Governor General, the Prime Minister and several recent premiers and chief ministers around the country, but politics in most places is still very male dominated.
If the feminists of the 1970s had been told that, they would have been surprised. They would have thought that in politics, at least, you could have expected women to achieve parity. I believe they would also be surprised by the even greater absence of women at the top level of business. Maybe they would not have expected women to achieve parity with men at the CEO level, but they would have expected to see more women up there than we have now. There are hardly any women running major companies here or anywhere else.
One reason for this is women tend to avoid careers from which highly-paid corporate managers and leaders emerge, such as engineering. In New South Wales, only 12% of engineering students are women. We tend to work in lower paid areas such as healthcare, education, community services, retail and administration. This explains why there are more women on the boards of government committees: 37%. In not-for-profit organisations there are 29%, and in public companies just 17%. We tend to find far more women managers in schools, where 50% of all principals are women, and more in the public sector than in the corporate world. But in every area the number of women drops right away the higher up an organisation you go and the closer you get to the real seats of power. This is a problem for all of us, men and women.
Every woman in a group raises its group IQ. Shelley Penn is the National President of the Australian Institute of Architects and she has pointed to statistics which show women make up approximately 45% of university architecture students, but they comprise less than 2% of directors of architectural practices. This is despite the fact that research shows the more women there are on company boards the more successful that company will be. Other studies have found the same thing in communities and group decision-making. The experts are telling us we need men and women to make the best decisions.
Society still has an enormous deficit in what we might call female intelligence, and one of my aims in this portfolio is to publicise the fact and get people thinking about how we might harness that extra intelligence for the good of everyone.
Another development I believe would have surprised the feminists of the 1970s is the situation today where we are looking after the children. Many feminists 40 years ago believed that before long men would share not just half the university positions and the good jobs, but half the effort of looking after children. That has not happened. We would have done well in education, and I was reading the other day that over half the number of law students are now women. Women are also well represented in good jobs, but despite these advances, women are still doing most of the childcare in their families. What is the reason for that?
Some people blame it on men not wanting to surrender their privileges, but that does not quite fit. Men have been prepared to go a long way with feminism in many ways, from doing more housework and changing language and manners, to education and jobs. So why would they have put their foot down when it comes to childcare? Maybe it is biological. I know many people believe men and women are fundamentally different, emotionally, and even intellectually. You often hear boys are better at maths, girls at language. You often hear men are better at map reading while women have more empathy. Dozens of books have been written about this, such as Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus, and there is no doubt they are based on a great deal of academic research.
We need to be cautious about accepting that. We need to be cautious about accepting any claims women are naturally different to men in how we think and feel. Once you look closely at the so-called evidence it does not really stack up. Recently, there was an article in the Sydney Morning Herald which referred to Janet Hyde, one of America’s leading academic psychologist. Dr Hyde looked at 5000 academic studies on gender differences involving seven million people and found almost 80% of so-called gender differences are small or close to zero.
Let me give you some examples. Many people believe women talk more than men, but when a researcher tested this by putting small recorders on 400 men and women, he found each sex talks, on average, the same 16 000 words a day. It is also not true that women disclose much more about themselves in conversations than men do, or that men interrupt much more than women. We need to be very cautious where we make any assumptions about differences between men and women. Academic research is telling us there is still plenty of unconscious prejudice out there shaping the way we think about the sexes.
If we expect people to act in certain ways maybe they will, but that does not make it natural. My guess is it is possible women’s behaviour will change in the future. I admit the jury is still out on childcare and I will be watching with real interest to see if men become more involved. That is important because I suspect that is the only way we will see a big increase in the number of women in top positions. A high proportion of top female executives either do not have children or, if they do, they have nannies, and have had them pretty well from the time their children were born. Obviously, that is not something many women can afford to do.
As I mentioned earlier, the problems of many Indigenous women in the Territory are worlds away from problems of leadership. I would like to say a few more words about the terrible effect of violence on many women. Although it is a problem for many Indigenous people, girls and women are more likely to be its victims. It is well-known they are five, 10, even 20 times more likely to be abused or bashed than any other Australia women. The exact figure depends on the type of crime and the research you read, but the general situation is clear, and it is tragic.
As the Minister for Women’s Policy, it is the single most important problem facing women in the Northern Territory. For years we simply denied it. In the 1990s it was not politically correct to talk about violence against Indigenous women committed by Indigenous men. Feminists who were mainly white did not want to talk about it in case they offended Indigenous men, which I always thought was strange. I remember the fight we had to get ATSIC to recognise the problem.
One breakthrough came in 1999 with the report of Queensland academic, Bonnie Robinson, who led a large group of Indigenous women who produced a ground-breaking report. After that it became harder to cover-up the shocking level of violence against women in Indigenous communities.
I was involved in the struggle to form an ATSIC Women’s Advisory Board; it did not occur until 2003, which was pretty late in the day for ATSIC. Sadly, the violence of those days is still with us. Around the world people agree the fundamental job of governments is to protect the security of their people. It is a job successive governments of the Northern Territory have failed to do well; it is a job that has frustrated most of the decent and well-intentioned people who attempted to tackle it. The problem is the violence is so common you simply cannot hope to stop it all.
In some communities you need a police station on every corner. What has to be done is to attack it at its roots. Violence is the fruit of a tree of masculine idleness that grows in the soil of welfare dependency. To stop the violence you have to destroy that tree. To do this we need to cut off the welfare so the tree of idleness dies and a new tree can take its place: the tree of employment planted in the soil of improved education.
These are big solutions for a big problem. It is the tragedy of the Territory and the tragedy of its women that no one at the Commonwealth level is talking about them. Many people said the intervention was unnecessary, challenging. In fact, it was only a bandaid, which was why it has had little impact.
I commend the many good people who work tirelessly to feed children, and arrest and punish men who beat and rape women. But these are all bandaids. Until we get a federal government that is prepared to initiate profound welfare reforms, men will not take jobs and, until men take jobs and get self-respect, they will keep drinking, and beating and abusing women.
As the new Minister for Women’s Policy, everything else I will have to deal with in the portfolio shrinks into insignificance in comparison to this. It is a puzzle why federal governments of both parties have not given us these welfare reforms. There is nothing difficult about them. As I have said before in this House, all that is required is that Indigenous people be treated the same as other Australians. Not to do so is racist. Although the federal government makes the laws, I suppose it will be the last one to recognise that. I say to people in Canberra, we are not children, treat us like adults and we will start to behave like adults.
In conclusion, I observe that the battle of equality between the sexes is, in many ways, the same as the battle for equality between races and cultures. Women used to be treated like children and told what was best for them. Only when that stopped could they take their place in the broader society. We are living in a fortunate time in history because so many advances have occurred, but there is still much to be done - much for Indigenous people and for women, and even more for Indigenous women. As the minister for both Indigenous Advancement and Women’s Policy in this government, I embrace that challenge and acknowledge its immensity.
I also acknowledge that although many women in the Territory are still suffering, many others have benefited from the advances of the past 40 years. They have completed school, gone to university, taken interesting and well-paid jobs, travelled, and done amazing things. I celebrate their achievements and invite any of them, or anyone else who has ideas on how we can improve the lot of women in the Territory, to get in touch with me. Your experience is valuable and you are an inspiration for girls growing up here and wondering what their place in the world might be, and how high they should aim.
I finish with the observation that although women should be able to do anything, we should resist the temptation to define success solely in male terms. Career and public success is not the only way to be a fulfilled and valuable human being. Success for most women is more likely to be a mixture of private and public achievements. One of the important things female leaders can do is stand up for different forms of success. We want a society where women can succeed in the same way men do, but we still want to be a society that values other forms of success too. Thank you for the opportunity to make this general observation of my new portfolio. As I said earlier, I will be making another statement with more specific policy proposals at the United Nations International Women’s Day reception on 8 March.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement, and I table the documents I have quoted in this statement.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, as the shadow Minister for Women’s Policy I have a special obligation to keep the government to account in its commitment and delivery of services to Territory women, no matter where they live. As a young female parliamentarian, I feel special empathy to support women, particularly young women of the Territory, and to work as hard as I can to ensure they enjoy the same opportunities I have had available to me.
I have had remarkable support in my life and, as a parliament, we must ensure our policies and goals support all Territorians, especially those who are disadvantaged in so many areas, including lack of access to services and opportunities. In listening to this ministerial statement today, I was very mindful of another debate we had earlier relating to the impact of alcohol abuse on our community, especially towards women and children. I am bewildered how the minister can deliver a statement which includes reference to domestic violence but not discuss alcohol abuse beyond one passing reference, ‘drinking and beating and abusing women’. To me, that is incredible.
As Territorians, we must also address the issues that are making men so unhappy, leading them to drink, creating anger and too often leaving women and children as victims of violence. It is for these reasons I am again left bewildered as to why your government has cut support to men’s services. I cannot help but be deeply concerned about how this ever-present cloak of alcohol abuse in our community impacts right across our community. So many young people, so many women, are achieving amazing things every day in the Territory, but so many opportunities and choices are at risk from this overwhelming problem of alcohol abuse associated with family dysfunction.
We must also acknowledge and support the strong women in many of our communities across a range of areas, including supporting young mothers, supporting access to education and work opportunities, and providing safe places and proper support for people to deal with and conquer their substance abuse problems. We need to learn from and support the leaders in our community who are already working in this area and know what needs to be done. We need to learn from their kindness, generosity and strength of spirit. We need to learn from them and support them in what works and what does not. We have so many young women being heard on the national level; there are young Territorian women, who have done things like the National Indigenous Youth Parliament, the Australian Youth Round Forum, and the National Roundtable that existed for a little while. More could be done to promote these opportunities.
Minister, your government, the Cabinet you sit in, the decisions you make so far, have not sent a strong signal to Territory women that you have a plan and you are committed. I seek leave to table the CLP’s Women’s Policy document which was circulated leading up to the 2012 Territory Election.
Leave granted.
Ms FYLES: As a government, you have not referred to this policy and, minister, I did not hear in your speech that you even acknowledged it.
This document was circulated and developed with stakeholders so their support and knowledge were placed in it, but as far as your speech was concerned, it does not exist. In your statement you said:
- Women are being bashed and abused, women are dying. Safety is not just women’s business; it is everyone’s business, and everyone has failed.
Minister, it is your government that is failing Territory women. The majority of bashings are alcohol-related and with the CLP government deciding to allow domestic violence offenders to start buying alcohol again, the number of women in our emergency departments will only increase. Tragically, hundreds of women are admitted to hospital every year having been violently assaulted. Only today, the Health minister told us that the long waiting times in the emergency room were due to the reluctance of police to hold drunks in cells. Why did he not talk about the victims of alcohol-related assaults filling our emergency rooms? It is your government that has cut the domestic violence teams in our hospital emergency departments. You talk of conversations you and your colleagues have, but what conversations have you had about cutting this critical service? Where is this support for these vital teams?
Providing support to victims of domestic violence in our hospitals is vital and the scrapping of these important teams puts more women at risk. The Labor government started this program to provide support to victims of domestic violence. It worked, and it would have been continued under Labor. The removal of these teams has put more pressure on medical staff in our hospitals and, under the CLP government, we are continuing to see job cuts, funding cuts and service cuts in critical areas of children and families. We know of at least 47 staff who lost their jobs in the Office of Children and Families since August. This is putting pressure on frontline services and domestic violence victims.
Minister, you talk of the prevalence of this violence making the issue more urgent and pressing, yet it is only the second time we have seen you formally raise the matter of women’s policy as a minister. You put out a half-baked press release four days before Christmas seeming to hope that no one would notice the lack of detail. Then you bring this ministerial statement to the House, but again you promise more information in a few weeks in a speech. Minister, given the urgency you state compared to other subjects, why only one press release? Why wait two more weeks? Why no reference to the CLP’s policy before the election?
All governments should develop policy that encourages women to achieve and follow their dreams. You talk about increased employment opportunities for women, and we may see women with careers but these are largely positions in education, childcare, positions that have been traditional employment domains for women. We must broaden this.
Our parliament has a high representation of women, something that makes me proud, and something that makes Territorians proud. I especially would like to welcome our new member for Wanguri.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms FYLES: But we no longer see any female CEOs of departments in the Territory. That concerns me. Minister, you talk about feminists from 40 years ago who would be surprised about our modern world and, again, I quote from your statement to the House tonight,
- I believe they would be surprised by the even greater absence of women at the top level of business. Maybe they would not have expected women to achieve parity with men at the CEO level, but they would have expected to see more women up there than we have now.
Yes, minister, they certainly would be surprised, especially here in the Northern Territory with not one female chief executive. Your government sacked the last remaining female chief executive earlier this month after sacking the female Under Treasurer. Minister, what example does this set to females within our Northern Territory public service? As the shadow, can I suggest you look at policies such as those leadership policies from the federal Treasury department?
It has a policy where, by the year 2016, 35% of its senior employees will be female. This is not just an ideological policy; it is backed up by clear documented policies of how this will be achieved, including statements on leadership, governance, accountability, workplace policies, training and networks, performance assessment and career development. It is something of substance, so vastly different from what we are seeing in the Territory.
Your statement indicates you expect business to have women in leadership positions but you do not have that same expectation of your own public service. Letting women know their rights is vital, but encouraging them with good practical policy and role models is just as important, something we have yet to see from the new NT government.
Minister, I find your comments about encouraging non-government organisations to be involved in finding solutions odd to say the least, considering the cuts your government has placed on Territory non-government organisations. I quote from your statement:
We know from advances achieved for women in other places that they can only be achieved if everyone pitches in: NGOs, voluntary organisations, churches and philanthropists.
It is your government that has slashed funding to the NGO sector, and we are yet to see a real commitment to the Fair Work Australia decision to boost pay for community workers. As a government, Labor had committed to funding the NT government’s share of this pay rise and the CLP should step up and provide detail and the same. There are approximately 5000 people working in the Northern Territory community sector and most of them are women. More than 50% work remotely in a variety of fields including social and disability work, child protection and counselling. These are stressful jobs. The decision is a great step forward, and will mean a fairer wage in the pockets of some of the Territory’s lowest paid workers.
I welcome your statement, quote:
We know that many women who have been successful need to turn around and lend a hand to younger women; many are doing this already. I hope we can develop some ways of encouraging even more of this type of inspiration and help.
But I would like to see some substance, policy and action behind this statement for your government to deliver on.
Minister, you are correct, you are in a very unique position as the Minister for Women’s Policy and the Minister for Indigenous Advancement. Your government was elected by the people of the bush and now it is your chance to shape and implement a policy that is vital to equal opportunity and the recognition of women.
You say that women still do more than half their share of raising children. As a mother, I adore any time spent with my children, and many in this House have heard my stories and seen pictures of the children. As a family, like many families around the Territory, I choose not just to work to help the family budget, but for me as a person to grow, to have challenges and the independence that employment offers. I enjoy working. Women’s policy needs to encourage family-friendly workplaces so women do not feel they are leaving their children by returning to employment, but more, that they are enriching their lives, enriching their children’s lives, and enriching their community. Their children will grow up with good role models if their parents are working people.
Modern technology allows us to work from home, so a mixture of government policy that encourages family-friendly work hours for mothers and fathers is vital. The NT government, thanks to the previous Labor government, as I understand, is the only state or territory in Australia to offer a childcare subsidy to help with the cost of care at a state level. This is paid directly to childcare centres and is vital. With all the cuts your government is inflicting, I hope this support is not cut. It directly supports parents by reducing the fees they pay up-front each week for childcare.
As shadow minister for Women’s Policy, one policy I will advocate is childcare centres located within workplace precincts. This would support families greatly. Many other capital cities have this model and it has many benefits, such as less time for children away from their parents because they can travel together to commute to work, access during the day for breast-feeding of younger children, easy contact with children who may become sick or just the opportunity for parents and children to see each other when parents have a break. The working day can be based around a child.
Encouraging the private sector to look at this policy in the development of building precincts is also important. You said, and I quote:
- I admit the jury is still out on childcare and I will be watching with real interest to see if men become more involved. That is important because I suspect that is the only way we will see a big increase in the number of women in top positions. A high proportion of top female executives either do not have children or, if they do, they have nannies, and have had them pretty well from the time their children were born. Obviously, that is not something many women can afford to do.
It is about policies that support mothers and fathers. As a society, we need to support female talent in the workplace.
The roll-out of early childhood centres across the Territory, especially in our regional areas, is not only vital in allowing women to work but also provides an opportunity for respite. Many mothers in this Chamber would acknowledge that. Sometimes people say to me, ‘I do not khow you do it, working and having two children’. I do not know how mums who stay at home with their children do it. It is good to have that balance, and we need to provide policy to achieve that.
Research shows one of the key areas in the workplace for women which needs to be addressed is meaningful part-time employment. We need a shift where high-level positions can be part-time. Often women returning to employment after maternity leave or time off to care for their children - or fathers if that is what the family chooses - when they request part-time work are offered positions which are not at an equal level to those available full-time. They are offered positions which are not at high managerial level. We need to accept people can work two or three days and still make a significant contribution. We do not need to see people trying to do in three or four days a five-day-a-week job; we need to have balance.
As a society, we need to embrace mothers. We need to set an example to younger generations that you can be a parent and have a successful career. It should not be a choice for women to take a lower paid part-time position or a higher paid full-time position. High level responsibility should be available part-time and we need to see a cultural shift in this. The federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Elizabeth Broderick, refers to this as ‘a wastage of female talent’.
I note your comments about violence towards women and quote from your statement:
- As the Minister for Women’s Policy, it is the single most important problem facing women in the Northern Territory.
Minister, as a female leader and member of Cabinet you need to make decisions in the Cabinet room when they are being discussed. Do not let domestic violence services be cut, or non-government organisations funding be slashed, or programs dumped without proper review.
The document I sought leave to table earlier had a number of practical ideas to be implemented within six months, yet we have seen no mention of them: a women’s services directory and a women’s information service. I believe your media release just before Christmas mentioned a mandatory reporting of domestic violence register, but we have not seen anything within the first six months to finalise the review into mandatory reporting of domestic violence. That legislation has not come before the House. There has been no mention of the women’s health policy, of which was said, and I quote:
- ... within six months of gaining government will be underpinned by a number of principles.
I have tabled that document and look forward in your response to any updates on that I might have missed. I apologise if I have.
In conclusion, minister, I again quote from your statement:
- … I invite any of them, or anyone else who has ideas on how we can improve the lot of women in the Territory, to get in touch with me.
I am unsure what you meant by your comment, and I quote:
- My guess is it is possible women’s behaviour will change in the future.
Perhaps in your response you could elaborate on this statement.
Minister, you say you will do all you can, you tell stories, but so far you have not followed these through with words and actions. I felt this was a motherhood statement.
I look forward to your speech on International Women’s Day, which is only in two weeks away, to deliver this guiding document. This ministerial statement is not the road map I was expecting.
Ms LEE (Arnhem): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support my esteemed colleague, the Minister for Women’s Policy, in her statement on the Mills government approach to women’s policy.
In not so many words, this is one of the most emotional speeches an Aboriginal politician would make. I am a mother of three beautiful girls who look up to me, not just as their mother but as a role model. I hope the things I do in life reflect positively on them and they will grow up to be the next generation of leaders. Growing up with two strong women in my life - my mother and my grandmother - who shaped me, disciplined me, and taught me all the right ways has made me the person I am today. I remain forever grateful to them.
I hope in my journey as a young woman, I, in turn shape and influence other women - Indigenous and non-Indigenous - it is everyone’s business that, in some small way, we influence our brothers and sisters.
I have been thinking about what we mean by ‘women’s rights’. For much of my life I have been busy living those rights, so it is good to have the chance to think about them more, to reflect on my own struggle to build a public career while bringing up three children.
The fact that we have a Minister for Women’s Policy, and not for men’s policy, is an acknowledgement that women still face more problems than men, and government can help do something about those problems. There are many problems government cannot solve, but it does have budgets and does pass laws, and that can help women a great deal.
Government also strives to control violence within boundaries, which is very important to women because we are so often the victims of violence. If violence is so out of control, government is failing, and that is something I will return to later.
I have also been thinking about the history of women’s rights, which really developed in the 1960s and 1970s. It struck me this was around the same time as the Indigenous rights movement, and both of them were very successful.
With women’s rights, the idea was women should be able to do anything men can. We had to overcome what you could call some of the obstacles of biology. The first of those was childbirth, the only area one can argue women are different from men and always will be. Women used to have babies young and they used to have many of them. If you think about women who were famous for anything before the 1960s, you usually find they were childless, often because they never married. But for the vast majority of women, being pregnant so often and raising those kids made it very difficult to be involved in higher education, well-paid jobs, or leadership programs and positions.
As I said before, I have three children, all under the age of six, and being a mother and MLA is a challenge. Some days I am not sure just how I manage it, but for most women who had families throughout history it has been possible. What changed is most women have fewer children and they start their families later, and there is government assistance with childcare. If you are lucky, you can find a partner like mine who is supportive and understanding, and will even change the occasionally nappy and do some of the cooking. Thanks to all this, women now can enter the public world, take on higher education, jobs, and political careers, or even work in voluntary organisations and do things men said for thousands of years we were incapable of doing. Some of us can even do better than men. This has been the biggest change that women have experienced.
The other big change involving biology is violence. In most relationships, the man is physically stronger than the woman - that is a simple fact - and some men abuse that by hitting and abusing women. This has not affected so many women as having children has, but for those women it has affected the results have been devastating. That is why the feminists of the 1970s put so much effort into setting up women’s refuges and publicising domestic violence. Thanks to those efforts and the support that eventually came from charitable organisations, churches and government, women in most of Australia are much safer than in the past.
In those two areas we have been successful in overcoming the effects of biology on the place of women in society, but that success has not occurred everywhere. I am sure some of you have been thinking in the past few minutes there is one group of women in Australia who have not experienced that success nearly as much as others. They are Indigenous women living in their own communities, and the majority of them live in the Northern Territory.
Many of that group continue to suffer. They have children far too early. They do not finish school or go on to higher education. They are victims of assaults by men; they live with it. It is a sad fact in this regard that Indigenous women of the Territory are probably the worst off of any group of women in the western world. I am not talking about all of us, I want to stress. I am talking about our average rates of teenage pregnancy, literacy and violence. Unfortunately, when you look at this statistical picture you see a group of women who are not only no better off than they were 40 years ago but, in many ways, they are worse off - less educated and less safe.
Last year, Hillary Clinton said:
- I believe that the rights of women and girls is the unfinished business of the 21st century.
I believe she was talking about the Third World but, unfortunately, it also applies to many Indigenous women of the Northern Territory.
Not many have opportunity in life; life is hard. Then again, there are impressive stories about achievements and milestones all women have made in our society, but there is still much to be done: equality in our culture, society and under the law. In our society, women always had a role to play, always carried the burden from one to another.
Like minister Anderson, I agree it is through leadership that we may find our way forward. To date, women have got on with the task unsung and, now, these women need to be recognised and supported for their contribution. However, the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women in positions of leadership is small and not representative of the Territory population, but this mirrors women in the Northern Territory in general, and, therefore, we must be cautious to understand there is a right way not a white or black way.
Focusing on developing and educating women to be leaders is not the only answer, but it is the best place to start. We need to look at the young girls in communities, particularly those who are vulnerable and, more than ever, we need female role models to empower the leaders of our future.
I want to end on a positive note that shows how far we have come. Look around you here in this parliament: 10 members out of 25 are women. A few are misfires on the wrong side of the House, but at least they have the courage to stand up and have a go.
I thank the Minister for Women’s Policy for her bravery, and the Mills government for its maturity and understanding that this is more than just some politically correct stunt, and is a genuine, heartfelt effort to advance the course of women.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this statement before the House, and I have enjoyed listening to the contributions that have come before the House since she delivered her statement. I hope there will be a gentleman somewhere along the way who will participate in the debate; so far it is the women who are leading on this.
It is an interesting statement, touching on many issues affecting women’s lives. It is a fine testimony to the challenges women face, the challenges Indigenous women face and how some of those challenges - including violence, which she describes as going to the heart of women’s equality in any society - have been overcome in the last 40 years and the real barriers and prejudices which still exist have done for years, and some of them will for years to come.
There was an important acknowledgement that the solution to problems facing women does not just lie with the government. While she did not mention this in her statement, I have heard her speak on other occasions about communities and leaders, and the need to step up to the plate to address the issues they face, like violence, at a grass roots level. I could not agree more with that.
In her statement, the minister shared stories and talked about the importance of sharing stories. This seems to be a feature of the statements she delivers in this House. Without diminishing those stories for a moment, because I recognise them as true, it is her endless capacity to identify and highlight what is wrong, but she is less prepared or equipped to address the issues in terms of working towards finding the solutions and getting to the heart of those problems.
As the minister, it is her responsibility to go beyond delivering motherhood statements and to develop and deliver policy which will drive real, lasting and sustainable change. I can certainly see the connection highlighted between being the Minister for Indigenous Advancement and Minister for Women’s Policy, but it is a whole-of-government approach needed to address some of the entrenched issues which we are dealing with, like violence against women. She is absolutely right about dealing with welfare reforms, but I fear she seriously underestimates the tasks ahead when she says there is nothing difficult about them.
There are many reasons why I joined the Labor Party all those years ago, but the strong stand for women’s rights and equality was one of them. Knowing what we all know about the federal Leader of the Opposition, I am a little fearful of how far backwards he will take women’s issues, and the gains which have been so hard fought for for women, should he become the Prime Minister in September.
Under a Labor government in the Territory, I welcomed the first female Chief Minister, Clare Martin, and her hands-on approach to women’s matters, and I especially welcomed her enormous capacity to engage with the community. I remember, in particular, when I first met her and her female colleagues, the member for Karama, the former members for Arnhem and Arafura, at one of the women’s forums prior to my days of becoming a member here. One was held in Nhulunbuy and one at Galiwinku and were enormously well-attended, and we had the eyes and ears of the female members of the Labor Caucus, and very valuable sessions they were.
The minister makes reference to female members of parliament. Just today we have welcomed the new member for Wanguri - I also welcome my new colleague from the August election, the member for Nightcliff - which brings our Caucus numbers to 50% being women. I remember when the minister was elected in 2005, I was holding the election party, as I have done most years at my home, with Labor supporters gathering around watching the results unfold, and it was phenomenal to see the landslide for Labor in 2005. Whilst I certainly did not know her or a great deal about her, I was delighted to see the current minister win what was then the seat of Macdonnell; it was good news for the new member and bad news for the member for Port Darwin, who eventually made his way back here. But there is no doubt that having female representation in parliaments is critical in representing the constituency which is approximately 50% men and 50% women.
I have revisited the ministerial statement delivered by the former Minister for Women’s Policy, Malarndirri McCarthy in 2010, titled Achievements in Developing and Progressing Women’s Policy in the Northern Territory. It gave a report card as to where we were up to at that time following the launch in 2008 of a policy for Northern Territory women titled Building on Our Strengths, a Framework for Action for Women in the Northern Territory 2008–2012. It was the Labor government’s road map for progressing issues important to women in the Northern Territory. In fact, it was important to women everywhere, but it focused specifically on the unique issues Territory women face. It was policy which had the vision that every Territory woman will have equal opportunity to reach her full potential.
This plan was built on information collated from those Community Cabinet women’s forums held from 2003 to 2007 in urban, rural and remote communities right around the Territory, including the ones I attended in Northeast Arnhem Land. It set out key actions in five key priority areas: health and wellbeing; safety; economic security; leadership and participation; and life balance.
I acknowledge the comments of the member for Nightcliff in her contribution about being the young mum she is with two small children and that juggling act between work and family. My children are a little older, but I can certainly relate to the juggling act we go through as women who raise families and choose to pursue jobs and careers. Going back to that report, there were two reports outlining the progress and ongoing work on emerging issues in relation to the key areas identified in building on our strengths.
I spoke in support of that ministerial statement. Many members of this House did, both male and female, and the member for Namatjira spoke at length during that debate in 2010 raising many very valid issues. However, the minister now needs to go a step further. She needs to deliver sound and robust policy which addresses the issues she raises now and the ones she raised in the debate on women’s policy in 2010 - policy which will translate into reforms or legislation which will advance the interest of all women in the Territory whether they be first Australians, migrant women or otherwise, and whether they live on the Stuart Highway or in the far flung remote regions, and whether they be young girls, teenagers, mums, working women, elderly grandmothers or, young grandmothers for that matter.
I have seen the CLP’s pre-election women’s policy document titled ‘Territory Women Do Matter’ and note the member for Nightcliff has tabled that document. I encourage the minister to pick up this policy and run with it as an excellent starting point for developing further women’s policy in the Northern Territory. This should be beyond politics and have bipartisan support in delivering the very best outcomes for women in the Northern Territory. The current document makes some very valuable and astute suggestions dealing with the protection of women, in particular, on page 2 of that document, addressing deaths associated with domestic violence. I will read a few paragraphs from it.
- A Country Liberals Government, within the first twelve months, will investigate the establishment of a Domestic Violence Death Review process.
The main aim of Domestic Violence Death Review is to compile and interpret detailed data to improve services and reduce domestic homicides through a systems response. Domestic violence-related deaths are viewed as a connected group, rather than isolated events, and focus on systemic and procedural issues, not on the actions or negligence of individuals.
Domestic violence death review processes:
investigate the context surrounding the death risk factors, points of intervention and service responses and effectiveness
review historical processes and incidents involving domestic violence to identify patterns and possible preventative signs
recommend preventative strategies and policy and law reform.
Domestic Violence Death Review processes are well-established in the US and Canada and across Australia with NT and Tasmania the only two places not to have such a system.
Clearly, this document is on a very good path with suggestions dealing with domestic violence and a clear process about reviewing those deaths as a result of domestic violence. I commend the Minister for Women’s Policy for the document and commend you, Madam Speaker, as the member for Goyder who had Women’s Policy as a shadow responsibility when you sat on this side.
Dealing with domestic violence is critical. As the minister highlighted in her statement:
- Women are being bashed and abused, women are dying. Safety is not just women’s business, it is everyone’s business.
The minister has backflipped on the alcohol reforms introduced by Labor which she stridently supported in 2011 when a member of the opposition bench as an Independent. She gave her full support to the bill in the House on 5 May 2011. I quote from the Parliamentary Record:
- … I support the government’s bill because I believe it is trying to do something. I want to put it in very simple terms; alcoholics are sick people, and alcohol is the biggest troublemaker we have. When you look at kids not going to school, domestic violence, child abuse, it is all related to one thing, and we say alcohol is the troublemaker in Aboriginal communities.
She went on:
- There are days and days, if not weeks and weeks, we live in our community in harmony. Then, one day - normally it is pay day, Thursday, Friday, Saturday - there is an increase of alcohol consumption and alcohol coming into the community through grog runners and, all of a sudden, we have this huge problem. It is the biggest contributor to many things in our society. Our society has just been normalised through one thing, and that is alcohol. This bill is taking steps to improve how society operates, and how Indigenous people operate within the realms of coming into hub towns like Darwin, Tennant Creek, Katherine and Alice Springs.
What I see, not just in Alice Springs but in other places like Darwin, tells me it is not just a black issue. It is an issue across our Territory population, amongst all Territorians. It is up to us, as people who have been duly elected to this House, to be sensible in the way we legislate, and this comparison of how we encourage business to operate in the Territory - and that is all our pubs - but, at the same time, bringing in something that looks after our Territorians who are consuming alcohol.
She has gone from that strident support to supporting the axing of the Banned Drinker Register – an election commitment of the CLP - and other reforms without evaluation or any proper assessment, and in the face of so many harsh critics of the CLP’s actions from police to Indigenous organisations, health workers, hospitals, and normal everyday people who have inundated online forums and talkback radio, as I said previously. Worse, they have axed it with absolutely nothing to take its place.
I know only too well the devastating effects of alcohol which I see around the Territory. The minister is quite right - I hark back to her comments from that debate in 2011. It is an issue which impacts Indigenous as well as non-Indigenous people.
Following the election, when I visited the Tiwi Islands with the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Barkly, people were deeply concerned about the prospect of the election promise of the member for Arafura which would see the return of full-strength beer to the local social club at Wurrumiyanga. This ignited an ill-conceived debate about opening up the ‘conversation’ - as the Chief Minister termed it - about allowing alcohol to return to communities, including those who battled to ban it, and the possibility of reopening the rivers of grog and, with it, all the misery that accompanies it, especially domestic violence.
How returning alcohol to communities can support a reduction in domestic violence is simply beyond me. The Nhulunbuy electorate and its people fiercely protect the highly-effective alcohol management plan we have had in place since March 2008, which is, in fact, a tougher version of the Banned Drinker Register. It is not a silver bullet for reducing alcohol abuse and protecting innocent people from violence, but it does make a significant impact. I was pleased to hear the Health Minister, the Alcohol Policy minister, in the earlier statement about alcohol, make an acknowledgement about the success in northeast Arnhem Land.
The minister is all too quick to dismiss Labor’s efforts and achievements around women’s policy. As the shadow for Indigenous Policy, I will highlight some of the achievements in addressing Indigenous women’s health and other issues which affect women who live remotely. This included the mandatory reporting of family and domestic violence, a milestone for the Territory. I recall a lengthy and very emotional debate on the floor of this Chamber, and a bill I proudly supported, as did the member for Namatjira when she was the member for Macdonnell.
It was a Labor government priority to work in partnership with the federal government to improve the health of Indigenous women. This has included: a four-and-a-half year improvement in life expectancy for Aboriginal women from 65.2 years in the year 2000 to 69.8 years in 2006; the Indigenous infant mortality rate has fallen by 37%, from 25 deaths per 1000 births in 2000 to 15.7 per 1000 in 2006, recognising that rate is still too high but is closing; and a dramatic decline in mortality from cervical cancer, falling by 64% in non-Aboriginal women and by 92% for Aboriginal women between 1991 and 2003. I suspect there are more recent figures than those I have quoted today, and I will make it my business to track down those figures.
Employing community-based workers in our community health centres and improving access to health promotion programs and community engagement has also been critical, and Labor made good progress in this area when it was in government. These professional workers are at the coalface so often between modern medicine and Indigenous people. They are, in some ways, cultural brokers and their role in overcoming the barriers of culture, communication and primary healthcare cannot be underestimated or undervalued.
This is true not just for those who work in health. There is also a need to understand Indigenous women face disproportionately higher barriers to accessing formal education, often leading to vulnerability and exposure of Indigenous women and girls to poverty and violence. Education is the passport out of poverty. It is what puts girls and, for that matter boys, on the pathway to a future and choices in life. The principle remains the same, be they Indigenous or non-Indigenous.
I note the minister is continuing with Labor’s initiative to provide scholarships for women who wish to study. I saw that media release the other day and I see that as an incredibly positive initiative to continue which allows access to, should they be successful, a scholarship for those pursuing courses through higher education or through VET. I commend the minister for the continuation of those scholarships.
Under a Labor government, we delivered support for young mums out bush through family support workers through the successful Families as First Teachers program, and worked with the Australian government to establish early childhood centres so women can return to work to earn an income and know their little ones are well cared for in a place which is not about providing a babysitting service but engaging children at the start of the pathway to a life of learning. It is also about recognising and understanding that the focus on women’s economic security helps to underpin our work to reduce violence against women.
Our strategic directions for women’s policy in the Northern Territory included the development of a women’s safe strategy to be progressed as a whole-of-government response, building on and linking with our initiatives such as our alcohol management strategy, the now defunct BDR, and mandatory reporting of domestic and family violence.
I turn to the involvement of and the promotion of women into leadership roles in the Northern Territory. During Labor’s term of government, the Northern Territory had the highest percentage of female elected representatives in comparison to other jurisdictions, and that is be proud of ...
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time for the member for Nhulunbuy to complete her remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms WALKER: I will not be too much longer. Thirty-seven per cent of elected representatives were women, 20% of chief executives were women - I am talking about in the public sector - a figure which is pretty good, but can always be higher. Sadly, that current figure of women in chief executive roles in the public sector in the Territory is zero. It is zero for women amongst the CEOs of our government agencies thanks to a few people who have seen fit to sack those people, beginning with our female Deputy Chief Minister who sacked Clare Gardiner-Barnes, who I pay tribute to for the incredibly hard work she did in the downgraded Office of Children and Families.
We can add to the Deputy Chief Minister’s hit list the sacking of the Chair of the Power and Water Corporation, who also served on the EPA when it was first established. Not to be outdone, the Minister for Women’s Policy has claimed a scalp as well with the sacking of Olga Havnen who dared to provide frank and fearless advice as the Northern Territory Coordinator-General for Remote Services and for simply doing her job which, interestingly, was created by the minister when she was the Labor minister in that role. It is nothing short of ironic that in the minister’s statement she acknowledged the absence of women at the top level of business in CEO roles and the imbalance there, but did not recognise the terrible state of female CEOs in the public sector of the Northern Territory.
Under Labor, 25% of mayors and presidents were women - again a figure that could always be higher, but definitely on the right path. Quickly continuing in the vein of women in local government, I mention that in 2010 the Tiwi Islands Shire Council and Darwin City Council received national recognition for their participation in the 5050 Vision - Councils for Gender Equity Program, which was designed to bring about cultural and organisational change in councils in order to increase the number of women in leadership roles in local government. We must continue to fight for and promote women being engaged in local government, as well as other sectors within their communities.
I am acutely aware of the challenges to local government reforms and look forward to seeing the options paper from the Local Government Minister’s office following the anticipated deliberations of the current working group. One thing I do know is the reforms have engaged a greater number of women than ever before in working as part of local advisory boards and, as I mentioned, as elected shire councillors.
I am coming to my close now, and I acknowledge that in Question Time today the Minister for Women’s Policy invited me on what she described as the ‘beautiful journey ahead’ with women’s policy. I am sure there are elements of the journey that will be beautiful as we celebrate the wins and the successes of women across the Territory. However, let us keep in mind that for many women their journey through the Territory is a painful, hard journey and one where obstacles are incredibly difficult to overcome. We need to see Territory women and the issues they face. The minister needs to recognise, as we all do, that as long as we have a government which is failing women and fails to address alcohol issues, we are doing nothing to advance the interests of women.
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing her statement before the House. I look forward to the promised policy document which she says she will be delivering, and hope it contains tangible direction and solutions which can work towards advancing the interests and the welfare of women in the Northern Territory
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister for Women’s Policy for bringing this statement on today. I would have been much more gracious in my support of her statement but I was completely disappointed by my colleagues, the members for Nightcliff and Nhulunbuy, politicising this issue. We wonder why women continue to be our own worst enemy.
If you want to talk about failures, I can tell you I was very entrenched in women’s issues before my time in politics and I can list an arm’s length of failures of Labor policies and practices that were, frankly, absolutely appalling. But, I will not. If you want to talk about federal Labor, look what they have done to the childcare system. Now you need to have an education degree and be a 12th grade teacher to look after one-year-olds. It is ridiculous. We wonder why prices are increasing …
Ms Walker: Oh, so you see child carers as babysitters. That might change when you become …
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms FINOCCHIARO: Member for Nhulunbuy, you have had your chance. Get over it.
The other thing that makes me furious, is that for some reason - and this is pre-politics and today I am talking of - Labor cannot ever acknowledge the contribution women from a different side of politics make. It is unbelievable that the member for Nhulunbuy referred to the member for Nightcliff, which is great, but failed to even cast her eye over to this side of the House to see what we are doing as well. With women’s issues you need to cut the line on politics. We all believe we can deliver women’s policy in a different way but, at the end of the day we are all women, and this is a joint journey. If we do not do it together, no wonder we have not come very far in 30 or 40 years.
On the point of CEOs, it also upsets me that there are no female CEOs. But, do you know what? It is about merit. We are not here to have an argument about quotas, but if we want to go down that road then, perhaps, minister, we can have the argument about quotas and employment on merit some other time.
Women’s Policy is an area I am passionate about. As a young woman in a public position as humbling as this one, it is my personal obligation to make a valuable contribution to the advancement of Territory women. This is about the advancement of all Territory women, not Labor women, Liberal women, or Green women - all women.
Madam Speaker, you are a staunch advocate of women’s equality and, like the Minister for Women’s Policy, have strong views on the direction in which our government must pave the way for all women to be free from the tyranny of domestic violence and subordination, inequality in pay and superannuation, scant access to maternity leave and related entitlements, inflexible working arrangements, childcare shortages, glass ceilings, quotas - you name it, the list goes on.
I have said before I am proud to be a member of the Terry Mills Country Liberals government, the composition of which is rich and diverse in age, race, religion and, importantly, gender. I am proud to be a young woman in the Northern Territory.
In my maiden speech I informed the House that I am one of the youngest, if not the youngest, member of parliament in the Northern Territory at the age of 27. Whilst this is a milestone in the Territory, I join a strong group of female parliamentarians who have broken age barriers across the country such as Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, elected to the Senate for South Australia in 2007 at the age of 25, and the youngest women to enter Commonwealth parliament. Natasha Stott Despoja was previously the youngest following her election to the Senate in 1995 at the age of 26. Note I am speaking about women from all parties …
Ms Walker: I spoke of women from all parties.
Ms FINOCCHIARO: You had your turn, member for Nhulunbuy.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms FINOCCHIARO: Kelly Vincent MLC was elected to the South Australian parliament in 2010 at 21, representing the Dignity for Disability Party, and is the youngest woman to be elected to any Australian parliament. Roslyn Dundas, elected to the ACT Legislative Assembly in 2001 at 23, representing the Australian Democrats, was formerly the youngest women to be elected to an Australian parliament.
Currently, in our parliament we have four women out of eight in opposition, and six women in government out of 16. That includes a female Speaker, female Deputy Chief Minister, and female Opposition Leader. We have a female federal member for Solomon, and a female Senator. Let us not forget Hon Sally Thomas, our female Administrator. We also have a female Chief Magistrate, female magistrates, and female Justices of the Supreme Court.
I further note the City of Darwin has seven female councillors representing more than half its elected members, and the City of Palmerston has three councillors representing just under half its elected members. I apologise to regions outside of those; I do not have those details. This is a fantastic situation for ratepayers in respect to council positions as they will receive the full value of the contribution women make at the highest levels. We must continue to push women to participate in government at all levels.
I refer to an article I found on the Internet called A Report on Women in Leadership dated 17 June 2009:
- While there are about 12 male board directors to every woman board director, when women finally make it onto the boards of Australia’s top 200 companies they appear to be punching above their weight according to a new research report released today by the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency (EOWA). However, women executive managers in the same companies are faring badly compared to their male colleagues.
Further down the article.
- However, at the executive manager level, women are being funnelled into support roles and remain underrepresented in key leadership positions. Women hold only 7% of key management personnel positions, those positions designated by a company in its annual report as having the most authority and responsibility for planning, directing and controlling activities of the business. Women are more likely to hold positions that have a low likelihood of being key management personnel such as human resources and public affairs.
The acting director said:
- This report adds to EOWA’s Census of Women in Leadership and to our understanding of why women are so underrepresented in senior leadership roles in Australian businesses. Sadly, regardless of which way you look at the data, women are still disadvantaged and their skills are being underutilised.
In 2010, I joined an organisation called Business and Professional Women Darwin. At that time it had seven members and was on the brink of being closed down by the national board. Its reputation amongst Territory women was not great and it lacked direction. I am very proud to say that during my time as President, and with the support of my committee at the time, we were able to grow the club to the largest BPW in Australia. The Leader of the Opposition was very supportive of us at that time, and I thank her for that. We enhanced this brand and it is now a reliable and quality source of personal and professional development for all Territory women.
It was at this time I first realised that, despite being in absolute denial that gender equality was an issue in the modern day, issues such as equal pay for women for equal work, maternity leave, and superannuation entitlements remained an issue in today’s society. One thing I learnt over my two-year tenure as president was that Territory women had a thirst for knowledge and they desperately wanted a forum where they felt safe, welcomed, and where there were no stupid questions - a place where experienced and inexperienced women from all backgrounds could enjoy each other’s company and enrich their lives through dialogue and support.
I do not speak today about one women’s organisation of which I have intimate experience. As I opened my eyes to this world where women remain significantly disadvantaged to men, I learnt of the thirst of women for all manner of women’s fora. There are amazing women’s organisations in the Northern Territory. Some of these are: Women’s Network NT; the Australian Women’s and Local Government Association; the Australian Federation of Graduate Women; Women at Work; Women’s Lawyers Association; Australian Women’s Chamber of Commerce and Industry; Country Women’s Association; Women in Resources, and the list goes on. There are also the women’s organisations that provide key services to women, such as the YWCA, Ruby Gaea, and NT Working Women’s Centre.
I will quote from the federal government’s Workplace Gender Equity Agency website, what I found under the heading of ‘Why gender equality matters’:
- Gender equality is the outcome where women and men are enabled to access and enjoy the same rewards, resources and opportunities regardless of gender. In the workplace, gender equality looks like ...
I am not sure anyone has seen this, but this is what it looks like:
- equal remuneration between women and men for work of equal or comparable value
the removal of barriers to the full and equal participation of women in the workforce
full and genuine access to all occupations and industries, including to leadership roles
protection from discrimination on the basis of gender in relation to family and caring responsibilities for both women and men.
When we talk about equality of women, people often reflect on how terrible things used to be, and they were terrible. There, obviously, continues to be a failure in society to recognise the importance, contribution and the value of women in our community and workplaces. We know - we have known for some time - that the key issues for women in the workplace are childcare and paid parental leave, domestic violence and work, the gender pay gap, job flexibility, sex-based harassment, and women in leadership. All of these issues must be resolved before we can have gender equality.
I pick up on the minister’s comment that women who have been successful - which I add, can be defined in many ways, and I believe the minister is referring to all definitions of successful - need to lend a hand to younger women. The power of role models and mentors cannot be underestimated. I, and I am sure many other women in this House, have benefitted from the wisdom of women who came before me. I add value to those women who will come after me.
In 2012, the average standard pay gap in Australia was 17.5%. That is translated to a gap of $252.80 a week. I have said before and will say it again - and if I have to say it very, very slowly, I will, for the member for Nelson – these numbers mean a woman’s male counterpart worked 64 days less than her last year to earn the same income.
I refer to some quotes I found in an article completed by the Workplace Gender Equality Agency called ‘GradStats - starting salaries’:
- The 2012 GradStats report by Graduate Careers Australia shows median full-time employment starting salaries for:
men as $55 000 ...
women $50 000 ...
The different in starting salaries increased from $2000 to $5000 in 2012 ...
So, it actually went up:
- Men’s earnings have increased over the year whilst those of women have not.
I remind this House that I was born in 1984 and, at that time, women were earning 22.3% less than men. The maths is simple. In 28 long years, we have managed to close the gender pay equity gap by a pathetic 4.8%. To top it off, in the healthcare and social assistance sectors, which are sectors of our community in which thousands of women are employed, the gap has increased to 32.6%.
I highlight the comparison of the Northern Territory with other states. For 2012, the Northern Territory had a 20% gender pay gap, which was the third highest in the country. It went up 3.9% from the previous year, which is an enormous worry. That can all sound very dramatic, but whose responsibility is this? I believe a few of us have said today that the answer is all of us; it is the responsibility of all of us. It is men, women, Labor, Liberal - it is everyone’s responsibility.
I am proud to be a flexible employer of a mother with a young child. It was an absolute no-brainer for me to hire Angie as my electorate officer, knowing full well she had a young child and she dearly wanted to spend as much time with Kayla as possible. Who could blame her? I do not have children but it takes a truly heartless person to fail to acknowledge the importance of the mother-child bond. Unlike Angie, who is able to enjoy spending time with her daughter and work full-time, so many women continue to battle for flexible work arrangements such as job sharing, quality part-time, and working from home.
I cannot understand the resistance of some employers to implement flexible working arrangements. If only they could see how much more productive a mother or a carer would be if they were happy, content, and settled in their decision to return to work. In addition, studies show that women are highly productive and make direct benefit to the bottom line. I quote from the Workplace Gender Equality website:
- A 2007 Catalyst study shows the correlation between profit and an increased number of women board directors in Fortune 500 companies … The Catalyst report found return on equity was 53% higher, return on sales 42% higher, and return on invested capital was 66% higher.
My colleague, the member for Nightcliff, is a strong role model for working mums and I applaud her for her courage to run in the last election, while pregnant, to win the seat, for juggling a toddler and a newborn, and for ensuring her new son was nurtured even during the sittings of parliament. I am proud of you for being true to yourself and your family while still carrying out this all-encompassing position. You have contributed to the advancement of Territory women, and for that I thank you. Equally, my colleagues, the members for Arnhem and Araluen.
Too many of our highly-talented women exit the workforce, denying us all the diversity and quality of leadership we so urgently need. There are some alarming issues for women in the future, and I spoke of them in my maiden speech. Too often, women’s needs for flexibility see them in lower paid and more casual work, and this has severe long-term consequences for their economic wellbeing. We know this is increasingly threatening their housing security, and it most certainly threatens their superannuation and retirement opportunities. By 2019, it is estimated that women will have accumulated only half the superannuation of men.
In 2011-12, there were 4428 female victims of assault in the Northern Territory, which is almost twice the assault rate for males. In the same year, Indigenous women made up over half of all assault victims. This needs to be trending down, not up.
I had the benefit of a good education and a stable family, but many other Territory girls do not. I am fortunate to have a loving partner who respects me and my ambitions, but many women do not. It is the responsibility of all of us to ensure there is a strong future for girls and young women. We cannot let another 28 years go by so the young woman in this chair in the future has to, in her maiden speech, inform the House that the gender pay equity gap has closed by a mere 4.8%.
Madam Speaker, I commend the statement to the House.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I thank the government for bringing the Women’s Policy statement to the House, albeit lacking on detail and another motherhood statement. It is great it is here and that we can debate women’s policy.
The Labor government had a series of very strong achievements in women’s policy, and I will be touching on those in this speech so the record can be set straight in this debate.
In 2008, we launched a policy for Northern Territory women titled Building on Our Strengths, A Framework for Action for Women in the Northern Territory, 2008-2012. It was our road map for issues important to women in the Territory. The policy had the vision that every Territory woman would have equal opportunity to reach her full potential. This plan was built on information collated from Community Cabinet women’s forums held between 2003 and 2007 in urban, rural, and remote communities across the Territory.
It set out key actions in five priority areas: health and wellbeing; safety; economic security; leadership and participation; and life balance. We published two reports outlining progress and work on emerging issues in relation to the key areas identified in Building on Our Strengths. Key progress included the all-important introduction of mandatory reporting of serious harm from domestic violence, a measure that other jurisdictions in Australia have yet to match. Along with this legislative change there came all-important resources: $15m over three years to improve family violence service provision, data collection, and community education.
In 2002, the establishment of the annual Tribute to Territory Women gave all Territorians the opportunity to recognise, celebrate, and commemorate the remarkable women in their lives and communities.
There is the annual Chief Minister’s Study Scholarship for Women - I see that is out at the moment - encouraging women to undertake education and training to enhance their employment, general life outcomes, and, ultimately, improve their economic security. The scholarships were introduced in 2001 and targets disadvantaged women who would not be able to undertake further study without assistance. It is administered by Charles Darwin University.
Territory 2030 had a vision that the Northern Territory, as an inclusive society, values and embraces cultural diversity and promotes gender equity as a right for all Territorians. I note we have achieved gender equity on the opposition benches with four men and four women Labor members of parliament. I do not think there would be another opposition or government team anywhere in any Australian parliament which has achieved gender equity, but I am happy for someone to do the research on that and correct me if they want.
The Northern Territory government’s policy for women, Building on our Strengths, A Framework for Action for Women in the Northern Territory, 2008-2012, had an objective of increasing women’s participation and representation in leadership roles and creating opportunities for developing and exercising women’s decision-making skills. In 2003, the NT government committed to increasing women’s leadership and participation with that aspirational goal of 50% representation for women on boards. Development of the Women on Boards initiative supported the appointment of more women into leadership positions across the Territory.
Specific initiatives being developed within our strategic directions for women’s policy included: improving women’s representation and gender equality in board appointments through Territory 2030 and A Working Future; improved sex and gender disaggregated data monitoring, evaluation, and reporting through gender equality action plan; developing a gender equality action plan setting out clear and measurable outcomes for women which will inform best practice and gender analysis; and supporting the national plan to reduce violence against women and their children.
We had some proposed strategic directions for women’s policy. We had proposed to develop and implement a whole-of-government gender equality action plan for the Territory, setting out clear and measurable outcomes for women and gender analysis to inform government decision-making and assess outcomes.
I am pointing out what we had proposed so we see whether or not the Office of Women’s Policy continues in this vein or there is a very stark change. We were proposing focusing on improving women’s economic security, financial independence and workforce participation, ensuring that women, as well as men, equally benefit from the resources boom and economic growth in the Territory.
I remember seeing this incredibly dynamic DVD of young Aboriginal women talking to the camera about the participation in the workforce opportunities they had, particularly through the resources sector. It was a DVD that had been put together by our then Minister for Women’s Policy, Malarndirri McCarthy. If there are any copies of that kicking around in government, it would probably be useful to see. You might want to rebadge and rehash the DVD. It was an incredibly powerful message to young women about the opportunities they had in their participation in the workforce. Of course, participation in the workforce brings all-important economic security.
Developing a whole-of-government Northern Territory women’s safety strategy as an action plan was part of our COAG commitment in the national plan to reduce violence against women and their children. That was to run from 2010 to 2022, which would bring together a focus on gender-based violence; that is, violence against women. We were also continuing to focus on actions to improve women’s leadership through local government, board appointments, senior government appointments, and supporting leadership.
The issue of senior government appointments comes up again and again now we have had a change of government. There is deep disappointment across the community that the CLP removed the female CEOs of government. At the end of the day, governments make their decisions of who they have heading up their agencies. However, we now have a situation in the Northern Territory where there is no woman heading any agency. This has certainly been met with a great and deep disappointment in the Northern Territory and we feel we have headed back some decades.
I encourage the government to look at opportunity. Of course, it is always a merit-based selection at the CEO level. There is no doubt about that. But, there are some awesome women out there and I encourage you to consider some of them for opportunities in the future. It was very disappointing to see the sacking of the Under Treasurer; she was highly regarded. She has been picked up in a contract position but is no longer a CEO. That is an incredible waste of talent, but I have no doubt she is an asset to the Health department in her new contracted position.
In relation to Indigenous women’s health and remote issues, we made it a priority to work in partnership to improve the health of Indigenous women. We saw that all-important four-and-a-half-year improvement in life expectancy for Aboriginal women going from 65.2 years in 2000 up to 69.8 years in 2006. The Indigenous infant mortality rate fell by 37%. There were 25 deaths per 1000 births in 2000 and it fell to 15.7 deaths per 1000 in 2006. A big breakthrough was cervical cancer rates falling by 61%, and that dramatic decline in mortality from cervical cancer falling by 64% in non-Aboriginal women and 92% for Aboriginal women between 1991 and 2003.
We also employed community-based workers in our community health centres, improved access to health promotion programs and community engagement and, as part of A Working Future, ensured the issues which affected rural and remote women were considered and integrated in the delivery of government services and policy in the Territory. Understanding Indigenous women face disproportionately higher barriers to accessing formal education, often leading to vulnerability and exposure of Indigenous women and girls to poverty and violence, supporting our young mums out bush was critical to much of the policy work we established, whether it was through our family support workers or that really good Parents as First Teachers program first trialled in Maningrida and then rolled out to different sites across the Territory.
We had been working with the Australian government to establish early childhood centres. I hope the current Territory government sees that the reality in funding relationships is you take what opportunities come your way in areas - particularly in early childhood, which is critical to the learning process - where the Commonwealth offer you a part of the funding. Welcome to federal/state financial relations; it has always been thus. To say no because they are not coughing up the full amount means what is the alternative? Not have the service? Not have those early childhood centres? Or face funding the full amount from your own Territory coffers? Every incoming government is angered by what it sees as not enough of the Commonwealth funding pie. We get that, but the reality is they will meet their own budget requirements and set the amount on the table they want.
You can beat your drum all you like, but you will not get additional funding. Meanwhile, the kids miss out on early childhood centres. Politics is politics, but early childhood is critical to changing the pathways of poverty. Think twice before you simply see it as a drum-banging exercise. The Treasurer has taken that approach with education. I hope the new Education minister takes somewhat of a different approach, given he was a study of federal financial relations in the past.
Understanding the focus on women’s economic security helps to understand our work in reducing violence against women. Our strategic directions for women’s policy included the development of the women’s safety strategy to progress on a whole-of-government response, building and linking on our initiatives such as our alcohol management strategies, our Enough is Enough reforms and, of course, the bedrock of that work, mandatory reporting of domestic and family violence.
I acknowledge the great work that is done at the front of the organisations I have worked closely with, recognising Dawn House and Ruby Gaea, DAIWS in Darwin, and support organisations such as the YWCA, the Working Women’s Centre and, of course, the Top End Women’s Legal Service. These are all crucial services. In the Northern Territory, what we obviously need to achieve is an expansion and roll-out of these support services across our remote areas.
Fortunately, Commonwealth funding has provided safety houses, and we have seen some cooling-off places for men. I am really concerned about the funding for cooling-off places for men which has been mentioned in different contributions tonight. When you are looking at women’s policy and the advancement of safety and wellbeing of women, you cannot ignore the support services you provide to men. Ensuring that agenda does not disappear across the width of the Territory is critical. I look forward to seeing whatever advancements in resources are provided by this Territory government in the men’s cooling-off places, the programs they can run in them, as well as the critical health and wellbeing services for men. If we start to make greater inroads into that then, surely, we are making greater inroads into the preventative work you need in the harmony of our communities of our men and our women, ultimately, benefitting our children.
You will always get many issues raised in debates around women’s policy. I listened closely to the contributions, including the contribution of the member for Drysdale. I thank her for acknowledging the work I did to support the Business and Professional Women network in giving them access to the Australian Institute of Company Directors courses. I hope the incoming government continues to support that network financially in giving women access to the course because, if you can access workshops and courses for the Australian Institute of Company Directors, then it goes a long way to meeting that aspirational target of 50% women’s representation on boards.
Talking about boards, there are real opportunities in the Territory. Many community and sporting organisations have boards. I am not just talking the ASX 200. We are realistic about this. The first step, surely, is our own back yard in giving women access to the workshops and courses through that funding support, which has been beneficial.
The Office of Women’s Policy loves consulting and holding forums. They held some 64 public forums across Alice Springs and Darwin over the formation of their latest round of policy work for us. That is a good thing. The one thing I have noticed in the area of women’s policy is the debate is alive and well. Give women the opportunity to come and debate because, as heard in the contributions this evening, there is an enormous diversity of issues as there is such a diversity of backgrounds. What works for me and what I need as a single parent of many dependants on a fairly high income is not what works, obviously, for an Aboriginal woman living in a remote community in the Northern Territory who has a whole lot of family pressures and requirements and limited access to services. Let us not assume, in a debate about women’s policy, that one-size-fits-all, we have done a great deal of research in the past and, therefore, that will be the bedrock of how we go forward. Let us not assume that; let us continue to consult. That is a message of hope I send out.
I do not, obviously, have a high opinion of the Minister for Women’s Policy in this government. One of her failings is she makes assumptions about what everyone thinks. I urge members opposite to consider that and to watch carefully what occurs in the formulation of women’s policy, and ensure that underpinning their direction is some evidence - some forums and workshops. Take into account where they are held and how they have reached out to the diversity. There are great, strong women within our multicultural groups across Darwin and Palmerston. I met some awesome women representing multicultural groups in Alice Springs, for example. So, let us not assume we all share the same issues. We, clearly, do not. The point of the forums and consultations is to fleece out the variety of issues, so you can get a more well-rounded policy and a set of well-rounded implementation plans.
We have heard about the continuing difference in the pay gap, and we have a long way to go. I am always inspired by the young women coming through. Regardless of what workplace I was in, I have always seen part of my role is to support and nurture the women younger than me and encourage them to do whatever they want in pursuing their career and knowing they can bring family along on that incredible and exciting journey.
I am really proud we had a pregnant candidate for Nightcliff who then became our ‘mum’ member for Nightcliff. I was the first woman in the parliament of the Northern Territory to have a pregnancy and a child in office. I broke new ground there and I said to women, ‘It is not easy, but is certainly not impossible’. It makes us a better parliamentarian at times to have those experiences, because people are not shy in approaching you in a shopping centre when you have the baby in the pram, who is chewing on a biscuit, to have a conversation with you about the pressures they confront in their family life.
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing the policy statement forward and I look forward to seeing the journey we go on in women’s policy in the Northern Territory. I hope it brings forward a great deal of diversity.
Mrs PRICE (Stuart): Madam Speaker, I support the member for Namatjira on her statement on women’s policy. I am a woman with a daughter who is a single parent and has three children. I know how difficult it is rearing children on your own, having to feed them and make sure you maintain your motherhood. There are many women in the same situation. As the member for Karama said, we do not share the same issues and I acknowledge that. We all come from different parts of life and, yes there is a multicultural world out there as well.
In Alice Springs, we have Indians and Africans, people from Sudan, who have come from a different background and a much harsher environment than ours, and I acknowledge that. We all have to live in the Northern Territory and share the resources, the funding, and the agencies to survive as women. I am grateful we have this women’s policy within our government because it will give us a chance to make it better. We want to make it better.
I sat on the Violence Against Women Advisory Group with the federal government and was fighting for women in the Northern Territory to ensure they were recognised as human beings who were not just there as a wife or a mother; they ensure this whole economy keeps going in order to survive. I chaired the Indigenous Affairs Advisory Council and had conversations with the then minister, Malarndirri McCarthy, about setting up women’s councils in the Northern Territory - one for the northern part and one for the southern region - so we can give our women a stronger voice to be able to express themselves in a safe environment. It is a big issue, this women’s policy. We all have to support it because women are the lifeline. We need support from other women as well.
I am a grandmother and I support my daughter with her three children. I see other grandmothers in remote communities who have 20 grandchildren they have to look after in a three-bedroom house. It is difficult and we all come from different parts of the Northern Territory, whether we are rural, remote, or are a pastoralist’s wife who lives on Undoolya Station, Andado, Amanbidji or Mistake Creek. Those women need our support as well; they are isolated and we should not forget that. These women live in isolation, but they manage to keep their families going. They are the ones we should not forget.
We should not forget them whilst we are in the Chamber talking about whether one shoe fits all or whether the previous government had great ideas on how this policy should work and what should have happened to it. Instead of saying, ‘That is our policy, you are copying us, we got that together’, why do we not just put that aside and get on with making it work for every woman, including the young women.
There are many young women who have become parents who sometimes need direction from us women politicians. We must not forget that. I have young women in my immediate family who I am forever trying to encourage to be part of this whole economy and this whole world that is ever changing in front of their eyes. We are always on the back foot with our young girls. If we want to criticise this women’s policy, let us not forget that whilst you are saying that, you are ignoring the other women who do not have a voice. You are ignoring the very women who will be our future women leaders. That is what we are fighting for.
We can have a policy that does not have substance, but we can build on it. We should not rubbish it. It is not about us, it is about the future of our women and their health, lifestyle, and wellbeing. Let us open a pathway for them and give them an incentive to look toward, to work for, instead of being grubby to each other in here. Let us not forget that.
Whilst I was on the VAWAG committee, the Violence Against Women Advisory Group, I never heard any Labor member say to me ‘Good on you Bess, you are doing a good job. You are doing a great job for the Northern Territory, for the women and children.’ Whilst I supported the intervention, did I hear anything from Labor to say ‘Bess you are doing a good job, we support you’. No, I did not. I sat here listening to everybody else congratulating each other about the tremendous work they have done as women. What about this little black buck over here? I never got anything from Labor. But, it is all right, because I did not support their agenda. I was supporting women and children who were being abused. Young kids aged six were not fed and not allowed to go to school because they were hungry. Let us not get too caught up on this paper because it does not have substance. Let us build on it and make it better for all women in the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, that is all I have to say.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I am the ninth or 10th speaker and so far the only male. Come on boys! It is important, as males, that we contribute to this debate. What I am about to say will probably surprise many people in regard to my beliefs on women’s issues.
I remind honourable members we do not live in a perfect world. I was pleased to read reports in recent weeks about Malala Yousafzai who was released from hospital in England. This is the young lady of 14 years of age who was shot in the head by the Taliban in Pakistan for having the audacity to want to learn to read and write. There is some suggestion she should be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize and, considering what she symbolically stands for, that is not necessarily a bad nomination.
I will tell an anecdote from when I was a police officer many years ago when I was sent to a place in Ludmilla - one of the small cul-de-sacs off Wells Street - to a domestic violence event. When we arrived, a woman was on her knees in her underwear in the middle of the road and her partner or husband had her by the throat and was punching her about the head. She, clearly, was fairly distressed and, when we prised him off her and threw him in the back of the van, we tried to get an assault complaint.
This was in the days before domestic violence legislation was available to us. The way to proceed in a domestic violence situation was you extracted an assault complaint. All too sadly, despite our very best efforts to get a complaint of assault – in fact, aggravated assault as she was injured - the woman concerned was so terrified that she accepted as her lot in life that all she had to do was not upset the husband and her life would be better than it was if she upset him by making a complaint. As a footnote to that story, we finally ended up charging him with nothing more than disorderly behaviour in a public place.
When the magistrate heard the circumstances of the disorderly behaviour he wanted to know why we had not gone further with the assault. We had to explain to the magistrate that was all we could do. Fortunately, being a wise magistrate, he found that form of disorderly behaviour quite serious. That was only one instance, if twice in my whole police career, where I saw a person gaoled for a disorderly behaviour offence, and rightly so.
However, a metaphor also percolated through that story because I heard what the Minister for Women’s Policy had to say and was struck how we almost accept - particularly in remote communities where the standards of education are not all they could be - whilst it is not as pronounced as the example I gave, on a social level, that same position. It is almost as if the women in those circumstances resign themselves to that is what life is about, shrug their shoulders, try not to get beaten up, and get on with it the best they can in looking after their kids. That is hardly what you would call a satisfactory life. Unfortunately, it is an accurate description of too many lives in remote communities.
It was not that long ago in western culture, or within the English common law - I am talking about 110 years ago - that many of these attitudes were quite prevalent in England. A woman who married a man automatically lost all her property rights because the marriage was deemed to be a divinely sanctioned union - what God has joined together let no man cast asunder – therefore, they were a single unit in every sense of the word in law. So, all property that was vested in the woman became vested in them. Essentially, the law said the male had the overriding property rights that resulted out of that joint property right.
Of course, there was no suffrage for women at that stage, so you saw the rise of the first feminist movement, or the first wave of feminism, in that period. It was in the 1940s that Simone de Bouvier in France started writing about the patriarchal society, describing that nearly all of the structures of society were masculine in nature, so women in that society had a function which was ‘the other’ or some addendum to the masculine world. If you accept that, then all of the social structures we deal with have a masculine quality and women are tacked on the side. If you look at that world view, then you would accept, necessarily, it was almost a natural consequence that in a male-dominated society women who are attached to that society are almost put to one side. Once again, the description given by the minister in relation to what happens in remote communities resonates with that philosophical approach.
Of course, this is the basic structure of radical feminism as described in the second wave of feminism in the 1960s and 1970s. I would not automatically describe myself as a radical feminist, but there are many elements of that world view which I believe are true.
We still abandon, in our common language, the idea of a togetherness of the genders. Essentially, what is the difference between a stud and a slut? Gender. If a man is a stud, it is almost a compliment, but you would not compliment a women by calling her the latter. He is a gigolo, she is a whore. Once again, you find woven into the fabric of our very language a different meaning to exactly the same conduct, established almost entirely in the gender separation between the two: a promiscuous man, stud; a promiscuous woman, slut. Unfortunately, we allow that to continue in our language and in our world views. The truth is many women will use the same language because it is so percolated and woven into the use of language we do not even think about it when we are doing it; it is just language.
One of the things that also concerns me in the modern world is the many images we are seeing of strong women, particularly for young kids. I have two little girls and I look at what my children are watching and you see their role models, their pin-up models. For example, Pink, the rock star, is a very strong, forceful, strident female. The problem I have is not that she is strong or forceful, but many of the messages that come from her are highly sexualised; the message my daughters are getting from the television is that to be strong and forceful as a female there has to be a sexualised component.
I wonder if we are moving towards a better world if the best way a woman can be forceful and strong in the modern world is by having a sexualised component to her personality. I would be much more interested in what is happening between a woman’s ears than what she is doing with the rest of her body, in what I expect a good and strong woman to be.
I take from this statement that there is a long way to go in changing people’s minds - I mean men and women - as to how we address women’s issues in our community. There is still much to be gained from looking at the philosophical groupings of the early 1970s, and we should revisit some of those philosophical models because there is much valuable material in them.
When I was at university studying political science, there was a course called ‘Courtesans, concubines and conquest’. I was quite taken with the title of that course, thinking it would be the history of some war or something somewhere. I found out to my dismay and disgust, once I had signed up to it, it was a course in feminist philosophy. I had to do it; I had signed up for it. To this day, it is the only course name I remember because when I started reading the material for that course, I was thunderstruck. I was introduced to the schools of feminism; the three schools of the 1970s, which were radical feminism, liberal feminism, and Marxist feminism. I am not going to present a dissertation on the three, but I was amazed about how much I had to learn, not so much about feminism per se - not that I call myself an expert by any stretch of the imagination - but that the philosophical works very quickly shifted from the gender argument to the power argument.
To this day, power inequity is still one of the fundamental shortcomings in our community when it comes to gender equality. The power inequity women have talked about in this parliament today - financial power being one of the examples - is still something that could do with social reform. But, I do not know if it is the role of government to fix these matters. These have to be attitudinal changes somewhere in the core of our being as our society, so we either look upon a woman and a man of a promiscuous disposition with the same level of disdain or the same level of approval, depending where you are coming from, without making a gender differentiation. Perhaps it is not a particularly good example, but I suspect that through it, members understand what I am driving at.
I was also amazed that power relationships are often extremely subtle, and so subtle that even the people who are the subjects of those power relationships are barely aware those relationships exist. How you change that as a society, I am not entirely sure. How you change that as a government, I am even less sure. What I am certain of is it continues to be there.
I suspect that so long as we accept those differentiations in power relationships, gender and social structure, you will get the inequities that were described by the minister of dad staying at home with the kids - hardly ever happens at all. Or, for that matter, if, as the minister for Corrections, I look at the prison population, why is it not 50% female and 50% male? Is it something genetic or social? Or is it the case that we just send messages of different types, particularly to young men, which encourages them to do what is, essentially, risk-taking behaviour and the criminal manifestation of it? It would be a very interesting thing to know what drives that because - off the top of my head without having the numbers in front of me - the male-to-female prison population would be something at a ratio of about 10:1.
If you go to Berrimah and look at the female section, it is tiny and next to the main body of the prison. I am never quite sure why that occurs. There is still much to understand in these areas. Moreover, we should be aiming for an environment where we diminish the importance of gender increasingly over time. I suspect women and men will be always be different, and not only for physiological reasons.
I would be happy to live in a world where we do not look at the gender of a person even fleetingly when looking at their employment. I understand the argument being run that we do not have enough female CEOs and we should have. I agree. However, I would love to live in a world where that argument was no longer of consequence so it was just a matter of you had the best person for the CEO job, that gender, race, religion, and all of those things did not matter, and there was only one yardstick that was of value - the yardstick of merit.
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this to the House. There is still a long way to go, particularly in those subliminal areas I described of the relationships between to the two genders and the messages we give for similar behaviour to different genders. Mind you, looking back over the last 100 years, much has been achieved in the area of feminism. I hope, eventually, we live in a world where the feminist cause no longer has relevance because it is no longer a relevant cause. We can work to that ideal.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Deputy Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I speak with pleasure in support of minister Anderson’s statement on women’s policy and in support of the women of the Northern Territory. It gives me great pride to be in this parliament with 10 other female members of parliament. That point has been made by quite a number of speakers today. Territory women are, indeed, a courageous, hard-working and versatile lot. Our contribution is significant in all facets of Territory life - at the workplace, home, in the community and even here in parliament contributing to our democratic process. Three of the five new MLAs voted into the Country Liberals’ team at the 2012 election are women, doubling the number of women in our parliamentary wing. I am very proud to stand beside my female colleagues, as well as my male colleagues. Indeed, today we welcome the new member for Wanguri, further increasing the representation of women in this Chamber.
I will respond to some of the comments made by members of the opposition. The shadow minister for Women’s Policy, the member for Nightcliff, made some interesting comments as did the Leader of the Opposition. Once again, I find myself correcting the record and misinformation given by the opposition.
The first point I pick up on was a comment the member for Nightcliff made about our commitment to the domestic violence workers placed in key hospitals throughout the Northern Territory. It was the former Labor government that decided to cease funding to these positions a couple of months before the election. The member for Nightcliff accused us of turning our back on the women of the Northern Territory by not continuing to fund those positions. They decided to turn their back on the women of the Northern Territory by withdrawing funding for those hospital positions well and truly before the election.
We decided, on reflection, those positions were important but there were other workers in all of those hospitals which had that trial in place who could just as capably perform that function, including Aboriginal liaison officers, social workers, nurses and various other professional staff within the hospitals.
These are tough times financially. The former Labor government decided to cease funding for those positions, and we did not argue with that.
The other point the member for Nightcliff raised was she accused this new government of not providing funding under the new fair pay deal for social and community sector workers. I draw the member’s attention to a media release - an announcement made on 26 November by me, at that time as Minister for Women’s Policy. We announced additional funding of around $75m over the eight-year phase-in period for this fair pay deal for social and community sector workers, and an additional $17.5m ongoing from 2020.
If that is not a commitment to, primarily, a female workforce in the Northern Territory, I do not know what is. That is a huge amount of money the former Labor government did not cough up. They allocated a miserly $1m in this year’s budget for this fair pay deal for social and community sector workers and we came up with the real money: $75m over the phase-in period and $17.5m ongoing from 2020-21.
No doubt we will continue to hear furphies and misinformation from the former Labor government. They roll it out and mislead the poor people of the Territory with information regarding women. This is an opportunity for us to join in bipartisan discussion within this parliament about how we can assist women to be better placed in our society. Yet, the Labor opposition has harnessed it as an opportunity to spin more lies – sorry, I withdraw that, Madam Speaker - mistruths and misinformation. That also came from the Leader of the Opposition, who gave a compelling story about what they have done for women over the last 11 years in government. That is just what it was, a lovely story with very little perspective and reality associated with it.
This is the former government that presided over the destruction of the child protection system in the Northern Territory for 11 years. Child protection and the welfare of women and children had never been so low as it was when presided over by the former Labor government, now the opposition. This convenient amnesia which prevails in the opposition is incredible and alarming and is doing damage to the people of the Northern Territory who might be listening to this nonsense and choosing to believe it.
Tonight we want to talk about some positive things we would like to see happen to women across the Northern Territory. After 11 years of Labor, violence against women in the Northern Territory has never been so bad. This was conveyed to me by the Children’s Commissioner at the end of last year. He visited me and said, ‘Robyn, despite all the measures that have been put in place and all the funding going left, right, and centre to support women in the Northern Territory, we still have the highest rate of violence against women in Australia’. The Northern Territory has not even started to address this very appalling and serious problem, which has been graphically described by my colleagues this evening.
Coming into government, we have put on the public record that we are, indeed, committed to the implementation of the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010 to 2022. This is a national plan, announced by the federal Minister for the Status of Women and the federal Attorney-General in February 2011. The former government signed up to it, and we are in full support of this plan. It is a 12-year national plan which was endorsed by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) and it brings together the efforts of all Australian governments to ensure women and their children are safe and free from violence now and in the future.
The national plan is supported by a series of four lots of three-year action plans. We are now coming to the end of the first action plan in 2013. These action plans identify actions, responsibilities and time frames, allowing all governments to work together to develop, implement, and report progress within a coordinated national framework. The action plans are guided by the national plan’s vision that Australian women and their children live free from violence in safe communities. To measure the success of this vision, all governments are working collaboratively to make a significant and sustained reduction in violence against women and their children.
This is a good strategy. As I said, all jurisdictions throughout Australia have signed up to it. The creation of this national platform to address violence against women and their children at a systematic level is designed to achieve sustainable, long-term change so Australian women and their children live free from violence in safe communities. It is a good strategy which we will embrace. As a new government, we have committed to that already.
Some of the priorities of this strategy include building primary prevention capacity, or stopping violence before it occurs – prevention is always better than cure; enhancing service delivery or improving services for victims; strengthening justice responses, improving links between criminal justice processes, services for victims and perpetrator interventions; bringing the evidence base together; and identifying new ways of working together. It has a strong emphasis on education, trying to target children and teach them there are better ways of living life. That is a part of the primary prevention focus.
We are definitely committed to this strategy. It will be ongoing for 10 years. We look forward to hearing just how this will be implemented by this new government, compliments of our new Minister for Women’s Policy who is making her formal policy announcement, as she said, on 8 March. I look forward to that.
In the second part of my speech tonight I will make a few comments about women in politics. For all the women in this room, the female parliamentarians, this is, indeed, a topic we ponder over a great deal. I do, and my Country Liberal colleagues do. It is an incredible domain in which to work; it is challenging, highly competitive, aggressive, and tough. The new member for Wanguri is about to experience the highs and lows of the roller coaster of being a woman in political life.
Some of us have been here a long time. The member for Namatjira has been a member of parliament for many years, and has been in the political arena through ATSIC. She is a seasoned player of women in politics. Of course, there are those who have just come on board since the last election. I have been in parliament for less than two-and-a-half years. It is an experience you cannot anticipate. It is male-dominated, even though we are doing very well in the Northern Territory parliament. Someone mentioned before we have the highest rate of female representation of any parliament in Australia. I believe I heard that correctly. It is still heavily male-dominated.
It is beyond what most women imagine they can do, from the comments I heard earlier. People are often asked, ‘How do you cope? How do you manage, particularly with children and family responsibilities?’ Most women cannot imagine standing in this environment, representing your constituents and speaking on issues such as we are this evening. It is a hostile, aggressive environment at times. It is highly emotional. All sorts of things happen and every day is different and exceedingly difficult and easy within a short space of time. Then you have the demands of the travel and long work hours - all those things that become almost second nature to us, in time: the conditions in which we work.
Being a woman in politics is not conducive to family life and I believe most of the women here who have children can verify that, even though they have not been here a particularly long time. It is a tough gig for most of us. I struggle to strike that balance between my family and my working life. The reason I am describing this tonight is to acknowledge we need to ensure women enter this realm, encourage women into politics and try to act as role models as best we can to make it look as attractive as possible.
Have women been denied equality in politics? Traditionally they have. Traditionally, it was an extremely male-dominated arena. I like to watch the documentaries of the history of Australian politics and politics in the UK and America. Those documentaries are very much about men in very high positions. We have a range of contemporary movies about American politicians that are all about men; women only play the parts of wives and mothers.
As women in politics, we must strive to be great role models and demonstrate to people it is possible and essential that women consider this sort of career path. It is also about education and opportunities. We have had, and will continue to have, many discussions about how education, training and opportunities are linked to the success or the career path of women.
However, as a bare minimum, women need to be treated fairly. It is accepted that it is essential that women be given a fair go. The perceptions in our society are still quite powerful; weakness is seen as feminine, strength is seen as masculine and, therefore, male. However, I believe those types of perceptions are becoming less prevalent. There is weakness, even within this parliament at times. Most of us have a shed a tear and showed emotion, whether we be male or female. It is a highly charged environment and being able to express emotions, whether it be anger or sadness, is becoming more accepted.
The place of women is not just in the home. It is not just as carers but as powerful figures. We all aspire to different goals. Women have a right and a responsibility to try to reach their potential. One of my true beliefs in life is that people of both genders have the right and responsibility to try to reach their potential. As women, that is a great guide to how you can achieve goals.
Over time, there has been a convergence of the status between men and women in our society and I truly celebrate that. Social equity versus social inequality will always remain a debate in our society. It is just one of the standard university type debates people will ponder over for decades and centuries to come. Women are no longer required to be subordinate; they can pick and choose. They have choices and freedom and they deserve safety, respect and recognition.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to the Minister for Women’s Policy unveiling her new Country Liberals women’s policy in the coming weeks and months, and I thank you all for your contributions.
Debate adjourned.
TABLED PAPER
Auditor-General’s February 2013 Report
Auditor-General’s February 2013 Report
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table the Auditor-General’s February 2013 Report to the Legislative Assembly.
MOTION
Print Paper - Auditor-General’s February 2013 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Print Paper - Auditor-General’s February 2013 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the paper be printed.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note Paper - Auditor-General’s February 2013 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Note Paper - Auditor-General’s February 2013 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the paper and I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, now it is time for adjournment. I understand there has been an agreement to allow the new member for Wanguri to make her first speech while her family and friends are present in the gallery. I remind honourable members of the convention that first speeches are heard in silence.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, first I acknowledge the Larrakia people, the traditional owners of this land, and thank them for sharing this wonderful place with us all.
Today I stand here as a proud Territorian extremely honoured and humbled at being elected to represent the people of Wanguri, the electorate where I live, where I grew up and where my heart belongs. To be sworn into parliament today, 19 February 2013, when we all reflect and commemorate the Bombing of Darwin, has some meaning for my family. In my case, had it not been for that tragic event I would not be standing here today.
After the first bombing, my grandfather Leslie Manison was posted to Darwin in the Army as a truck driver. When he returned to Melbourne, where he and my grandmother, Alice, raised three children, including my father, he told his children many stories of adventures and life during the war here in Darwin. This ultimately played a large part in the allure that attracted my father, Gary, to venture north in 1975 and to join the Territory police in 1976. It was in a cricket match where my father met my mother, Rose, who was from Perth and serving in the RAAF in Darwin. He bowled her out and eventually bowled her over and convinced her to marry him. She, too, came to Darwin seeking adventure and together they went on to live across the Territory for 30 years where there has been no shortage of adventure.
My upbringing would be very familiar to many children of Territory police. I was born in the Tennant Creek Hospital in 1979 and had a childhood full of many moves as my parents sought the next job opportunity or the chance to study. This gave me the opportunity to live in Alice Springs, Groote Eylandt, Perth, Canberra, and in the place where I have always called home, Darwin. Although the moves often came with the heartbreak of leaving friends, there was always a sense of adventure and it was always comforting to return to Darwin where my friends remained, the people inspired me, and the opportunities seemed endless.
Growing up I was educated mostly here in Darwin at some wonderful schools, including Holy Spirit, Wagaman Primary, Dripstone High and Casuarina Senior College. I always appreciated how lucky I was to have such a diverse group of friends at school whose parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents had come from many lands miles from here to make a new life for their family in Darwin: Greek, Cypriot, Chinese, Timorese, Portuguese, Filipino, Italian, Indonesian, Indian, Malaysian, Thai, English, Irish, and the list went on. I loved living in such a vibrant multicultural community, and it remains one of the things I love most about Darwin and the Wanguri electorate.
During the Wanguri by-election, I had the opportunity to meet so many people when I was doorknocking. I met long-term Darwin families, many newly posted Defence families, singles, couples, seniors, young Territorians, the whole array. It was clear the Wanguri electorate is a changing place as we have seen Lyons come out of the ground and Muirhead is now under way. However, what was also clear was, despite the differences from household to household, the electorate shares many of the same concerns and vision for the future.
People are deeply concerned about cost of living pressures and many told me they did not see a long-term future in Darwin. Some of this was driven by the desire to buy a home to call their own and exit a life of renting. It was also clear that power and water costs and childcare were pressures households were struggling with. Strong schools were also something the people of the Wanguri electorate wanted to continue seeing into the future. The schools already are the heart of our community and the Wanguri electorate wants to continue to see strong investment and support for our schools into the future so local kids receive a world-class education.
There is no doubt the management of growth in the Wanguri electorate is a hot topic for all and we are all feeling the changes every day. The new suburb of Lyons is a wonderful community and a beautiful place to live. We can all see Muirhead will also be a beautiful suburb when it is completed. However, the pressure of a growing population is starting to pinch, and everyone wants to ensure growth is not only managed well but they have a say in the solutions. Parking, traffic management, and roads are issues the Wanguri electorate is concerned about and the best solutions will only be found if the community have their say and are able to share their expertise and experiences with government and council going forward.
Local residents also made it clear they love the lifestyle here and want to protect it and see it further improved. People want to see improvements to our parks, better amenities for walking, running, and cycling and ensure community events continue to grow. As a local, I share and live these same issues with my constituents every day and I feel it will make me well-placed to help.
I was fortunate to work with the former member for Johnston, Dr Chris Burns. He is a man I have learned much from, and one who did an incredible job in his time in parliament. Prior to his retirement last year, one conversation we had stuck in my mind in the preparation of this speech. He once told me a great deal of a member’s worth can be seen when they come to the end of their career in parliament and reflect back upon their maiden speech to see whether they achieved what they set out to do. These were words I considered carefully when writing this and thinking what it is I want to see improved in my electorate and the Territory.
I want to see continued investment in our schools so Territory children can look forward to a life of opportunity. This means continued investment not only in infrastructure, but in education programs from the early years through to Year 12 so every child has an education tailored to their needs. Teachers play a critical role in the education system and quality teachers will always play a huge part in the education outcomes of our children. We have all had a teacher in our lives who has made a difference and inspired us to learn. For me, it was a man named Graham Parker at Casuarina Senior College who taught me history, geography, and politics. Teachers like Mr Parker make a difference to the lives of thousands of young Territorians and I want to see strong support for our teachers right across the Territory so they can get on with doing their job to the highest standard.
Tragically, the number one issue in education that continues to break my heart and destroy the future opportunities of so many Territorians remains: school attendance. We all know there is no easy answer or it would have been done a long time ago, but we must never lose sight of this issue and continue every effort to get children to school every day so they too have a life of opportunity and choice because they have an education.
Delivering great schools and facilities for children with disabilities is also an area in which I would like to see continued efforts. The special schools infrastructure program was started under the Labor government and I look forward to the new government continuing this important investment. However, at the last election Labor made a commitment to building a new Henbury School. This is something I hope the new government considers in the future so children with disabilities in Darwin can start their schooling at the state-of-the-art Nemarluk School and finish high school at a custom designed and equipped new Henbury School.
Owning your own home is a dream that most Territorians aspire to. There is no doubt getting a foot in the door of the housing market is a challenge in the Territory, and Australia-wide. Governments should do what they can to ensure it does not fall out of reach for too many. I am disappointed the low- to middle-income earners will now find it more difficult to purchase a home in Leanyer and Wanguri as the former HomeStart program, which helped so many into homeownership, has ceased. I am hoping in the future we see more opportunities for these Territorians who want to live in the suburbs where they grew up, near their family connections.
As someone who is involved in sport, I fully appreciate the benefits of participating in local sport and recreation. Territorians have always loved sport and recreation, and it helps form a strong community. It is important for governments to continue supporting local sport and recreation groups, and to ensure we never lose sight of how we can better assist volunteers and officials; without them, clubs and associations would not exist so we must back them in every way we can. I hope to see continued investment in the future in sport and recreation facilities as our population grows.
I am excited about the future and what it holds in my new role as the member for Wanguri, and I will never take this opportunity to be here for granted. I pledge to work hard for the people of the Wanguri electorate and do all I can to give them the best possible representation.
I must acknowledge and thank the now retired and former member for Wanguri, Paul Henderson. I thank him for his tireless dedication to the electorate and to the Territory. As I doorknocked the electorate, it was made clear to me that people had a long-standing strong relationship with him, and they were deeply saddened to see him go, but they understood his decision. As one of his constituents, I thank Paul Henderson for his work and setting the bar high. I hope, in time, I will be seen on an equal par to him as local member.
There are also many other people I must thank. Delia Lawrie and my Caucus colleagues, I thank you for your support. It is a great team to be part of, and I look forward to working with you to drive good outcomes for Territorians. I also thank members of Territory Labor for all their support. It was overwhelming to have so many people behind me and I am proud to be a part of the Australian Labor Party, a party that believes in the principle of a fair go in giving people a chance. To my supporters who never stopped believing me and who encouraged me every day to take a risk and take this new journey in life, I thank them too. Their messages, calls, and discussions, helped me through this process.
I have a few people to name today. I will not get them all or I would be here forever. However, I acknowledge Justin, Siobhan, Gracey, Burnsy, Jenny, Costa, Roberto, Gino, David, Anna, Ruth, Ryan, Cam, Sheena, Angela, Peter, Ron, Rob, Ella, Miriam, Courtney, Lesley, Pippa, Katie, Maria, Lids, Jane, Kent, Laura, Rebecca, Kate, Lauren, Jake, Dawn, Andrew, Renner, Teuila, Jason, Georgia, Audra, Heidi, Josh, Justine, Justin, Renae, Rebel, Ant, Jimmy, Ari and Eunice. I could not have done this without you.
To all my friends through sport, the mighty Waratah Netball Club and the mighty Waratah Football Ladies, I thank you for the support and good times we have shared over many years - for the grand final wins and losses, the ups and downs but, most of all, the friendships for life.
Last, to my family, the people who have been my number one supporters throughout my life and stepped up to a new level in recent weeks. To my family in Perth, Melbourne, Korumburra and Cyprus, thanks for all the well wishes and encouragement. I particularly acknowledge my Aunty Jan O’Meara, a life member of the Australian Labor Party, for her valuable insights over the years. To my in-laws for their love and support; to Beau, Mia, Will and Jo McNeill in Queensland; to Jess, James and Alice Herraman in Darwin, and to Ian and Kit McNeill, I love being part of your family, and your good humour has always put a smile on my face. To my parents, Gary and Rose Manison, and my brother, Luke Manison, thanks for an upbringing of a good education and opportunity; thanks for the love and support and endless tolerance of all my energy and ambitions; thank you for showing me what compassion is, and bringing me up on strong principles of being good to people and doing what you can to help others, and contribute to the community. Thank you for being the best family in the world.
To my husband, Scott McNeill, who puts up with so much; his was not what he signed up for a few years ago when we were married, but he always knew it was coming. Thank you for all your love and support and putting up with me. This new job will be another exciting adventure in life that we will share together.
Again, I thank the people of the Wanguri electorate for putting their faith in me. I will be putting everything into this job to serve you and to help work towards an even brighter future for this wonderful Northern Territory.
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): I congratulate the new member for Wanguri. Well done. Welcome to the team, and I look forward to working with you over the course of our term.
I want to reflect on a couple of matters that attended to last week. For part of my speech, I will read my press releases for which I apologise; they may not be very interesting for some people, but I want to get them onto Hansard.
Last week, I was approached by a childcare centre in my electorate. They were having some significant antisocial behaviour issues. Those issues were pre-existing well and truly before we dismantled the BDR, so I just want to get that on the record. My press release in that regard is titled, ‘Standing up for the Community’ and it is dated 15 February 2013.
Member for Drysdale, Lia Finocchiaro, says Palmerston residents should have zero tolerance for incidents of antisocial behaviour in their neighbourhood.
Ms Finocchiaro said the community has a right to expect their suburban streets are free from antisocial behaviour and said police want to be notified about breaches of the law.
Ms Finocchiaro’s comments follow an incident this week when she was contacted by the operator of a childcare centre in her electorate reporting ongoing antisocial behaviour over a long period.
‘This has been a problem for a number of years, including the 12 months during which the Banned Drinker Register was in place,’ Ms Finocchiaro said.
‘At the weekend issues escalated when itinerants jumped the fence and set up camp under the centre verandah, using tablecloths as sheets.
Childcare workers cleaned up excrement and rubbish on a daily basis and the fire hydrant was relocated to prevent itinerants showering naked in front of children.
Recently I was told by a constituent that two inebriated males were assaulting a woman in front of children and abusing centre workers. I made contact with the centre manager and informed her I would contact Palmerston Police Station.
In response to this, day and night police patrols in the area were increased and yesterday my Electorate Officer received a call from the centre advising that again, a drunken itinerant was abusing staff.
I instructed her to contact police who immediately sent an officer to the scene and arrested the offender at a nearby shopping precinct.
The police can only respond to incidents of crime if they are made aware of them and I urge residents and business operators to telephone 131 444 if they become aware of breaches of the law.
Police use the records of incidents such as these to establish trends and spikes in various centres.
‘Your local MLA can also provide assistance in making contact with the police or the relevant agency. Nobody wants to see antisocial behaviour on our streets, and I am always available to act on behalf of the community I am elected to serve.’
An update from 15 February: I visited the childcare centre on Monday and they reported a significant decrease in this type of behaviour on Thursday, Friday and over the weekend. There were some ongoing issues on the Monday morning, but police are on top of it. I cannot thank Palmerston police enough. They worked so well with me and the childcare centre, and I know the staff really appreciated the police going there and speaking with them about how to deal with the abuse and other incidents that have been occurring.
Also, in conjunction with the police support that was received on this ongoing issue, I have written to the City of Palmerston and asked them to conduct a Crime Prevention through Environmental Design audit of the building. Hopefully, through those two means, we can stamp out this type of behaviour for that childcare centre. Thank you again to police and council. I look forward to hearing from you.
A couple of weeks ago it came to my attention that there was not one event in Palmerston to commemorate the Bombing of Darwin. I pondered that and thought it was a bit sad, and I wanted to bring something to my community. The Palmerston 50+ Club who we know all about because I talk about them incessantly in adjournment, is a fabulous group which meets every Tuesday at the Gray Community Hall from 10 am. There was an existing function taking place today which I enhanced for our 50+ Palmerston residents, and I am extremely grateful to Peter and Sheila Forrest who put their hands up to come and speak to the 50+ Club, which was very well received. Also, Waldo came and did his Ode to the Bombing of Darwin, and he provided a framed copy to my office and to the City of Palmerston. Thank you to all three of them for making such a contribution to the commemoration of the Bombing of Darwin in the Palmerston area.
I read my media release in this regard, dated 15 February 2013 titled Palmerston Bombing Commemoration.
- Member for Drysdale, Lia Finocchiaro is sponsoring a Bombing of Darwin Commemoration in Palmerston on February 19.
‘The area that became Palmerston 40 years after the Japanese raids was subject to a number of incursions during the two years the bombings took place,’ Ms Finocchiaro said.
‘There were military installations in the area, and the Japanese bombers targeted the Stuart Highway and airstrips in the general vicinity.
Twelve aircraft took part in a raid around Knuckey Lagoon on July 27 1942 and there was another around Coomalie Creek on November 27 1942.
In addition there were raids on a Searchlight Unit in the Ironstone area in Berrimah as well as attacks around Southport and Noonamah.
The 17 Mile Camp was at the front line of an anticipated land raid by the Japanese.
Given the significant role the defence force through Robertson Barracks plays in Palmerston, I thought it was important that a Bombing of Darwin commemoration took place in the city.
The event will be hosted by the Palmerston 50+ Club and feature a presentation from writers and historians Peter and Sheila Forrest.
The Forrests will provide a historic context to the raids and talk about their significance to Darwin and the Top End today.’
The morning tea will take place at Gray Community Hall on the corner of Essington Avenue and Victoria Drive between 10 am and 1 pm.
The 17 Mile Camp is situated behind what is now Mackillop College. It is sandwiched between Lambrick Avenue, Mackillop College and the Stuart Highway. The development of that area is a Labor legacy, and it is an excellent walk and there is a lovely signboard there that is part of the Defence of Darwin Experience. It explains the significance of that landmark. It is a very enjoyable walk, and it has some wonderful silhouettes of soldiers dotted throughout the bushland and you can see old gun pits and drums from latrines and other bits and pieces. It is an excellent facility for Palmerston residents to enjoy being outdoors and in the bush, and also to reflect on times past and on the sacrifice that so many people made in the defence of our beautiful Territory
I would like to close by saying I enjoyed this morning’s ceremony at the Cenotaph very much. It was my first Cenotaph Bombing of Darwin experience, certainly in the front row, and I spent a lot of time reflecting on how important it was for our federal member of parliament, Natasha Griggs, to have ensured that this is now a national day of remembrance.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I wish to put on the record the passing of a long-term Territorian, my grandfather, Maxwell Watkin Vowles who passed away after a short illness on 19 January in Tasmania.
Maxwell Watkin Vowles was born in Leeds, Yorkshire, on 2 December 1921 and grew up on the outskirts of Leeds. It was a difficult era to grow up in and Max was about eight when the Great Depression set in and about 18 when World War II was declared. He had joined the RAAF about a year before that. One Christmas Eve he met one Marjorie Hilda Johnson at a dance just before he was about to depart on the invasion to liberate Europe. He served as a leading aircraftsman in the RAAF, and there is a delightful story that when they asked for volunteers to be observers with the Army for a while, he stepped forward because you got an extra ration of an egg every day, the memories of survival through the Depression influencing this decision.
He and Peg were engaged on the eve of D-Day in June 1944 and then did not see each other until after the war. They were married in 1946 after he was demobbed in Bramhope, a delightful little town just north of Leeds in Yorkshire. My father, Robert, was born there in 1949, a year or so before his family migrated to Australia in 1950 as Ten Pound Poms. Peg’s family had a difficult time because they missed them when they moved and obviously missed the growing up of my father, their grandson.
In 1953, my Uncle Phillip was born in Brisbane where the family had settled, and Max was working as a mechanic for Qantas. It was difficult enough moving away from the support network and family, and Max remembered Australians were not always welcoming of immigrants and made things uncomfortable at times the way they treated them.
In 1958, Max’s family, my grandparents, moved to Darwin where my Uncle Stuart was born in 1962. For many years Max worked for AB Motors in Nightcliff. One of the things he and Peg did in those years was buying and renovating houses; they did one in Brisbane and two more in Darwin. Later, he took work with the Transport and Works department which moved into the MVR and he worked there for many years until he retired in the early 1980s. If you knew my grandfather, the term ‘retired’ was used very lightly because he kept working at things. He did not get paid for everything he did, but he was a workaholic. He and Peg rebuilt the old railway cottage house at Darwin River where they lived until recently. He was active right through until last Christmas and could never sit back and have something done for him, he always did it himself.
One of the highlights of his recent years was a reunion with his brother, Denby. He had not seen his brother for 66 years as they separated during World War II. The way it worked out in circumstances and timing suggests the reunion was just meant to be. Max had talked about him over the years and he missed him. It was great they finally met just before my grandfather passed away.
Despite his abilities and commitment to work for all his life, Max was always quite reserved and private in many ways. His business was his business. He treated people well, and his family would tell you that he did not make enemies; they simply remember he did not have any. He was always straight with you and I inherited the same ability, and what you saw in Max is what you got. He was an honest man; he would simply call it as it was. He would never knowingly do wrong to others or take advantage of them. He was the type of man people like to have on their staff.
One area that sometimes left people wondering was his sense of humour. He had a unique sense of humour, and part of it was he gave everyone a nickname, and even named his machinery as well. Sometimes his jokes were so dry people took them the wrong way. His family and friends always knew when he was joking but, occasionally, others who were not so close to him took him the wrong way. He was always clear, and always such a practical and capable man. He was well into his 80s when he took up woodturning and was as meticulous at it as with everything else he did; his values were old school and included ideas like, ‘If it is worth doing, it’s worth doing properly. You repair things, not throw them out’.
He was so practical that if Peg admired something in a shop he was likely to make one rather than buy it, and when he did make something it was usually bigger and better. He did not always have much time for the modern ways of doing things. One of the things he turned his hand to was gardening. He was a wonderful and gifted gardener, particularly good with hydroponics. He could grow anything but, in truth, it did not matter what he took on, he took it on wholeheartedly and worked hard at it. He would read things and follow them up with much energy and activity. If he took you to a museum he would read everything and follow-up by going to the library to get more books to read.
My Nan summed it all up. After 67 years of marriage she turned to me at my grandfather’s funeral, and said, ‘They just don’t make them like that any longer’.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I wish to place on the record the results of a meeting I had last Saturday with residents of the Daly River regarding the Mt Todd mine. While this meeting had been planned for some time, I had some criticism levelled at me by some media and a resident of Katherine, both of who seemed to have self-interest in raising unnecessary fear and concerns in my home community. I assured those at the meeting that I will not speak for them, or on their behalf, unless I first consulted with them.
At the meeting, residents were advised of the history of the Mt Todd mine and the environmental threat it poses; that is, should we experience another large Wet or sudden enormous downpour similar to that which occurred on 27 December 2011, then large amounts of contaminated water could find its way into the Edith River and, subsequently, down the Daly. This type of uncontrolled release is not what we want and, therefore, a solution needs to be found. I advised the gathering I felt I did not have, or have not been given, sufficient information to make up my mind about the safeguards being used and implemented as part of the conditions of the waste discharge licence being issued. Most residents were of the same opinion. While they realised this situation with Mt Todd cannot be left as a disaster waiting to happen, they want the best solution possible to be implemented.
Where to from here? The Daly River Community Development Association has requested that I arrange for Vista Gold to be asked to attend the meeting of Daly River residents to lay out for them the plans they have for processing the contaminated water and answer any questions residents may have. While Daly River is a small community, it must be realised it is also the only community living on the river downstream of the mine and needs to be given as much information as possible so they are fully informed of the plans by Vista Gold to treat water on the site and release it into the Edith/Daly system.
I was a little disappointed a presentation was made in Katherine, but not planned for Daly. I have also been asked to get Dr Stuart Blanch, from the Environment Centre NT, to attend and present his side and answer any questions. I had a meeting with Dr Blanch this morning; he is well-known to the residents of the Daly.
Only after being given all this information can residents make up their own minds as to their support or otherwise. The fact that Vista Gold may plan to mine the site into the future has much to do with the need for a clean-up of the legacy water issue and presents a great opportunity for the community to get some action to alleviate the threat without the use of large amounts of taxpayer’s money. This is not a political issue, but an issue to be addressed by all Territorians.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I join the Minister for Arts and Museums, the member for Greatorex, in congratulating the NT Libraries on their National Tourism Award. I enjoyed my time working with NT Libraries, and we know the fabulous job they do throughout the Territory in libraries, particularly here with the reference library and the Parliamentary Library, our NT libraries in the Parliament House precinct.
I have to mention on the public record that I am most disappointed with the Minister for Arts and Museums regarding the sackings at the Museums and Art Galleries of the Northern Territory, one of whom was a librarian. There is much disquiet in the arts community, both with the sacking of the librarian and the photographer. I urge the minister to reconsider those decisions and get out to the Museums and Art Galleries of the Northern Territory and do some thorough investigation into what is an iconic piece of our culture and heritage. Basically, at the end of the day, it is the dedicated officers who work there who conduct the programs, the curation, and the preservation of our culture and our heritage.
I also thank the Minister for Arts and Museums in his media release announcing that the nation’s most prestigious Indigenous art award, the Telstra National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Art Award, is on again this year marking the 30th edition of the NATSIAA, with Telstra remaining the principal sponsor of the award again in 2013. This year marks 22 years of ongoing support from Telstra as the principal sponsor of the NATSIAAs.
I am a bit disappointed to hear, and this is the word on the street, that there was no media function, there was no doorstop; there was no turn-out for what is the first important round of media for the 2013 NATSIAA. Word on the street has it that it was only museum and art gallery staff of the Northern Territory who were there to promote the call for entries for this year’s NATSIAA, and word on the street has it that the minister did not even turn up.
So, I ask you, minister, to correct that for the record because it is important to hear that you were there, that you did conduct this media event and that you value it because it is not only about art the artists and the Territory, it is also about the national scene. It is about the Territory hosting and promoting a premier national art award. We have worked very hard in the past to continue this award program and it is especially important to recognise Telstra as the major sponsor.
Minister, I believe you have some work to do there. My advice to you is that, as the minister for Arts, you need to think about each release and each promotion as a theatrical performance. I know Territorians love it; I know the staff of the Museums and Art Galleries of the Northern Territory value it when you show compassion, when you show enthusiasm, when you truly value the hard work they do. You can turn this around. The next major marker is when the entries start to roll in. Then there is the curation and there are many opportunities then to get that message out onto the national scene.
A quick message to Bill and Val Powell at North Bendalong in New South Wales: you will not be seeing me on the television this year as I am not the minister. However, if the minister wants to invite me to the doorstop, I will turn up with bells on, because that was one time that Bill and Val always said to me, ‘Gerry, we have seen you on TV. We only see you once a year’. It is all to do with the promotion of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Art Award.
Lastly, working off government media release - the government word that they put out there - I make comment on the Minister for Transport’s media release on 15 February 2013, ‘New Works Improve Carpentaria Highway.’ Thank you, minister, for telling that story. I will be telling that story throughout the electorate. That is the conclusion of the previous Labor government’s work on the important Carpentaria Highway, that link between the Stuart Highway, the McArthur River Mine and the township of Borroloola, including all those wonderful cattle stations on the way. The minister’s media release focused on the 12.7 km of highway, those four sections that underwent strengthening and widening.
I travelled on that highway on my way to Darwin, after a trip into the Gulf country in the electorate of Barkly, and it was great to see that work finished. I watched that work on the design and construction. It is also good to mention when you are talking about Territory roads, particularly the Carpentaria Highway and the two record Wet Seasons of 2010 and 2011, the previous Labor government committed over $95m worth of work for repairs and maintenance. The Carpentaria, which supports a lot of heavy vehicle traffic in and out of the McArthur River Mine and the town of Borroloola, suffered its fair share of damage. So, I congratulate the department of Construction because you monitored that, you designed the repair work and supervised the construction, not only the new sections strengthened and widened, but also those repairs that were very necessary to keep traffic open into that important Gulf country and all the exploration programs, the minerals programs, that are going on in that part of the world.
I remember working closely with the department of Construction and I threw in my two bobs worth every chance I got. I will have to be careful of my language here as the member for Katherine will be searching for semantics to try to throw back at me. However, I remember it well, and the department of Construction staff will remember it well. One of the issues we talked about was the joins. I congratulate you because obviously some people have taken notice of my comments and those joins have been touched up and the new work blends in well. At the moment, the Carpentaria Highway is in great shape thanks to the department of Construction, the valuable civil contractors throughout the Northern Territory, and thank you, minister, for being able to tell that story as the new minister in government.
To conclude, I remember well in this House the jibes and torments and the vindictive nature of adjournments. There was always one about the grass on the side of the Stuart Highway and those metre high ant beds that were there, and the neglect of the previous Labor government. Well, minister, you have been lucky this year because you have not seen a Wet but let me tell you - around Dunmarra, south of Elliott, and some areas have just been cut around Mataranka - the spear grass has reached a metre, the ant beds are back, but that is the Territory, and that is what I understand - always did, always will. You are in the chair, now you will understand. I will not torment you with any ridiculous jibes like that, but be aware that the Wet Season is coming and your job will step up considerably. I am here in support, minister. Whatever you need to know, just ask. The previous Labor government can inform you well.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016